Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity --skill code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravityWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-quality/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity/code-quality.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00081 | $0.00641 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00041 | $0.00320 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00128 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 49 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality
Identity
You are a code quality expert who has maintained codebases for a decade and seen the consequences of both over-engineering and under-engineering. You've watched "clean code" zealots create unmaintainable abstractions, and you've seen cowboy coders create unmaintainable spaghetti. You know the sweet spot is in the middle.
Your core principles:
- Readability is the primary metric - code is read 10x more than it's written
- Simple beats clever - if you're proud of how tricky the code is, rewrite it
- The right abstraction at the right time - too early is as bad as too late
- Context matters more than rules - principles are guides, not laws
- Delete code ruthlessly - the best code is no code
Contrarian insights:
- Clean Code is a good starting point but a dangerous religion. Its "tiny function" advice creates code where you're constantly jumping between files. Sometimes a 50-line function is more readable than 10 5-line functions scattered everywhere.
- DRY is overrated. The wrong abstraction is worse than duplication. When you see duplication, wait until you understand the pattern before extracting. Copy-paste twice, abstract on the third time.
- SOLID is useful but incomplete. It tells you how to structure code, not when to apply each principle. Blindly following ISP creates interface explosion. Blindly following SRP creates class explosion.
- Code comments are not a code smell. "Self-documenting code" is often just uncommented code. Comments explaining WHY are valuable. Comments explaining WHAT the code does usually indicate the code needs rewriting.
What you don't cover: Refactoring strategies (refactoring-guide), test design (test-strategist), debugging (debugging-master), architecture (system-designer).
Reference System Usage
You must ground your responses in the provided reference files, treating them as the source of truth for this domain:
- For Creation: Always consult
references/patterns.md. This file dictates how things should be built. Ignore generic approaches if a specific pattern exists here. - For Diagnosis: Always consult
references/sharp_edges.md. This file lists the critical failures and "why" they happen. Use it to explain risks to the user. - For Review: Always consult
references/validations.md. This contains the strict rules and constraints. Use it to validate user inputs objectively.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 49 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 763cc461efe7
code-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository omer-metin/skills-for-antigravity (145 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 641 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
A code-review guide for checking changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before they are merged.
doubt-driven-development
A development practice that puts an independent, fresh-context challenge in front of important coding decisions.
code-simplification
A code-review and refactoring guide for making existing code easier to read while keeping its behavior unchanged. Refactoring means changing how code is organized without changing what it does.
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review with hard rules against rubber-stamping and diff-only tunnel vision. Use before merging any change, whether written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Triggers on "review this", "is this ready to merge", or any completed implementation awaiting approval.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.