Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to poteto/noodle. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/poteto/noodle/main/.agents/skills/quality/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/poteto/noodleWrote 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/poteto/noodle/quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/poteto/noodle/quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/poteto/noodle/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/poteto/noodle/quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/poteto/noodle/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 | $0.00053 | $0.00692 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00277 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
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 1mo 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality
Review completed cook work. Emit a stage_message event with your assessment. See references/stage-message-schema.md for the event schema.
Operate fully autonomously. Never ask the user.
Step 0 -- Load Principles
Read brain/principles.md and follow every [[wikilink]]. These govern the review. Do NOT skip this.
Assessment Pipeline
Run in order. Stop early and reject on any high-severity finding.
1. Scope Check
- Read the plan phase the cook was assigned (from the cook's initial prompt or mise context).
- Run
git diff --statandgit log --onelinefor the cook's commits. - Flag files changed outside the plan phase's stated scope as scope violations.
2. Code Quality
go vet ./...andgo test ./...must pass.- Run
sh scripts/lint-arch.shif it exists. - Check error handling follows project conventions (failure-state messages, not expectation messages).
3. Principle Compliance
- For each changed file, check against loaded principles.
- Common violations: bolted-on changes instead of redesign (redesign-from-first-principles), missing verification (prove-it-works), unnecessarily added complexity (subtract-before-you-add).
4. Test Evidence
- New behavior must have new tests.
- Tests must assert outcomes, not implementation details.
- Check coverage of edge cases mentioned in the plan phase.
5. Runtime Verification
- If the plan phase specifies runtime checks, verify they were performed.
- "It compiles" is not verification.
Verdict
Emit a stage_message event with your assessment:
noodle event emit --session $NOODLE_SESSION_ID stage_message --payload '<json>'
Accept: Emit with blocking: false. The pipeline continues and the scheduler sees the green light.
{ "message": "All checks pass. Tests green, scope clean.", "blocking": false }
Reject: Emit with blocking: true (or omit blocking). The scheduler reads findings and decides (retry, add oops stage, or abort).
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 79 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 89af8637035b
quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository poteto/noodle (529 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 692 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…