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 qiuy-collab/AutoFlow.skill --skill code-review-and-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qiuy-collab/AutoFlow.skillWrote 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/qiuy-collab/autoflow.skill/code-review-and-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/qiuy-collab/autoflow.skill/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qiuy-collab/autoflow.skill/code-review-and-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/qiuy-collab/autoflow.skill/code-review-and-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qiuy-collab/autoflow.skill/code-review-and-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 | $0.00051 | $0.04355 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.02178 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00871 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00436 |
Grade A, and why
code-review-and-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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review-and-quality — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 397 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Review and Quality
Overview
Multi-dimensional code review with quality gates. Every change gets reviewed before merge — no exceptions. Review covers five axes: correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance.
The approval standard: Approve a change when it definitely improves overall code health, even if it isn't perfect. Perfect code doesn't exist — the goal is continuous improvement. Don't block a change because it isn't exactly how you would have written it. If it improves the codebase and follows the project's conventions, approve it.
When to Use
- Before merging any PR or change
- After completing a feature implementation
- When another agent or model produced code you need to evaluate
- When refactoring existing code
- After any bug fix (review both the fix and the regression test)
The Five-Axis Review
Every review evaluates code across these dimensions:
1. Correctness
Does the code do what it claims to do?
- Does it match the spec or task requirements?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, boundary values)?
- Are error paths handled (not just the happy path)?
- Does it pass all tests? Are the tests actually testing the right things?
- Are there off-by-one errors, race conditions, or state inconsistencies?
2. Readability & Simplicity
Can another engineer (or agent) understand this code without the author explaining it?
- Are names descriptive and consistent with project conventions? (No
temp,data,resultwithout context) - Is the control flow straightforward (avoid nested ternaries, deep callbacks)?
- Is the code organized logically (related code grouped, clear module boundaries)?
- Are there any "clever" tricks that should be simplified?
- Could this be done in fewer lines? (1000 lines where 100 suffice is a failure)
- Are abstractions earning their complexity? (Don't generalize until the third use case)
- Would comments help clarify non-obvious intent? (But don't comment obvious code.)
- Are there dead code artifacts: no-op variables (
_unused), backwards-compat shims, or// removedcomments? - Is a new conditional bolted onto an unrelated flow? That's a design smell, not a nit — push the logic into its own helper, state, or policy instead of tangling an existing path.
- Do repeated conditionals on the same shape appear? They signal a missing model or dispatcher. A "temporary" branch is usually permanent debt.
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 · 397 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A bec431b759ff
code-review-and-quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository qiuy-collab/AutoFlow.skill (2 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 4,355 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review-and-quality, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
document-generation
Generate Word (.docx), Excel (.xlsx) and PowerPoint (.pptx) documents and fill existing PDF forms, from real NetClaw data, with per-element provenance and no fabrication. Use when someone needs a deliverable rather than an answer — a change record to attach to a CR, an audit workbook for a compliance reviewer, a…
office-artifacts
Use when creating, opening, reading, or editing Office artifacts such as LibreOffice-native ODT/ODS/ODP files and compatibility DOCX/XLSX/PPTX files with the officeartifact tool.
document-processing-expert
Read, generate and modify office documents and PDFs from code: PDF extraction and forms, Word documents, Excel workbooks and PowerPoint decks. Use when the user mentions PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, Word, Excel, PowerPoint or spreadsheets, wants data extracted from documents, needs a report or invoice generated as a file…
brand-docx
Brand-aware Word engine. Use to (1) EXTRACT a company's brand from a Word template into a reusable "Brand Profile", (2) COMPREHEND the template with the model (optional), (3) VERIFY it, (4) GENERATE new on-brand .docx documents FROM a saved profile. Trigger on "extract our brand", "learn/match this template", "use our…
brand-pptx
Brand-aware PowerPoint engine. Use to (1) EXTRACT a company's brand from a .pptx template into a reusable "Brand Profile", (2) COMPREHEND the template with the model (optional), (3) VERIFY it, (4) GENERATE a new on-brand .pptx from an IntermediateDocument. Trigger on "extract our brand", "use our deck template"…
brand-xlsx
Brand-aware Excel engine. Use to (1) EXTRACT a company's brand from a .xlsx template into a reusable "Brand Profile", (2) COMPREHEND the template with the model (optional), (3) VERIFY it, (4) GENERATE a new on-brand .xlsx from a GridDocument fill manifest. Trigger on "extract our brand", "use our workbook template"…