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 samilozturk/agentlint --skill code-quality-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/samilozturk/agentlintWrote 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/samilozturk/agentlint/code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/samilozturk/agentlint/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samilozturk/agentlint/code-quality-review/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/samilozturk/agentlint/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samilozturk/agentlint/code-quality-review.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 | $0.00064 | $0.00677 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00271 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-review 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skill: Code Quality Review
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- reviewing a PR or local diff in this repo
- checking strict TypeScript and lint compliance
- validating docs/tests/context alignment for public surface changes
- looking for risky regressions in CLI, MCP, core, or shared packages
Purpose
Apply Agent Lint's repository-specific review standards so changes stay type-safe, testable, documented, and aligned with public behavior.
Scope
Included
- TypeScript correctness
- public-surface drift
- docs/test alignment
- context-artifact maintenance triggers
- package boundary and dependency-flow checks
Excluded
- subjective style nitpicks without repository evidence
- unrelated product strategy decisions
Inputs
diff-summarytouched-filespublic-surface-change: yes/noreview-goal
Step-by-step Execution
- Read the touched files and classify them by package and responsibility.
- Check dependency direction:
shared <- core <- mcpandshared <- core <- cli. - Look for strict-typing violations, missing tests, stale docs, or public-surface drift.
- If CLI commands, MCP tools/resources, or supported clients changed, require docs/test updates in the same change.
- If structure/config/dependency changes occurred, call out context-artifact updates as part of review.
- Return findings ordered by risk: correctness, release/doc drift, maintainability.
Output Contract
Return:
- blocking findings
- non-blocking improvements
- files/docs/tests that must be updated
- exact verification commands
Verification Commands
pnpm run build
pnpm run release-status
pnpm run typecheck
pnpm run lint
pnpm run test
Evidence Format
- finding severity
- affected file(s)
- why it matters in Agent Lint specifically
- recommended fix
- verification command(s)
Safety / DONTs
- Do not suggest
any,@ts-ignore, or band-aid casts. - Do not ignore docs consistency when public surface changes.
- Do not add MCP-side file writes or stateful behavior.
- Do not recommend skipping verification for package or client-facing changes.
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 · 102 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 6303ec833891
code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository samilozturk/agentlint (32 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 677 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
Address GitHub PR review comments from the current branch with gh-address-comments
Find the open PR for the current branch, gather unresolved review comments, and drive a focused comment-resolution workflow with gh-authenticated context.
ast-grep Structural Code Search and Rewrite
Use ast-grep (sg) to search, lint, and rewrite code across large codebases using AST pattern matching. A blazing-fast alternative to regex-based code transformations that understands syntax structure.
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…