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 saolalab/clawforce --skill code-qualitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/saolalab/clawforceWrote 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/saolalab/clawforce/code-quality)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/saolalab/clawforce/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saolalab/clawforce/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/saolalab/clawforce/code-quality"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/saolalab/clawforce/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 | $0.00016 | $0.01412 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00565 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00282 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00141 |
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 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 — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Skill
Code Review Checklist
Logic & Correctness
- Does the code solve the stated problem?
- Are edge cases handled (null, empty, overflow, underflow)?
- Are error conditions handled gracefully?
- Is the logic clear and easy to follow?
- Are there any obvious bugs or race conditions?
Code Quality
- Is the code readable? Can a teammate understand it without explanation?
- Are functions/classes small and focused (single responsibility)?
- Is there unnecessary duplication? Can it be extracted?
- Are variable/function names descriptive and consistent?
- Is the code properly formatted and linted?
Testing
- Are there tests for new functionality?
- Do tests cover happy paths, edge cases, and error conditions?
- Are tests readable and maintainable?
- Is test coverage adequate?
- Do tests run reliably (no flakiness)?
Security
- Are user inputs validated and sanitized?
- Are sensitive operations properly authenticated/authorized?
- Are secrets/configs properly managed (not hardcoded)?
- Are SQL queries parameterized (no injection risks)?
- Are API endpoints rate-limited if needed?
Performance
- Are there obvious performance issues (N+1 queries, unnecessary loops)?
- Is caching used appropriately?
- Are database queries optimized?
- Is memory usage reasonable?
Documentation
- Are public APIs documented?
- Are complex algorithms/logic explained?
- Is the PR description clear (what, why, how)?
- Are breaking changes documented?
PR Template
## What
Brief description of what this PR does.
## Why
Why this change is needed (problem it solves, feature it adds).
## How
How the change was implemented (high-level approach, key decisions).
## Testing
- [ ] Unit tests added/updated
- [ ] Integration tests added/updated
- [ ] Manual testing performed
- [ ] Edge cases tested
## Screenshots (if applicable)
[Add screenshots for UI changes]
## Checklist
- [ ] Code follows style guidelines
- [ ] Self-review completed
- [ ] Comments added for complex logic
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] No new warnings generated
- [ ] Tests pass locally
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 · 204 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A fcdb1cef75b4
Code Quality is a skill published in the GitHub repository saolalab/clawforce (38 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 1,412 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
code-review
A code-review and quality-analysis skill written in Chinese. It is intended to inspect code, find potential problems, and suggest improvements.
sage-review
Deep, platform-neutral code review for PRs and CRs in ONE thorough single pass — design reasoning (Problem Worth Solving & Solution Fit) as one dimension alongside the 9 code-level dimensions, with chain-of-consequences, self-critique, and draft-only comments. The single app-owned source of truth.
code-review
Use to judge a concrete diff, branch, or GitHub PR on its own merits with no rsc-SDD spec/plan chain to key off — the spec-less giving pass behind /code-review: only findings you can defend, one verdict, read-only unless --comment or --fix. NOT the SDD gate keyed to 02-DOCS/wiki/sdd/ that also processes incoming…
code-review-rubric
Use when a task is in codereview - how to read the diff, which findings block, and the verdict move.
reuse-before-you-write
Use before writing any new function, helper, component or module - find what the repository, the standard library and the installed dependencies already provide, and use an established library instead of hand-rolled code for a non-trivial problem.
root-cause-review
Use when a task in codereview was sent back before (an earlier needrevision comment exists) - verify every prior point was fixed at its root.