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 sigistry/marketplace --skill assessment-scoringgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sigistry/marketplaceWrote 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/sigistry/marketplace/assessment-scoring)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sigistry/marketplace/assessment-scoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sigistry/marketplace/assessment-scoring/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/sigistry/marketplace/assessment-scoring"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sigistry/marketplace/assessment-scoring.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 | $0.00680 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00340 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
assessment-scoring 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 12d 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 — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Assessment Scoring Methodology
Purpose
Provide a standardized, weighted scoring system for evaluating codebases across five dimensions: Code Quality, Performance, Security, Maintainability, and Testing.
Scoring Categories
| Category | Weight | Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|
| Code Quality | 25% | Structure, complexity, standards, error handling |
| Performance | 25% | Algorithms, rendering, async, caching |
| Security | 20% | Vulnerabilities, auth, data protection, dependencies |
| Maintainability | 20% | Organization, documentation, coupling, tech debt |
| Testing | 10% | Coverage, quality, distribution, critical paths |
Scoring Process
- Each category receives a raw score from 0 to 10
- Apply positive factors (good practices found) and negative factors (issues found)
- Multiply each raw score by its weight percentage
- Sum weighted scores for final composite score (0-10)
Score Calculation Template
| Category | Score | Weight | Calculation | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Code Quality | X/10 | 25% | X × 0.25 | X.XX |
| Performance | X/10 | 25% | X × 0.25 | X.XX |
| Security | X/10 | 20% | X × 0.20 | X.XX |
| Maintainability | X/10 | 20% | X × 0.20 | X.XX |
| Testing | X/10 | 10% | X × 0.10 | X.XX |
| Total | 100% | X.XX/10 |
Score Interpretation
| Range | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0–2 | Critical | Immediate intervention required |
| 2–4 | Poor | Significant issues affecting development |
| 4–6 | Fair | Notable issues but manageable |
| 6–8 | Good | Minor issues, well-maintained |
| 8–10 | Excellent | Industry best practices |
Remediation Roadmap Template
Immediate Actions (Critical/Blocker)
- Fix all critical security vulnerabilities
- Address memory leaks and resource management issues
- Resolve blocking performance bottlenecks
Short-term (1-4 weeks)
- Reduce code duplication below 5%
- Increase test coverage to 60%
- Refactor high-complexity methods
What ships with it
2 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 74 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 03df48735423
assessment-scoring is a skill published in the GitHub repository sigistry/marketplace (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 680 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
improve-code-quality
Guided journey from a working-but-untested vibe-coded prototype to a production-ready product with tests, clean structure, a business-rules boundary, and resilience at scale. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-code, refactoring-patterns, software-design-philosophy…
refactoring-patterns
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when…
pr
Comprehensive PR/issue review - analyzes architecture, tests, identifies unrelated changes mixed in, drafts review comment or issue comment. Use when user asks to review a PR, check a PR, look at PR changes, or comment on an issue.
team-review
Review changed code for reuse, quality, and efficiency using a team of persistent named reviewers. This skill should be used when the user says "team review", "review with team", or wants parallel code review with persistent team members for follow-up questions. Similar to /subagent-review but reviewers persist after…
roslyn-query
Query .NET/C# codebases using Roslyn AST analysis via dotnet run file. Use for tracing data flow, auditing API usage, finding pattern violations, or ad-hoc codebase queries.
codex
Route a task to OpenAI's Codex CLI (codex exec) instead of doing it yourself. Use this skill ANY time the user names codex or types /codex — even for routine work Claude could handle, because the user is choosing to delegate. The intent: 'ask codex', 'have codex review/refactor this', 'check/validate with codex', 'see…