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 synaptiai/synapti-marketplace --skill code-quality-principlesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/synaptiai/synapti-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/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-quality-principles)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-quality-principles"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/synaptiai/synapti-marketplace/code-quality-principles.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00083 | $0.01482 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00042 | $0.00741 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00296 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00148 |
Grade A, and why
code-quality-principles 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 3d 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Principles
Foundation skill governing code quality standards during autonomous development.
Iron Law
EVERY CHANGE MUST BE INTENTIONAL. If you can't explain why a line changed, revert it.
Always leave code better than you found it. Fix issues in files you are already modifying — but only changes that pass the proximity test.
Before You Write Code
Answer these questions first. If you can't, return to EXPLORE:
- What is the specific task/criterion this code serves?
- What files will be modified and why each one?
- What existing patterns does this project use for this type of change?
- What could go wrong? (error cases, edge cases, security)
- How will you verify this works?
Boy Scout Rule
Leave every file you touch better than you found it. Fixing known defects in touched files is not optional scope creep — it is the baseline of Quality-First Completionism. Touching a file means owning its known issues.
The proximity test is NOT a deferral mechanism for P1/P2 findings. It decides how a cleanup is committed (alongside the feature fix vs. as a separate improve: commit), not whether it gets fixed. If a P1 or P2 finding exists in a file the PR modifies, it is fixed in this PR, full stop.
A cleanup is committed as a standalone improve: commit when ALL true:
- The file is already being modified for the current task
- The fix is self-evidently correct (lint, format, typo, obvious bug, missing error handling)
- The fix is small (under ~10 lines of cleanup)
- The fix does not change public API signatures or behavior semantics
- The fix needs no explanation beyond "Boy Scout cleanup"
A finding requires expanded scope (still fixed, but may need a design note or additional tests) when ANY true:
- Requires modifying files NOT already touched by the task
- Changes architecture, module boundaries, or public APIs
- Requires new tests to validate
- Would benefit from its own issue to explain motivation
- Is a subjective style preference (in which case it is P3 at most, not a fix-blocker)
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 122 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 0777da595d9a
code-quality-principles is a skill published in the GitHub repository synaptiai/synapti-marketplace (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 83 tokens to every session and 1,482 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…
independent-review-loop
Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer…
next-steps
Have the Product Owner survey the project's current state — shipped features, in-flight work, open findings, standing goals — and propose one concrete next feature ready to hand to /story-time or /spark. Use when the user has no idea in hand and asks "what should we build next", when a loop just closed and the next…
pocket-development
Use when executing implementation plans of one or more tasks. Trigger on execute plan, delegate tasks, dispatch subagents. Combines delegate handoff discipline with prompt-engineering attention mechanics.
resolve-dispute
Resolves stuck review findings via a put-up-or-concede exchange. Invoked by the facilitator when a finding survives arbitration without new evidence.
pocket-grinding
BDD-driven feature/fix discovery before any implementation. Use when planning a feature, designing a fix, or exploring options before building. Trigger on "pocket-grinding", "brainstorm", "think through", "plan this", "before we build". Invokes pocket-planning at handoff.