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 agentmods add skills/thixpin/pitway/code-quality-reviewnpx skills add thixpin/pitway --skill code-quality-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/thixpin/pitwayWrote 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/thixpin/pitway/code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/thixpin/pitway/code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/thixpin/pitway/code-quality-review.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 | $0.00079 | $0.00673 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00039 | $0.00336 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00135 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00067 |
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 4d 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Quality Review
Review for defects and maintainability, in that order. Every finding names the location, the concrete problem, and a suggested fix; every finding has a severity.
Scope
Reviews a change — a diff, branch, or set of files — at the function and file level.
Use for quality review of written code: readability, maintainability, correctness risks, backward compatibility.
Do not use for:
- System-wide structure, module boundaries, or layering — use
architecture-review. If a finding here is really "the whole codebase is shaped wrong," it belongs there. - Security review — use
security-audit. - Reviewing a GitHub pull request — use the built-in
/review.
Method
- Understand the change's intent before judging it — read the description, then the diff, then enough surrounding code to know how the pieces are used.
- Review the design first (is this the right shape?), then the details (is it written well?). A perfectly formatted wrong abstraction is still wrong.
- Report findings by severity: blocker (bugs, data loss, breaking changes), should-fix (maintainability problems that will hurt soon), nit (style and polish, clearly labeled as optional).
- Distinguish "this violates the project's conventions" from "this differs from my preference." Only the first is a finding.
Checklist
Correctness & safety
- Edge cases: empty inputs, nulls, boundaries, concurrency, partial failure.
- Error handling: failures surfaced, not swallowed; resources released on all paths.
Backward compatibility
- Public APIs, wire formats, database schemas, and config keys keep working for existing callers, or the break is explicit and justified.
- Behavior changes to shared code checked against all existing call sites.
Maintainability — scoped to the change; escalate system-wide findings to architecture-review
- DRY: real duplication (same knowledge in two places) flagged; incidental similarity left alone.
- Single responsibility: each unit has one reason to change; mixed concerns (I/O + logic + formatting in one function) flagged.
- Dependencies point the right way — no new coupling from low-level modules to high-level ones, no cycles.
- Naming says what things are; no comment needed to decode a name.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 54 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A 5ae5a7a03790
code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository thixpin/pitway (19 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 673 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
concord-relay
Keep this Grok session reachable by other Concord agents while idle.
pace-workflow
Use for PACEflow-managed coding work: create, approve, resume, verify, close, or archive CHG/HOTFIX before project file edits.
artifact-management
Use for PACEflow artifact fields and formats: task indexes, CHG/HOTFIX lifecycle operations, artifact-writer prompts, approvals, verification, and archive.
audit
Use for PACEflow internal full audit: run five independent review agents, verify evidence from code/tests/logs, de-duplicate findings, and produce a severity-ranked report for release gates or comprehensive code review.
pace-bridge
Use to bridge a confirmed Superpowers/native plan into PACEflow CHG/HOTFIX artifacts, create artifact-writer prompts, and mark the specific plan as synced.
pace-knowledge
Use for PACEflow knowledge/thoughts notes, finding-to-knowledge extraction, correction knowledge links, and Obsidian frontmatter/L0-L2 note structure.