code-quality-analysis

code-quality-analysis is a skill for Claude Code from xD4O/praxis. It costs 87 tokens per session (1,438 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A structured code-review procedure covering naming, function size, nesting, safety, and design. It complements tests, which check whether code behaves correctly, by checking whether the code is well structured.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it when reviewing a pull request, refactoring modules, or writing a significant amount of code.
Why use it?
It gives reviews a repeatable way to find maintainability and design problems that passing tests may not reveal.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the praxis plugin — 19 skills, 13 commands, 1 hook shipped together

Good fit Use it when reviewing a pull request, refactoring modules, or writing a significant amount of code.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis
View source ↗ xD4O/praxis
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add xD4O/praxis --skill code-quality-analysis
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xD4O/praxis

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install praxis, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 19 skills, 13 commands, 1 hook.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-quality-analysis

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-quality-analysis

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/xd4o/praxis/code-quality-analysis.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 87 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,438 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00087 $0.01438
Opus 5.5 $0.00035 $0.00575
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00017 $0.00288
Haiku 4.5 $0.00009 $0.00144

Measured 15d ago against content hash 4bf3e1288cd6, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

code-quality-analysis 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 15d 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.

skills/code-quality-analysis/SKILL.md · 138 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Quality Analysis Protocol

EXTREMELY_IMPORTANT: This is a MANDATORY protocol, not a suggestion. Follow every step. Do not skip steps. Do not combine steps. Do not summarize. Work through each gate in order.

Tests verify that code WORKS. This protocol verifies that code is WELL-DESIGNED. Run these checks on any significant code you write or review.

THE 15 CHECKS

Work through each. Mark PASS, FAIL, or N/A. Do not skip any applicable check.

Readability

1. NAMING — Does every variable, function, and class name reveal its intent?

  • processData() → FAIL. extractValidEmails() → PASS.
  • Booleans read as questions: isValid, hasPermission, canExecute.
  • No abbreviations a new reader couldn't understand.

2. FUNCTION SIZE — Does every function do exactly one thing?

  • Length is the smell: past ~20 lines a function has usually accreted a second job. Extract methods. (A long but irreducible unit — e.g. a flat dispatch table — can pass.)
  • Can you describe what the function does without the word "and"?

3. NESTING DEPTH — Is anything nested deeper than 2 levels?

  • Every nesting level is a condition the reader must hold in their head at once. Flatten with guard clauses. Return early for invalid cases.
  • Happy path should be at indent level 1.

Structure

4. SINGLE RESPONSIBILITY — Does each module/class have exactly one reason to change?

  • Can you describe it in one sentence without "and"?
  • If it handles both parsing AND validation AND storage, split it.

5. COUPLING — Can you change module A without touching module B?

  • Count the imports. More imports = more coupling.
  • Are there method chains longer than 2 dots? Each extra dot couples this code to another object's internals (Law of Demeter).

6. COHESION — Is everything inside this module related to the same concern?

  • Would removing any function make the module incomplete?
  • Would any function be more at home in a different module?

Safety

7. FAIL FAST — Do errors surface immediately with clear messages?

  • No empty catch blocks.
  • No silently defaulting to zero/null/empty on bad input.
  • Errors include context: what input, what state, what was expected.

Read the full file on GitHub · 138 lines

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.

  1. 15d ago First seen · 138 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A 4bf3e1288cd6

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-quality-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository xD4O/praxis (28 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 1,438 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 2026-10-02.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

autoreview

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

openclaw/clawhub · 17 tokens

omh-code-review

This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

rlaope/oh-my-hermes · 48 tokens

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"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

asplos-writing-style

Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills · 65 tokens

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…

dzhng/skills · 162 tokens

re0-merge

Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…

LilMGenius/paperthin · 70 tokens