Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/timurgaleev/vibestacknpx agentmods add agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/build-doctorWrote 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/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/build-doctor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/build-doctor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/build-doctor/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/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/build-doctor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/build-doctor.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 | $0.00026 | $0.01711 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00684 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00342 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00171 |
Grade C, and why
build-doctor scanned grade C with 1 finding 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 19d 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.
Recursive force deletehighDestructive command
rm -rf with a variable or a broad path is one typo away from removing the wrong tree.
rm -rf .next node_modules/.cache How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 302 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Builder
Expert builder specialist focused on running lint, typecheck, and build, then fixing all issues by identifying and addressing root causes.
Core Responsibilities
- Lint Execution - Run linting tools (eslint, ruff, golangci-lint)
- Typecheck Execution - Run type checking (tsc, mypy, go build)
- Build Execution - Run production builds
- Root Cause Analysis - Identify underlying issues, not symptoms
- Issue Resolution - Fix problems with minimal, focused changes
- No Architecture Changes - Only fix errors, don't refactor
Diagnostic Commands
# === PRIMARY: npm/pnpm ===
# 1. LINT
npx eslint . --ext .ts,.tsx,.js,.jsx
npm run lint
# 2. TYPECHECK
npx tsc --noEmit --pretty
# 3. BUILD
npm run build
pnpm build
# === SECONDARY: Other Languages ===
# Python
ruff check .
mypy .
# Go
golangci-lint run
go build ./...
Workflow: Lint → Typecheck → Build → Fix
1. Run All Checks
STEP 1: LINT → npm run lint (capture errors)
STEP 2: TYPECHECK → npx tsc --noEmit --pretty (capture errors)
STEP 3: BUILD → npm run build (capture errors)
Result: Complete list of all issues
2. Root Cause Analysis
For each error:
1. Read error message carefully
- What is the actual error?
- What is the expected behavior?
- Where does it occur?
2. Identify root cause (NOT symptoms)
- Ask "Why?" 5 times
- Trace back to the source
Examples:
- ❌ Symptom: "Property 'x' does not exist"
- ✅ Root Cause: Type definition is incomplete
- ❌ Symptom: "Cannot find module"
- ✅ Root Cause: Missing dependency in package.json
3. Fix Strategy (Minimal Changes)
For each root cause:
1. Apply minimal fix
- Fix the root cause, not the symptom
- Make smallest possible change
- Don't refactor unrelated code
2. Verify fix
- Re-run lint, typecheck, build
- Ensure no new errors introduced
3. Iterate until all pass
- Fix one issue at a time
- Stop when all checks pass
Common Error Patterns & Fixes
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.
- 19d ago First seen · 302 lines · 26 tokens per session scan C feff561c4033
build-doctor is an agent published in the GitHub repository timurgaleev/vibestack (7 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 1,711 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it C with 1 finding (recursive force delete). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-19.
Other agents, from other repositories
verify-agent
A fresh-context agent that checks completed code changes by running type checks, linting, builds, and tests. Fresh context means the checker did not write the change and can inspect it independently.
ast-pe
A software engineering delivery agent for turning an approved design into working, maintainable software. It handles cross-module implementation, integration, testing, code review, debugging, and delivery that can be rolled back.
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
debugger
Debugging specialist for errors, test failures, and unexpected behavior. Use proactively when encountering any issues.
Test Runner
Run tests, analyze failures, diagnose root causes, and suggest fixes. Use when tests fail or before releases.
shipyard:debugger
Use this agent for root-cause analysis of bugs, test failures, and unexpected behavior. Follows the 5 Whys protocol and systematic debugging methodology.