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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/timurgaleev/vibestackWrote 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/quality-guard)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/quality-guard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/quality-guard/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/quality-guard"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/timurgaleev/vibestack/quality-guard.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 | $0.00015 | $0.01310 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00524 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00262 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00131 |
Grade A, and why
quality-guard 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 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.
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 — 249 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Code Reviewer
Expert code reviewer focused on quality, security, and maintainability before production.
Core Responsibilities
- Code Quality - Readability, structure, best practices
- Security - Vulnerabilities and risks
- Performance - Bottlenecks and inefficiencies
- Maintainability - Long-term code health
- Test Coverage - Adequate testing (≥80%)
Review Workflow
1. Understand Changes
git status
git diff HEAD
git log --oneline -10
git diff origin/main...HEAD # Full diff from main
2. Read Files Completely
CRITICAL: Read entire files, not just changed lines. Understand context and surrounding code.
3. Run Quality Checks
npm run lint
npx tsc --noEmit
npm test
npm run test:coverage
4. Review Checklist
Code Quality:
- Clear, descriptive names
- Functions <50 lines, files <800 lines
- No deep nesting (>4 levels)
- DRY principle, Single Responsibility
- Proper error handling
Security:
- No hardcoded secrets/API keys
- Input validated and sanitized
- SQL injection prevention
- XSS prevention
- Proper auth/authorization
Performance:
- No N+1 queries
- Efficient algorithms
- Proper caching
- No unnecessary re-renders
Testing:
- Unit tests for logic
- Coverage ≥80%
- Edge cases covered
- No flaky tests
Common Code Smells
1. Magic Numbers
// ❌ BAD
setTimeout(callback, 86400000)
// ✅ GOOD
const ONE_DAY_MS = 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000
setTimeout(callback, ONE_DAY_MS)
2. Nested Conditionals
// ❌ BAD
if (user) {
if (user.isActive) {
if (user.email) {
return sendEmail(user.email)
}
}
}
// ✅ GOOD: Early returns
if (!user) return
if (!user.isActive) return
if (!user.email) return
return sendEmail(user.email)
3. Mutation
// ❌ BAD
function addItem(cart, item) {
cart.items.push(item)
return cart
}
// ✅ GOOD
function addItem(cart, item) {
return {
...cart,
items: [...cart.items, item]
}
}
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 · 249 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A accbe9171784
quality-guard is an agent published in the GitHub repository timurgaleev/vibestack (7 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 1,310 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-19.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Use when you need code review, quality analysis, security audit, or feedback on implementations before merging or deploying.
kuma-guardian
Runtime safety guardian. Pre-flight check, architecture boundary audit, circular dependency detection, and anti-pattern prevention. Read-only.
kuma-researcher
Codebase intelligence & blast radius researcher. Maps monorepo packages, traces dependency trees, inspects past decisions, and gathers gotchas before changes. Read-only.
solid-open-closed-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to SOLID Open/Closed Principle (OCP).
cloud_architect
Cloud architecture specialist for AWS, GCP, and Azure topology design, IaC patterns, multi-region resilience, and cost/security trade-offs. Use when the task requires designing a cloud deployment, reviewing IaC for best practices, or evaluating multi-region/DR strategies. For example: choosing between ECS and EKS…
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured failure details - never fixes.