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/f-amine/vibe-stackWrote 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/commands/f-amine/vibe-stack/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/f-amine/vibe-stack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/f-amine/vibe-stack/code-review/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/commands/f-amine/vibe-stack/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/f-amine/vibe-stack/code-review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00147 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00059 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00029 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00015 |
Grade A, and why
code-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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
code-review
Automated code review with swarm intelligence.
Usage
npx claude-flow github code-review [options]
Options
--pr-number <n>- Pull request to review--focus <areas>- Review focus (security, performance, style)--suggest-fixes- Suggest code fixes
Examples
# Review PR
npx claude-flow github code-review --pr-number 456
# Security focus
npx claude-flow github code-review --pr-number 456 --focus security
# With fix suggestions
npx claude-flow github code-review --pr-number 456 --suggest-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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 26 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c1bc7608b43a
code-review is a command published in the GitHub repository f-amine/vibe-stack (21 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 147 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
new
Scaffold a new Better-T-Stack project. Plans a full, validated stack with the Better-T-Stack MCP server, confirms it, then generates the project.
add
Add addons/features (PWA, Tauri, docs, linters, task runners, MCP, …) to an existing Better-T-Stack project via the Better-T-Stack MCP server.
codebase-review
Review an entire codebase for architecture, engineering health, and exploitable risk; generate a prioritized remediation plan, an evidence-anchored system knowledge document, or both.
review-ticket
Review a ticket or PR through focused specialist lenses: scope, architecture, security, tests, AC coverage, and PR metadata.
review
Review code changes against project conventions.
gh-triage
GitHub OSS maintainer lifecycle triage, review, and approval management.