KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-template is a collection of templates and workflows that use large language models to turn an idea into a product requirements document, technical design, and minimum viable product plan. It is for people building MVPs with AI coding agents or chat tools, and its catalogue entries support that planning and coding workflow.
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/KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-templateWrote 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/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/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/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/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 | $0.00108 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00043 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00022 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00011 |
Grade A, and why
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.
What it actually says
Review Prompt
Review the current diff against AGENTS.md, agent_docs/, and REVIEW-CHECKLIST.md.
Prioritize:
- Bugs, regressions, security issues, data leaks, and missing tests.
- Architecture drift from
agent_docs/tech_stack.mdandagent_docs/code_patterns.md. - AI/tool permission issues, prompt-injection risks, missing evals, and unsafe logs.
Return findings first with file/line references. If no findings, say that clearly and list residual test gaps.
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 · 12 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 706b364d94a5
review is a command published in the GitHub repository KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-template (3,147 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 108 tokens. 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 2026-09-10.
Other commands, from other repositories
github
(dev-only) github maintainer harness — GitHub issue-fix and PR-review via gh CLI. NOT distributed to user projects.
review
A command for reviewing code with security checks and a check for compliance with MX tags. The available description does not explain what MX tags are.
code-review
Perform a thorough code review that verifies functionality, maintainability, and security before approving a change. Focus on architecture, readability, performance implications, and provide actionable suggestions for improvement.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
review-pr
Perform a comprehensive code review of a pull request.
refactor
Analyze code for SOLID violations and suggest targeted improvements.