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.
npx agentmods add commands/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/codebase-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mgd34msu/goodvibes-pluginWhat 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 | $0.00053 | $0.00946 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00473 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00189 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-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 2d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Codebase review (WRFC)
Runs the Write-Review-Fix-Confirm loop against an actual diff. Three properties define it. It is
diff-triggered, so it never runs against unchanged code and never fires off an agent type.
Grounded checks outrank model opinion. Findings are refutation-based rather than a single
approve or reject score. See the task-orchestration skill for the
WRFC pattern and the review-scoring skill for the rubric this command's reviewer step uses.
Usage
/goodvibes:codebase-review # review uncommitted working-tree changes
/goodvibes:codebase-review main # review the diff against `main`
Instructions
Step 1: determine the diff (diff-triggered, not always-on)
# Uncommitted changes (default):
git diff --stat && git diff
# Against a base ref, if $ARGUMENTS names one:
git diff --stat "$ARGUMENTS"... && git diff "$ARGUMENTS"...
If the diff is empty, stop here and say so plainly:
No changes to review (diff against <target> is empty).
Do not spawn a reviewer over zero changes. That produces a meaningless 10/10-by-definition "pass" and wastes a review cycle, which is exactly the failure mode this command is designed to avoid.
Step 2: grounded checks first
Before any model-opinion review, run whatever the project actually has configured. Read
package.json scripts (or the equivalent for the project's language/toolchain) rather than
assuming npm run typecheck exists. Typical set, run only what's present:
npm run typecheck --if-present
npm run lint --if-present
npm test --if-present -- --run
Capture the real pass/fail output. These results outrank any subjective finding in the review step below. A test failure or a type error is not a "finding to weigh," it's a fact.
Step 3: refutation review
Spawn the refutation-reviewer agent (Task tool) with:
- The diff from Step 1 (or a summary +
code_grep/code_readpointers if it's large; don't truncate silently, say what was omitted). - The grounded-check results from Step 2.
- Instruction: apply the
review-scoringrubric, a ranked defect list with severity and a CONFIRMED/PLAUSIBLE verdict per finding, not a scalar score.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 105 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A b167d2025ef3
codebase-review is a command published in the GitHub repository mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin (6 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 946 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.