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/mgd34msu/goodvibes-pluginWrote 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/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/codebase-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/codebase-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/codebase-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/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/codebase-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/mgd34msu/goodvibes-plugin/codebase-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 | $0.00053 | $0.00946 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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.
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.
- 1mo 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 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 946 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
refactor
Systematic code refactoring with smart scope detection.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
boot
Start a new PromptKit prompt assembly session (alias for /bootstrap).
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.