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/ofershap/vibe-guardWrote 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/ofershap/vibe-guard/security-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/ofershap/vibe-guard/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ofershap/vibe-guard/security-audit/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/ofershap/vibe-guard/security-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/ofershap/vibe-guard/security-audit.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 | $0.00016 | $0.00247 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00099 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00049 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
security-audit 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
Perform a comprehensive security audit of this project:
-
Secrets scan: Search all files for hardcoded API keys, passwords, tokens, connection strings. Check .env files are in .gitignore.
-
Input validation: Find all API endpoints and check if user input is validated before processing.
-
Authentication: Check if all non-public routes have authentication middleware.
-
Database security: Check for SQL injection vulnerabilities, missing RLS policies, unparameterized queries.
-
CORS configuration: Check if CORS is properly restricted (not wildcard).
-
Error handling: Check if error responses leak internal details (stack traces, DB errors).
-
Dependencies: Check for known vulnerabilities in dependencies.
-
Headers: Check if security headers are set (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options).
For each issue found:
- Show the file and line
- Explain the vulnerability
- Show the fix
- Rate severity: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
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 · 33 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A ef5491a84165
security-audit is a command published in the GitHub repository ofershap/vibe-guard (1 stars, last pushed 8mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 247 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Review the current diff against AGENTS.md, agentdocs/, and REVIEW-CHECKLIST.md.
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.
final-review
Command "final-review" from adriannoes/awesome-agentic-ai, covering final review - comprehensive pr review & testing, step 0: determine review pass, step 1: create or update the pr, step 2: launch three review agents in parallel and agent 1: codebase consistency reviewer.
rfc
Manage RFCs — design review for high-stakes changes before code. Provided by the RFC-driven methodology.
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.