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 skills add ash1794/vibe-engineering --skill devil-advocate-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ash1794/vibe-engineeringWrote 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/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/devil-advocate-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/devil-advocate-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/devil-advocate-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/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/devil-advocate-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/devil-advocate-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 | $0.00035 | $0.00520 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00260 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00104 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00052 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-devil-advocate-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 8d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- vibe-devil-advocate-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
vibe-devil-advocate-review
Before shipping a recommendation, challenge it. The goal is to find weaknesses BEFORE they become production incidents.
When to Use This Skill
- Before sending a design document for approval
- Before shipping a recommendation that combines multiple inputs
- Before merging a large feature branch
- When you feel "too confident" about a solution
- User asks for a review or second opinion
When NOT to Use This Skill
- Trivial changes (typo fixes, formatting)
- When the user explicitly says "just ship it"
- During brainstorming (don't kill ideas before they form)
- For code review of small PRs (use
vibe-quality-loopinstead)
The 5 Dimensions
Challenge the work across:
- Consistency — Do all parts agree with each other? Are there contradictions?
- Completeness — What's missing? What edge cases are unaddressed? What blind spots exist?
- Actionability — Is every recommendation concrete and measurable? Can someone actually do this?
- Alignment — Does this match the stated goals, constraints, and user needs?
- Risk — What could go wrong? What are the second-order effects? What's the blast radius of failure?
Steps
- Read the artifact thoroughly — don't skim
- For each dimension, actively try to find problems. Assume there ARE problems.
- Score each dimension 1-5 (1=critical issues, 5=solid)
- List specific issues with evidence
- Deliver verdict: APPROVE / REVISE (with required changes) / REJECT (with blocking issues)
Output Format
Devil's Advocate Review
| Dimension | Score | Issues Found |
|---|---|---|
| Consistency | X/5 | [count] |
| Completeness | X/5 | [count] |
| Actionability | X/5 | [count] |
| Alignment | X/5 | [count] |
| Risk | X/5 | [count] |
Critical Issues
- [Issue with evidence]
Warnings
- [Non-blocking concern]
Verdict: APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT
[Rationale]
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 64 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A a35fa3a07d68
vibe-devil-advocate-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ash1794/vibe-engineering (10 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 520 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 skills, from other repositories
resolve-pr-comments
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR…
map-codebase
Deep architecture report that fans out parallel inspections across different aspects of the codebase (structure, tech stack, APIs, patterns, data flow, dependencies, testing) and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive document at .turbo/codebase-map.md and .turbo/codebase-map.html. Use when the user asks to "map…
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".
answer-reviewer-questions
For each reviewer question on a PR, recall implementation reasoning and compose a raw answer. Use when the user asks to "answer reviewer questions", "draft answers to PR questions", or "explain reviewer questions".
evaluate-findings
Critically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to "evaluate findings", "assess review comments", "triage review feedback", "evaluate review output", or "filter false positives".
pr-comment
Post friendly review comments to a GitHub PR — prepare locally, preview, then submit as atomic review. Use when: posting code review comments, giving PR feedback, sending inline suggestions. Not for: reading existing reviews (use load-pr-review), creating PRs (use create-pr), PR status (use pr-summary).