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 vibe-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/vibe-devil-advocate-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-devil-advocate-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-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/vibe-devil-advocate-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-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 | $0.00151 | $0.01968 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00060 | $0.00787 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00394 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00197 |
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 9d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-devil-advocate-review
Before shipping a recommendation, challenge it. Models still tend to agree with their own earlier reasoning and with the user, and to read a capable-looking artifact as good. A reviewer that shares the author's context inherits the author's blind spots, so the review is strongest when the reviewer doesn't share them.
Two rules govern the whole review. Search like a pessimist: assume defects exist, and treat finding none as a sign the search wasn't hard enough yet. Report like a scientist: say only what survives as a real, evidenced defect. The first rule sets how hard you look; the second sets what you say. A manufactured finding is as damaging as flattery, because it teaches the author to discount the next real one.
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, a second opinion, or a brutally honest critique ("tear this apart", "poke holes in this", "what's wrong with this")
- Reviewing a non-code artifact for hard critique: a proposal, policy, plan, curriculum, or argument
- Reviewing your own draft before it ships
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)
- Small code changes (use
vibe-quality-loop) - The user wants friendly proofreading or reassurance, not critique
- Prose that reads as machine-written but is otherwise sound (use
vibe-slop-filter)
Get an Independent Reviewer
In order of preference:
- A different model family — for example, have Codex (GPT) review Claude's work, or Claude review Gemini's. Different training produces different blind spots.
- A fresh subagent that gets only the artifact and the stated goals, not the conversation that produced them.
- Self-review as a last resort. Explicitly assume the artifact is wrong and look for the evidence.
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.
- 9d ago Changed · +46 lines · +60 tokens per session 50ad136a1ee1
- 17d ago Changed · +11 lines · +31 tokens per session edf1048a3934
- 20d ago First seen · 72 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 63241c445c3e
vibe-devil-advocate-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ash1794/vibe-engineering (164 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 151 tokens to every session and 1,968 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-26.
Other skills, from other repositories
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
test-review
Test coverage review via Codex exec. Use when: reviewing test sufficiency, identifying coverage gaps, test quality audit. Not for: generating tests (use codex-test-gen), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: coverage analysis + gap report.
precommit
Pre-commit checks — lint:fix -> build -> test.
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).
precommit-fast
Quick pre-commit checks — lint:fix -> test.