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-spec-syncgit 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-spec-sync)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-spec-sync"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-spec-sync/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-spec-sync"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ash1794/vibe-engineering/vibe-spec-sync.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 | $0.00090 | $0.02090 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00836 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00418 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00209 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-spec-sync 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 181 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-spec-sync
Code changes. Specs don't update themselves. This skill closes the loop.
When to Use This Skill
- Audit mode: implementation of a spec or design doc is claimed complete, after a major refactor, or when debugging behavior that may not match the spec
- Sync mode: before committing, to detect spec drift from staged changes
- Sync mode: after approving decisions (from
vibe-decision-journal), to sync them back to the spec - Periodically, to confirm the spec still reflects reality
When NOT to Use This Skill
- No spec exists (write one first, or use
vibe-doc-quality-gateto bootstrap) - Prototype/spike code with no spec commitment
- Spec is explicitly labeled as aspirational/future-state
- Code was intentionally diverged, with the reasons documented
Modes
/vibe-spec-sync # Sync mode: staged changes vs spec (default)
/vibe-spec-sync --audit # Audit mode: full spec vs implementation, no edits
Prerequisites
The project must have:
- A specification document (markdown) — configured in step 1
- Implementation code that the spec describes
- Optionally: a test suite with requirement traceability markers (
# req:[ID])
Steps
Step 1: Locate Spec and Code (both modes)
-
Find the spec — Look for:
spec.md,SPEC.md,*_spec.mdin project root ordocs/- Design docs in
docs/design/,docs/architecture/ - Ask user if ambiguous: "Which document is the authoritative spec?"
-
Find the implementation — The code files the spec describes
-
Find the decision log —
docs/decisions/decisions.jsonl(fromvibe-decision-journal)
Audit Mode (--audit)
Read-only. Nothing is edited.
- For each requirement or section in the spec, find the corresponding code and check whether it matches exactly.
- Record each divergence as a gap:
- ID:
GAP-[SECTION]-[NNN](e.g.,GAP-AUTH-001) - Type: Missing (spec says X, code has nothing) / Incorrect (spec says X, code does Y) / Extra (code does X, spec is silent)
- Severity: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Evidence: the spec quote and the code
file:line
- ID:
- Report using the Audit Report format below. For 10+ gaps, hand them to
vibe-gap-closure-loop. To accept an Extra or Incorrect item as the new intended behavior, run sync mode on it.
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 Changed · +32 tokens per session cdf00c6d602c
- 20d ago First seen · 181 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A e77d6dd2d08a
vibe-spec-sync is a skill published in the GitHub repository ash1794/vibe-engineering (164 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 2,090 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.