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 bencium/bencium-marketplace --skill vanity-engineering-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bencium/bencium-marketplaceWrote 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/bencium/bencium-marketplace/vanity-engineering-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bencium/bencium-marketplace/vanity-engineering-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bencium/bencium-marketplace/vanity-engineering-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/bencium/bencium-marketplace/vanity-engineering-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bencium/bencium-marketplace/vanity-engineering-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk pass
- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00181 | $0.02056 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00072 | $0.00822 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00411 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00206 |
Grade A, and why
vanity-engineering-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 — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Vanity Engineering Review
A diagnostic skill that identifies code, architecture, and technical decisions built to impress rather than to ship. Vanity engineering is entropy disguised as craftsmanship — it increases complexity without proportional capability gain, and it compounds maintenance cost while delivering zero additional user value.
Core Premise
The only legitimate purpose of engineering is to solve a problem someone actually has.
Everything else — elegant abstractions nobody traverses, microservices that serve one endpoint, custom frameworks that replicate existing tools, type systems more complex than the domain they model — is vanity. It may feel productive. It is not.
This skill does not oppose quality, rigour, or good engineering. It opposes engineering that exists to satisfy the builder rather than the user.
When to Apply This Skill
Apply this review to any of:
- Codebase audits (full repo or specific modules)
- Pull request reviews
- Architecture proposals or RFCs
- Technology selection decisions
- Refactoring plans
- "Should we rebuild this?" discussions
- Post-mortems where complexity contributed to failure
The Review Process
Phase 1: Establish the Requirement Anchor
Before examining any code, establish what the system actually needs to do. Without this anchor, you cannot distinguish necessary complexity from vanity complexity.
Ask (or determine from context):
- Who uses this? (End users, internal team, API consumers, nobody yet)
- What must it do? (Core user stories / jobs-to-be-done — max 5)
- What scale does it actually operate at? (Not projected. Actual.)
- What are the real constraints? (Regulatory, latency SLAs, integration requirements)
- What is the team size maintaining this? (Solo dev? 3-person startup? 50-person org?)
If the user cannot answer these, that is itself a vanity signal — building without defined requirements.
Phase 2: Detection Scan
Scan the codebase or architecture against the detection patterns in
references/detection-patterns.md. Read that file before proceeding.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 224 lines · 181 tokens per session scan A 7373bcbc57ec
vanity-engineering-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bencium/bencium-marketplace (468 stars, last pushed 23d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 181 tokens to every session and 2,056 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-simplifier
Always-active simplicity rules: no speculative abstractions, one job per function, max 30 lines, flat over nested with early returns, descriptive names, comments explain why.
critical-review
4-phase adversarial review protocol: pre-flight analysis, adversarial execution check, self-correction loop, and [VALIDATION] report.
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's…
api-design-reviewer
Comprehensive REST API design review with automated linting, breaking-change detection, and design scorecards. Catches inconsistent conventions, missing versioning, and design smells before APIs ship. Use when reviewing a PR that adds or changes API endpoints, auditing an existing API for v2 migration, or establishing…
code-reviewer
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality…
agent-watchdog
Use when asked to watch, babysit, audit, review, compare, or fix another agent's work from a Codex session ID, Claude Code session/transcript, chat/thread link, PR, branch, log, or pasted run summary. Monitor until the other agent is done or blocked, reconstruct what the user asked, independently investigate the same…