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 gnurio/nurijanian-skills --skill vibe-code-leaf-findergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gnurio/nurijanian-skillsWrote 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/gnurio/nurijanian-skills/vibe-code-leaf-finder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gnurio/nurijanian-skills/vibe-code-leaf-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gnurio/nurijanian-skills/vibe-code-leaf-finder/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/gnurio/nurijanian-skills/vibe-code-leaf-finder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gnurio/nurijanian-skills/vibe-code-leaf-finder.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- 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 | $0.00171 | $0.01726 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00086 | $0.00863 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00345 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00173 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-code-leaf-finder 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 11d 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 — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Vibe Code Leaf Finder
Purpose
Classify every part of a codebase by risk-to-modify-with-AI, producing a report that tells the user where AI can write freely (leaves), where it needs guardrails (branches), and where humans must stay in the loop (trunks).
Based on Erik Schluntz's framing from "Vibe coding in prod" (Anthropic, 2025): tech debt is acceptable in leaf nodes because nothing depends on them, but trunks and branches are core architecture that must be "protected, deeply understood, extensible, and flexible."
Full framework quotes and rationale: references/schluntz-framework.md.
When to Use
Trigger this skill when the user:
- Points at a codebase or directory and asks where it's safe to use AI.
- Wants a report of "leaf nodes" vs "trunks" before a vibe-coding session.
- Is a PM, founder, or non-engineer who wants to ship features without breaking core architecture.
- Says phrases like: "vibe-code audit", "leaf finder", "where can I let Claude loose", "which files are safe to rewrite", "can a PM edit this".
Do NOT use this skill for: general code review, bug hunting, or performance audits. This skill only answers one question — "where is it safe to let AI write this code without human review of every line?"
Workflow
Execute these four checks against the target scope. If no scope is given, ask the user once: "Scope this to a directory, a package, or the whole repo?"
Step 1: Dependency Check (outward edges)
For each file in scope, find every place outside the file (and outside the scope directory if scoped) that imports or references it.
Use ripgrep, not grep. Search for:
- Import statements:
from <module>,import <module>,require('<path>'),from '<path>' - Symbol references: exported class names, exported function names
- String references: dynamic imports, module registries, route tables
Record, for each file: a list of external referrers. Zero referrers = candidate leaf.
Step 2: Isolation Check (inward edges)
For each candidate leaf from Step 1, confirm it is also a pure consumer not a provider:
- Does it register anything globally (plugins, middleware, migrations, event handlers, cron jobs)?
- Does it write to shared state (singletons, global config, shared DB schema)?
- Does it expose a public API surface (HTTP routes, SDK exports, CLI commands)?
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 126 lines · 171 tokens per session scan A d439f7a646b8
vibe-code-leaf-finder is a skill published in the GitHub repository gnurio/nurijanian-skills (105 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 171 tokens to every session and 1,726 once invoked, about $0.0009 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…