KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-template is a collection of templates and workflows that use large language models to turn an idea into a product requirements document, technical design, and minimum viable product plan. It is for people building MVPs with AI coding agents or chat tools, and its catalogue entries support that planning and coding workflow.
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 KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-template --skill vibe-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-templateWrote 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/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/vibe-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/vibe-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/vibe-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/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/vibe-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khazp/vibe-coding-prompt-template/vibe-review.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 | $0.00022 | $0.00156 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00078 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00031 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00016 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-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 today.
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.
What it actually says
Vibe Review
Read the actual diff, applicable instructions, acceptance criteria, and check results. Trace changed behavior into its callers and tests. Look for concrete regressions, missing error handling, incorrect assumptions, and relevant authorization or data exposure issues.
Report actionable findings with file/line, trigger, impact, and suggested correction. Distinguish demonstrated defects from missing evidence. Prioritize correctness and scope over cosmetic preferences. Do not claim independent checks unless you ran them. If there are no findings, say so and disclose remaining verification gaps. Review does not authorize unrelated edits or publication.
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.
- today Changed · -3 lines · +3 tokens per session 79eec86ee344
- 11d ago First seen · 15 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 2ab6d05c5bdd
vibe-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhazP/vibe-coding-prompt-template (3,057 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 156 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
plan-eng-review
Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations. Use when asked to "review the architecture", "engineering review", or "lock in the plan". Proactively suggest when…
autoplan
Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when…
pre-landing-review
Pre-landing PR review. Analyzes diff against the base branch for SQL safety, LLM trust boundary violations, conditional side effects, and other structural issues. Use when explicitly asked for the specialized pre-landing workflow. Product /review requests are handled by OpenBitFun's unified Review mechanism instead.…
pr-review-canvas
Create a OpenBitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.
gh-pr-review
Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks…
github-review-pr
Review GitHub pull requests with detailed, multi-perspective code analysis using parallel subagents. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review a PR, asks for code review on a pull request, mentions "review PR", "check this PR", "look at pull request", or references a PR number or GitHub PR URL. Do NOT use for…