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 mracal/vibe-engineering --skill quality-loopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mracal/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/mracal/vibe-engineering/quality-loop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/quality-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/quality-loop/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/mracal/vibe-engineering/quality-loop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mracal/vibe-engineering/quality-loop.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00617 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00247 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00062 |
Grade A, and why
vibe-quality-loop 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to vibe-quality-loop — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
vibe-quality-loop
The quality loop prevents premature "done" declarations. You keep iterating until the work is actually clean.
When to Use This Skill
- After any implementation that touches more than 3 files
- After implementing a feature with tests
- When you've made changes and want to verify quality
- Before creating a commit on completed work
When NOT to Use This Skill
- Single-line fixes or typo corrections
- Documentation-only changes
- When the user says "just get it working, we'll clean up later"
The Loop
┌─────────────┐
│ Implement │
└──────┬──────┘
v
┌─────────────┐
│ Self-Review │ ← Read your own diff. Would you approve this PR?
└──────┬──────┘
v
┌─────────────┐
│ Run Tests │ ← ALL tests, not just the ones you wrote
└──────┬──────┘
│
├── Tests pass + Review clean → EXIT (done!)
│
v
┌─────────────┐
│ Fix Issues │ ← Fix what broke, don't add new features
└──────┬──────┘
│
└── Go back to Self-Review
Steps
-
Self-Review — Read your entire diff. Check for:
- Unused imports/variables
- Hardcoded values that should be constants
- Missing error handling at system boundaries
- Functions over 50 lines
- Any TODO without an issue reference
-
Run Tests — Run the full test suite, not just affected tests:
- If Go:
go test ./...andgo test -race ./... - If JS/TS:
npm testor equivalent - If Python:
pytest - Note any failures
- If Go:
-
Fix Issues — Address ONLY the issues found. Don't add features.
-
Loop — Go back to step 1. Track iteration count.
-
Exit — When tests pass AND review is clean. Report iteration count.
Output Format
Quality Loop: [Feature Name]
Iterations: X Final Status: CLEAN / KNOWN_ISSUES
| Iteration | Issues Found | Issues Fixed |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [list] | [list] |
| 2 | [list] | [list] |
Remaining Known Issues (if any):
- [Issue that was deliberately deferred, with justification]
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 · 84 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A ef9d82ed0204
vibe-quality-loop is a skill published in the GitHub repository mracal/vibe-engineering (3 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 617 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to vibe-quality-loop, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
evidence-first-debugging
Use when debugging a crash, lỗi, failing game, tool, build, service, script, or reproducible local code failure requires repro or reproduction, giả thuyết or ranked hypotheses, instrumentation, root-cause isolation, a minimal fix, regression proof, and a regression test.
load-soak-capacity-verification
Use when servers or online game services need controlled load, soak, concurrency, capacity, saturation, leak, queue, failover, recovery, and scaling verification with baselines and stop conditions; not for client frame budgets.
platform-device-compatibility-matrix
Use when a game needs a platform and device compatibility matrix across OS, hardware, GPU, memory, resolution, input, network, storefront, certification, test evidence, and support policy; not for store metadata preparation.
qa-test-strategy-and-coverage
Use when a game project, milestone, or feature needs a QA test strategy and coverage matrix across risk, test levels, platforms, environments, ownership, automation, regression, evidence, and exit criteria; not for one playtest session.
build-and-runtime-verification
Use when running build, compile, test, launch, or runtime checks and producing a verdict tied to exact commands, exit codes, artifact paths, limitations, and fresh evidence.
playtest-evidence
Use when planning or reviewing game playtests that need structured scenarios, participant context, observations, reproduction evidence, severity, and honest separation of observed findings from conclusions.