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 paulpreibisch/AgentVibes --skill bmad-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paulpreibisch/AgentVibesWrote 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/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00050 | $0.00066 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00033 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00013 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00007 |
Grade A, and why
bmad-code-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 7d 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 bmad-code-review — 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.
What it actually says
Follow the instructions in ./workflow.md.
What ships with it
5 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.
- 7d ago First seen · 7 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A baca10e02574
bmad-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository paulpreibisch/AgentVibes (153 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 66 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to bmad-code-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
skill-vetter-runtime
Review ClawHub or local Skill packages before installation, classify risk, and return a structured security report.
lint
Lint and format Kurtosis Starlark files. Check syntax, validate docstrings, and auto-format .star files. Use when writing or reviewing Starlark packages to ensure code quality.
review-dependabot
Reviews a Dependabot PR and evaluates whether the dependency update is safe to merge. Use when a Dependabot PR is opened, when evaluating dependency updates, or when asked to check if a version bump is safe.
address-review
Read PR review comments from GitHub, evaluate, address, and reply.
review-pr
Reviews a pull request for production-readiness. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code changes before merge, or when asked to evaluate a PR.
fuck-over-engineering
Use when the user asks what could be deleted or reduced to simplify a codebase, says "simplify", "over-engineered", or wants a repo-, folder-, or file-wide audit for over-engineering — hunts dead code, reinvented stdlib, needless dependencies, and single-implementation abstractions, reports ranked cuts, applies only…