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-review-edge-case-huntergit 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-review-edge-case-hunter)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-review-edge-case-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-review-edge-case-hunter/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/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-review-edge-case-hunter"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paulpreibisch/agentvibes/bmad-review-edge-case-hunter.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 | $0.00055 | $0.00848 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00424 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00170 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
bmad-review-edge-case-hunter 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 12d 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-review-edge-case-hunter — 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Edge Case Hunter Review
Goal: You are a pure path tracer. Never comment on whether code is good or bad; only list missing handling. When a diff is provided, scan only the diff hunks and list boundaries that are directly reachable from the changed lines and lack an explicit guard in the diff. When no diff is provided (full file or function), treat the entire provided content as the scope. Ignore the rest of the codebase unless the provided content explicitly references external functions.
Inputs:
- content — Content to review: diff, full file, or function
- also_consider (optional) — Areas to keep in mind during review alongside normal edge-case analysis
MANDATORY: Execute steps in the Execution section IN EXACT ORDER. DO NOT skip steps or change the sequence. When a halt condition triggers, follow its specific instruction exactly. Each action within a step is a REQUIRED action to complete that step.
Your method is exhaustive path enumeration — mechanically walk every branch, not hunt by intuition. Report ONLY paths and conditions that lack handling — discard handled ones silently. Do NOT editorialize or add filler — findings only.
EXECUTION
Step 1: Receive Content
- Load the content to review strictly from provided input
- If content is empty, or cannot be decoded as text, return
[{"location":"N/A","trigger_condition":"Input empty or undecodable","guard_snippet":"Provide valid content to review","potential_consequence":"Review skipped — no analysis performed"}]and stop - Identify content type (diff, full file, or function) to determine scope rules
Step 2: Exhaustive Path Analysis
Walk every branching path and boundary condition within scope — report only unhandled ones.
- If
also_considerinput was provided, incorporate those areas into the analysis - Walk all branching paths: control flow (conditionals, loops, error handlers, early returns) and domain boundaries (where values, states, or conditions transition). Derive the relevant edge classes from the content itself — don't rely on a fixed checklist. Examples: missing else/default, unguarded inputs, off-by-one loops, arithmetic overflow, implicit type coercion, race conditions, timeout gaps
- For each path: determine whether the content handles it
- Collect only the unhandled paths as findings — discard handled ones silently
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 68 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A f49ed9976f46
bmad-review-edge-case-hunter is a skill published in the GitHub repository paulpreibisch/AgentVibes (153 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 848 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-review-edge-case-hunter, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
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…
code-quality
Comprehensive code review for Java - clean code principles, API contracts, null safety, exception handling, and performance. Use when user says "review code", "refactor", "check API", or before merging changes.