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 pe-menezes/vibeflow --skill statsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pe-menezes/vibeflowWrote 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/pe-menezes/vibeflow/stats)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pe-menezes/vibeflow/stats"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pe-menezes/vibeflow/stats/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/pe-menezes/vibeflow/stats"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pe-menezes/vibeflow/stats.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 | $0.00055 | $0.00629 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00252 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
stats 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- stats — 95% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Description and examples
What it does: Scans .vibeflow/audits/, aggregates verdicts (PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL), which patterns are most often violated, and which DoD checks fail most. Output is in the chat only (no file). Use after you have at least a few audits.
Examples:
stats— No arguments; reports summary of all audits in.vibeflow/audits/.
Language
Detect the language of the user's conversation context. Write ALL output in that same language. Technical terms in English are acceptable regardless of the detected language.
Compile and report statistics from audit reports.
Steps
-
Read every
.mdfile in.vibeflow/audits/. If there are none, report "No audits found. Runauditafter implementing a feature." and stop. -
From each audit take the verdict (the
**Verdict:**line), the[x]/[ ]counts under### DoD Checklist, the patterns marked[ ]under### Pattern Compliance, and the items under### Convention Violations. A file in a different shape contributes what it can, noted as "Non-standard format detected in ." -
Report in the chat in ~20-30 lines, in this format — this command writes nothing to disk. Skip Trend with fewer than 3 audits; when no pattern was violated, write "No pattern violations."
## Vibeflow Stats
**Audits analyzed:** N
### Verdicts
- PASS: N (X%)
- PARTIAL: N (X%)
- FAIL: N (X%)
### DoD
- Total checks: N
- Pass rate: X%
- Most failing checks:
1. "<check description>" — failed N times
2. "<check description>" — failed N times
3. "<check description>" — failed N times
### Patterns
- Most violated patterns:
1. <pattern name> — N violations
2. <pattern name> — N violations
3. <pattern name> — N violations
### Convention Violations
- Total: N violations across N audits
- Most common: <list top 3 if available>
### Trend
<If ≥3 audits exist, note if quality is improving (more PASS over time),
stable, or degrading. Base on chronological order of audit dates.>
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 Changed e4e63137a4b7
- 1mo ago First seen · 82 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 7de1dedab226
stats is a skill published in the GitHub repository pe-menezes/vibeflow (32 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 629 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
code-review-csharp
Perform structured code reviews of C# source code covering naming conventions, performance, security, readability, and .NET best practices. Trigger phrases include "review this C# code", "check my C# for best practices", "analyze this C# class", "find issues in my C# code".
megalinter-check
Collect MegaLinter lint errors for the current repository. Use when the user wants to know if the code passes linting, why the MegaLinter CI job fails, or before/after fixing lint errors. Two modes - watch a CI job (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Azure Pipelines, Bitbucket Pipelines) and parse its logs, or run MegaLinter…
assistant
Assistant — on any repo, scan README→docs→AGENTS→CONTRIBUTING→PR templates→task runners→devcontainer→CI→configs before code; cite sources; prefer AGENTS.md for agent behavior; portable across Cursor/Copilot/Claude; use agent-toolkit CLI when needed.
design-improvement
WHAT - Browser-grounded iterative design improvement. Consumes design-assessment findings, defines direction, prioritizes safe vs ambiguous changes, implements within existing design system, runs app, captures rendered evidence via browser, reviews and iterates. Reuses evidence model — no new scoring framework.
codeql
CodeQL operational workflow — discover/config, run/inspect, triage SARIF findings (rule/query ID, source→sink, evidence), remediate, re-validate. Distinguishes broad MegaLinter linting from semantic security analysis.
confluence-permission
Manage space and page permissions and restrictions. ALWAYS use when user wants to control access, set restrictions, or manage who can view/edit content.