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 roedyrustam/vibes-plug --skill ai-code-review-autonomousgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/roedyrustam/vibes-plugWrote 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/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/ai-code-review-autonomous)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/ai-code-review-autonomous"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/ai-code-review-autonomous/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/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/ai-code-review-autonomous"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/ai-code-review-autonomous.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 | $0.00105 | $0.02539 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.01016 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00508 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00254 |
Grade A, and why
ai-code-review-autonomous 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ai-code-review-autonomous — vibes-plug Skill
English
Orchestration & Integration
- Anti-Slop & Quality Gates:
anti-slop,coderabbit,zero-tech-debt-auditor - TDD & Automated Debugging:
autonomous-tdd-debugger,property-mutation-testing-expert,formal-spec-z3-verifier - Security & Red Teaming:
autonomous-red-teamer,prompt-injection-firewall - Architecture & Clean Code:
scalability-clean-code,living-codebase-ast-graph,typescript-expert - Lifecycle & Governance:
brainstorming,zero-to-prod-orchestrator,production-ready-hardener
Description
A structured multi-pass self-review protocol that the AI agent executes on its own generated code before presenting it to the user. Each pass focuses on a distinct quality dimension — syntax correctness, business logic validation, architectural conformance, security vulnerabilities, and performance characteristics. This eliminates the most common AI code generation failure: confidently presenting broken or insecure code because the model never re-read what it wrote.
Trigger Conditions
Activate this skill when:
- Generating any code that will be written to files (not just shown in conversation).
- Making changes to critical paths: authentication, payment, data mutation, or API endpoints.
- Producing code that spans multiple files or requires cross-file consistency.
- The generated code exceeds 50 lines and involves non-trivial logic.
- Before finalizing any PR-ready code or phase completion in
zero-to-prod-orchestrator.
Core Concepts & Patterns
1. The 5-Pass Self-Review Protocol
GENERATED CODE
│
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ PASS 1: SYNTAX │ Does this code compile/parse without errors?
│ │ - Type correctness (TypeScript strict mode)
│ │ - Import resolution (no phantom imports)
│ │ - JSX/HTML well-formedness
│ │ - Missing semicolons, brackets, parentheses
└──────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ PASS 2: LOGIC │ Does this code do what it's supposed to do?
│ │ - Edge cases (null, empty, boundary values)
│ │ - Off-by-one errors in loops/slicing
│ │ - Async/await correctness (missing awaits)
│ │ - State mutation side effects
│ │ - Race conditions in concurrent code
└──────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ PASS 3: ARCH │ Does this code fit the project's architecture?
│ │ - Follows established patterns (DDD, MVC, etc.)
│ │ - Uses existing utility functions, not duplicates
│ │ - Respects separation of concerns
│ │ - Consistent with existing naming conventions
│ │ - No circular dependencies introduced
└──────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ PASS 4: SECURITY │ Is this code safe in production?
│ │ - SQL injection (parameterized queries?)
│ │ - XSS (user input sanitized before render?)
│ │ - Auth bypass (route protection verified?)
│ │ - Secret exposure (no hardcoded keys/tokens)
│ │ - IDOR (authorization checked per resource?)
└──────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ PASS 5: PERF │ Will this code perform at scale?
│ │ - N+1 query patterns in ORM calls
│ │ - Unbounded array/list operations
│ │ - Missing pagination on list endpoints
│ │ - Memory leaks (unclosed streams, listeners)
│ │ - Unnecessary re-renders in React components
└──────┬───────────┘
│
▼
REVIEWED CODE → Present to User
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 · -21 lines d60b96b83f27
- yesterday Changed · +1 lines 0448f960b725
- 4d ago Changed 66b7f4cce267
- 13d ago Changed 89f2d238f1d5
- 18d ago First seen · 244 lines · 105 tokens per session scan A 9ed4a5b65084
ai-code-review-autonomous is a skill published in the GitHub repository roedyrustam/vibes-plug (111 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 105 tokens to every session and 2,539 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-04.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted…
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
code-review
Structured code review focusing on correctness, security, and maintainability. Correctness before style. Every reviewer comment must be actionable.
the-judge
Evidence-first pull request judge that reviews a PR and posts one consolidated GitHub review with inline comments via the gh CLI. Runs the repo's own deterministic checks first, researches current official docs before any claim about external libraries or APIs, then reviews correctness, security, structural quality…
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities". Do NOT use for accessibility (use web-accessibility), SEO (use seo), performance (use…