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 coderabbitgit 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/coderabbit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/coderabbit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/coderabbit/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/coderabbit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/roedyrustam/vibes-plug/coderabbit.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 | $0.00038 | $0.02051 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00820 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00410 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00205 |
Grade A, and why
coderabbit 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 — 200 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
CodeRabbit (2026 Edition — CodeRabbit 2.x)
English
Orchestration & Integration
Connects and orchestrates with relevant domain skills like anti-slop, brainstorming, zero-to-prod-orchestrator, and session-memory-manager to ensure cohesive execution.
Description
Expert guide for configuring and leveraging CodeRabbit 2.x — AI-powered automated code review, pull request summarization, and interactive developer feedback. Covers configuration, custom review rules, integration with CI/CD, and agentic review mode.
Trigger Conditions
- Setting up CodeRabbit on a GitHub or GitLab repository.
- Configuring custom review rules for your tech stack.
- Using CodeRabbit's agentic mode for deep architectural reviews.
- Integrating CodeRabbit feedback into CI/CD quality gates.
- Writing CodeRabbit-compatible custom instructions in
.coderabbit.yaml.
CodeRabbit 2.x Key Features
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| PR Summary | Auto-generates structured PR description with walkthrough |
| Line-by-line Review | Inline comments with specific fix suggestions |
| Agentic Review | Deep analysis spanning multiple files for architectural issues |
| Learnable Rules | Learns from review dismissals and approvals over time |
| CI Integration | Blocks PR merge if critical issues found |
| Chat Mode | Ask CodeRabbit questions about the PR in review thread |
Configuration (.coderabbit.yaml)
# .coderabbit.yaml — place in repository root
version: "2"
language: "en-US"
tone_instructions: "Be concise and direct. Prioritize security and performance issues."
reviews:
auto_review:
enabled: true
drafts: false # Don't review draft PRs
base_branches: ["main", "develop"]
profile: "chill" # assertive | chill | default
request_changes_workflow: false
high_level_summary: true
commit_message_instructions: "Use Conventional Commits format: feat/fix/chore/docs"
# Ignore paths from review
path_filters:
- "!**/*.lock"
- "!**/migrations/**"
- "!**/generated/**"
- "!**/__snapshots__/**"
# Stack-specific review instructions
path_instructions:
- path: "apps/api/**"
instructions: |
- Check for missing input validation (Zod schemas required on all handlers)
- Flag any database queries without proper RLS consideration
- Ensure all async functions have try/catch or error boundaries
- Check for N+1 query patterns (missing .include() or DataLoader usage)
- path: "apps/web/**"
instructions: |
- Check for missing `key` props in .map() renders
- Flag `useEffect` without proper cleanup functions
- Check for missing `alt` attributes on images
- Verify Server Actions are properly validated with Zod
- path: "apps/admin/**"
instructions: |
- All admin routes must verify isSuperAdmin === true
- Flag any direct DB access without service role client
- Check for proper audit logging on destructive operations
# Custom review rules for the entire codebase
instructions: |
Review with these priorities:
1. SECURITY: SQL injection, XSS, auth bypass, exposed secrets
2. CORRECTNESS: Logic bugs, off-by-one errors, type unsafety
3. PERFORMANCE: N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, bundle size
4. MAINTAINABILITY: Code duplication, naming, SOLID violations
5. STYLE: Only comment if it's a significant clarity issue
6. SOVEREIGN ANTI-SLOP: Flag placeholders (// TODO, // ...), mock data in prod, syntax comments, and silent error suppression
# PR summary format
summary:
auto_title_placeholder: "🤖 AI Title"
description: |-
## Summary
<!-- Concise description of what changed -->
## Changes
<!-- Structured list by area -->
## Testing
<!-- What was tested -->
# Enable chat for interactive Q&A
chat:
auto_reply: true
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 ac4225f9f8a1
- 9d ago Changed 0b243880f7fd
- 14d ago Changed b8e6379a3e5d
- 15d ago Changed eb447c7e80e4
- 17d ago Changed · -5 lines · +30 tokens per session c2b97969ef59
- 19d ago Changed · +6 lines · -30 tokens per session f48a7ed3465b
- 1mo ago Changed 7c3e2c61f599
- 1mo ago Changed c612db5508c6
- 1mo ago First seen · 199 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 6546a3927d14
coderabbit is a skill published in the GitHub repository roedyrustam/vibes-plug (77 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,051 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-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.
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…
code-review-and-quality
A code-review guide for checking changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before they are merged.