vibe
Skill5 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user wants a DX and UX review of the planned workflow before implementation proceeds.
19 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- timurgaleev/vibestacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- kexi/vibe-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- pmatos/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ubmids/vibetheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- mistralai/mistral-vibetheir own version, first seen Oct 19, 2026
Other versions19 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- JustineDevs/premortem★ 2100% same
Wrote their own version · 18
- mistralai/mistral-vibe★ 5.3ksame name
- foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills★ 3.8ksame name
- pcx-wave/vibe-skill★ 118same name
- geeks-accelerator/in-bed-ai★ 26same name
- kennethleungty/claude-music★ 23same name
- rizukirr/vibekit★ 20same name
- th3vib3coder/vibe-science★ 16same name
- timurgaleev/vibestack★ 8same name
- Ally-for-Hire/Github-Vibe-Skill★ 2same name
- kiril6/vibeaudio★ 2same name
8 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use this skill inside Codex to review whether the system will feel coherent for both operators and end users.
- Distinctive: line 25
Prefer fewer surfaces, fewer steps, and clearer operator outcomes.
- Distinctive: line 32
Check terminology, feedback, loading states, keyboard access, responsive behavior, and documentation continuity.
- Distinctive: line 46
Every friction point explains who is affected and where it occurs.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Vibe
Use this skill inside Codex to review whether the system will feel coherent for both operators and end users.
Output
Produce:
decision,status,evidence,blockers,next_allowed_triggers- developer workflow risks
- user workflow risks
- operator friction and user friction
- complexity hotspots
- onboarding or operability friction
- simplifications that improve clarity
- exact next trigger, usually
$build
Rules
- Focus on concrete friction, not aesthetics-only feedback.
- Prefer fewer surfaces, fewer steps, and clearer operator outcomes.
- Preserve the architecture and security constraints established earlier in the flow.
Procedure
- Walk the complete user journey from discovery through setup, first success, failure, and recovery.
- Identify ambiguity, waiting, duplicated input, hidden state, and unsafe defaults.
- Check terminology, feedback, loading states, keyboard access, responsive behavior, and documentation continuity.
- Recommend the fewest changes that materially improve completion and confidence.
- Hand a prioritized, testable implementation slice to
$build.
Default evidence dossier
Use docs/reference/accessibility-and-usability.md
for user-facing web, documentation, plugin, and CLI-adjacent surfaces. Map
material barriers to WCAG 2.2 criteria and name the automated, keyboard,
assistive-technology, and human checks that verify the result. WCAG is an
accessibility baseline, not a complete usability verdict.
Quality bar
- Every friction point explains who is affected and where it occurs.
- Visual polish never hides missing behavior, validation, or recovery.
- Recommendations preserve accessibility and the safety boundaries from
$vet.
Example
For a plugin setup flow, verify that users can understand the MCP URL, scan state, skill import status, policy requirements, and next action without relying on stale or ambiguous status text.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

