{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-vibe-check","slug":"vibe-check","name":"Vibe Check","type":"mcp","url":"https://github.com/PV-Bhat/vibe-check-mcp-server","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/vibe-check","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-vibe-check__cap_0","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.alignment.verification.via.agent.based.vibe.checking","name":"alignment verification via agent-based vibe checking","description":"Implements an MCP server that spawns a dedicated 'vibe-check' agent to validate project alignment before code changes are committed. The agent analyzes proposed changes against project context, requirements, and scope boundaries using a separate LLM invocation, returning a structured assessment of whether the change maintains coherence with existing architecture and goals. This prevents cascading errors by catching scope creep and misalignment at the planning stage rather than post-implementation.","intents":["I want to validate that my code changes align with the project's original scope before implementing them","I need to catch scope creep early by having an independent agent review my proposed changes","I want to prevent cascading errors caused by misaligned architectural decisions"],"best_for":["Teams using Claude or other LLM-based development workflows","Solo developers building complex multi-module projects who need sanity checks","Organizations adopting MCP-based development tools and wanting alignment guardrails"],"limitations":["Requires a second LLM invocation per vibe check, adding latency and token cost","Vibe check quality depends entirely on the clarity of project context provided to the agent","No built-in learning from previous vibe checks — each check is independent","Cannot enforce hard constraints; only provides advisory feedback that developers can ignore"],"requires":["MCP client implementation (e.g., Claude Desktop, Cline, or custom MCP host)","LLM API access (OpenAI, Anthropic, or compatible provider)","Project context/documentation accessible to the vibe-check agent"],"input_types":["text (proposed code changes, commit messages, feature descriptions)","structured metadata (project scope, architecture documentation, requirements)"],"output_types":["structured assessment (alignment score, risk flags, specific concerns)","text (human-readable vibe check report with recommendations)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-vibe-check__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.server.based.tool.integration.for.development.workflows","name":"mcp server-based tool integration for development workflows","description":"Exposes vibe-checking functionality as an MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, allowing any MCP-compatible client (Claude, Cline, custom agents) to invoke alignment checks as a tool. The server implements the MCP tool-calling interface, accepting structured requests and returning results that integrate seamlessly into multi-step agent workflows. This enables vibe checks to be composed into larger development pipelines without custom integration code.","intents":["I want to integrate alignment checking into my existing MCP-based development environment","I need vibe checks to be callable as a tool from my LLM agent without custom wrappers","I want to compose vibe checks into multi-step workflows alongside code generation and testing"],"best_for":["Developers using MCP-compatible tools (Claude Desktop, Cline, custom MCP hosts)","Teams building multi-agent development systems that need composable validation tools","Organizations standardizing on MCP for LLM tool integration"],"limitations":["Requires MCP client support — not compatible with non-MCP LLM interfaces","MCP protocol overhead adds ~50-100ms per tool invocation","No built-in persistence of vibe check history across sessions","Tool results depend on the client's ability to pass rich context to the server"],"requires":["MCP-compatible client (Claude Desktop, Cline, or custom MCP host)","Node.js runtime (inferred from GitHub repo structure)","Network connectivity between MCP client and server"],"input_types":["structured tool call with parameters (change description, project context, scope boundaries)"],"output_types":["structured tool result (JSON with alignment assessment, risk flags, recommendations)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-vibe-check__cap_2","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.scope.creep.detection.through.change.context.analysis","name":"scope creep detection through change-context analysis","description":"Analyzes proposed code changes against the declared project scope by comparing the change description, affected modules, and new dependencies against the original project boundaries. The vibe-check agent identifies when changes introduce new concerns, expand the feature set beyond scope, or add architectural complexity that wasn't planned. Detection works by having the agent reason about scope boundaries and flag deviations without requiring explicit scope configuration.","intents":["I want to detect when my changes are drifting beyond the original project scope","I need to identify when a feature request is expanding into multiple unplanned areas","I want to catch architectural bloat before it compounds across multiple commits"],"best_for":["Project leads managing scope on mid-to-large codebases","Teams practicing strict scope management or working under fixed budgets","Developers working on well-defined, bounded projects where scope creep is a known risk"],"limitations":["Scope detection is heuristic-based and depends on the clarity of the original scope statement","Cannot detect scope creep in implicit requirements or undocumented project boundaries","False positives possible if scope documentation is vague or outdated","Requires the developer to provide accurate change descriptions for analysis"],"requires":["Clear project scope documentation or statement","Developer-provided description of proposed changes","LLM with reasoning capability (GPT-4, Claude 3+, or equivalent)"],"input_types":["text (project scope statement, change description, list of affected modules)"],"output_types":["structured assessment (scope deviation flags, risk level, specific areas of concern)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-vibe-check__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.cascading.error.prevention.through.pre.commit.validation","name":"cascading error prevention through pre-commit validation","description":"Intercepts proposed changes before implementation and validates them against project state to prevent errors from propagating downstream. By running vibe checks at the planning stage (before code is written), the system catches misalignments early when they are cheap to fix, rather than discovering them after implementation when they cascade into dependent modules. The validation happens asynchronously via the MCP server, allowing developers to iterate on alignment before committing.","intents":["I want to catch alignment issues before I write code, not after","I need to prevent my changes from breaking downstream assumptions in other modules","I want to validate my architectural decisions before implementing them"],"best_for":["Teams with complex interdependent modules where changes easily cascade","Projects with high technical debt where early error detection is critical","Developers working on shared codebases where misalignment affects teammates"],"limitations":["Requires developers to invoke vibe checks proactively — not automatic","Cannot prevent errors in code that is already committed; only validates before implementation","Effectiveness depends on the quality of project documentation available to the agent","Does not replace code review or testing; only provides early-stage validation"],"requires":["Developer discipline to run vibe checks before implementation","MCP client integration in the development workflow","Project documentation describing architecture and dependencies"],"input_types":["text (proposed change description, affected components, new dependencies)"],"output_types":["structured validation result (pass/fail, risk assessment, specific concerns)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-vibe-check__cap_4","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.agent.based.architectural.coherence.assessment","name":"agent-based architectural coherence assessment","description":"Deploys an independent LLM agent to evaluate whether proposed changes maintain architectural coherence with the existing codebase. The agent analyzes the change against documented architecture patterns, module boundaries, dependency graphs, and design principles, producing a structured assessment of architectural alignment. This works by having the vibe-check agent reason about architectural patterns and flag violations or inconsistencies without requiring explicit architectural rules.","intents":["I want to ensure my changes follow the project's architectural patterns","I need to validate that I'm not introducing architectural inconsistencies","I want an independent assessment of whether my design decisions align with the codebase"],"best_for":["Architects and senior developers managing codebase coherence","Teams with well-defined architectural patterns that need enforcement","Projects where architectural consistency is critical (financial systems, infrastructure, etc.)"],"limitations":["Architectural assessment is subjective and depends on the agent's interpretation of patterns","Requires comprehensive architectural documentation for accurate assessment","Cannot enforce hard architectural constraints; only provides advisory feedback","May produce false positives if architectural patterns are implicit rather than documented"],"requires":["Documented architectural patterns and design principles","Clear description of proposed changes and their architectural implications","LLM with strong reasoning capability"],"input_types":["text (architectural documentation, change description, affected modules)"],"output_types":["structured assessment (coherence score, pattern violations, recommendations)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":31,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["MCP client implementation (e.g., Claude Desktop, Cline, or custom MCP host)","LLM API access (OpenAI, Anthropic, or compatible provider)","Project context/documentation accessible to the vibe-check agent","MCP-compatible client (Claude Desktop, Cline, or custom MCP host)","Node.js runtime (inferred from GitHub repo structure)","Network connectivity between MCP client and server","Clear project scope documentation or statement","Developer-provided description of proposed changes","LLM with reasoning capability (GPT-4, Claude 3+, or equivalent)","Developer discipline to run vibe checks before implementation"],"failure_modes":["Requires a second LLM invocation per vibe check, adding latency and token cost","Vibe check quality depends entirely on the clarity of project context provided to the agent","No built-in learning from previous vibe checks — each check is independent","Cannot enforce hard constraints; only provides advisory feedback that developers can ignore","Requires MCP client support — not compatible with non-MCP LLM interfaces","MCP protocol overhead adds ~50-100ms per tool invocation","No built-in persistence of vibe check history across sessions","Tool results depend on the client's ability to pass rich context to the server","Scope detection is heuristic-based and depends on the clarity of the original scope statement","Cannot detect scope creep in implicit requirements or undocumented project boundaries","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.35,"ecosystem":0.3,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.9,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:21.013Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:15.503Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=vibe-check","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=vibe-check"}},"signature":"1dfi6uvm4PSk0Zmjr5Tkv9L6+uYEARpofwh83fIHeafOUSr3KniIhIbv4EBxGv+SxqSbsuPfB48d1juHOwJDAQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-15T17:50:53.165Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/vibe-check","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/vibe-check","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=vibe-check","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}