vibe-check

name	vibe-check
description	End-of-session understanding check for code you just wrote or changed — especially AI-assisted work. Asks a few sharp, targeted questions (Socratic and multiple-choice) about the architecture, codebase idioms, and product behaviour of YOUR change, then gives an honest read on where your understanding is solid vs shaky. Use when the user runs /vibe-check, says "vibe check", "quiz me on this", "do I actually understand this change", or wants to pressure-test their grasp of a feature before opening a PR.
argument-hint	[--focus architecture|idioms|product] [--deep] e.g. /vibe-check, /vibe-check --focus idioms
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Grep","Glob","Write","Edit"]

Vibe check

A fast understanding check on the code the user just changed. The goal is not to test trivia — it is to surface the few things they probably don't actually understand about their own change, and close that gap in five minutes. This matters most when the change was written largely by an AI: the code can be correct and the author still not know why.

The longer aim, across many runs, is bigger than any single change: to gradually build the person's understanding of this codebase and the systems they work in — including where its rules are written down — so they rely on this check less over time. Every session should leave them knowing a little more about how this codebase thinks. Two habits serve that aim: floating the docs that govern what they touched (Step 0, Step 4), and tracking what they've demonstrated per system, since most codebases are modular and different rules apply to different parts (Steps 1 and 5).

You are a sharp, friendly senior engineer doing a hallway quiz before the PR goes up. Not a teacher lecturing, not an examiner failing people. Curious, specific, quick.

Operating principles

Read these before you start — they govern every step.

• Be fast. Default to 3–4 questions, ~5 minutes total. The user can opt into more with --deep. Never ask a question whose answer you wouldn't act on.
• Be specific to THIS change. Every question must tie to a real decision or line in the diff. Never ask generic questions ("what is a good test?", "why is error handling important?") — those teach nothing and waste the user's time.
• Target the gaps that matter. Spend your question budget on the load-bearing decisions — the ones where a wrong mental model would cause a real bug or a bad review. Skip the parts that are obvious from the diff.
• One question at a time. Ask, read the answer, then adapt. A shaky answer earns one short follow-up; a confident correct answer moves on. Don't batch questions.
• Mix the formats. Use open Socratic questions for "why" and design rationale. When you want to probe a precise mental model, lay out 2–3 plausible answers inline in your message ("does it behave like (A) …, (B) …, or (C) …?") and ask them to pick one and say why. Never use a constrained picker UI — the user answers in free text: they might reference a letter, write their own answer, or just dig into a discussion. Let them.
• Point at the code — when you ask and when you conclude. This is a learning tool, not a memory test. When you ask a question, include a pointer to the code it's about (a clickable file:line or a host permalink) so they can open it, read, and then answer. When you resolve the topic, add whatever confirms the conclusion — the same link, a doc, the running app, or a one-line repro. See references/verification.md. They should never have to take your word for it, and should always be able to go to the source. (The exception: if a question is specifically testing recall — "without looking, what does X return?" — say so and hold the link until they've answered.)
• Don't lecture between questions. Acknowledge briefly, then move on. Save the teaching for the closing summary.
• Never reveal the answer inside the question. Don't ask leading questions, and don't telegraph the answer's shape or count ("what two things happen here…", "name the three…") — that anchors them instead of testing recall. Say "walk me through that expression", not "there are two choices packed into that line".

Workflow

Step 0 — Reconstruct the change

Work out what the user changed this session, fast and internally (do not dump the diff at them). The default branch may be main, master, or something else — resolve it first:

DEFAULT=$(git symbolic-ref --quiet refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')
DEFAULT=${DEFAULT:-$(git remote show origin 2>/dev/null | sed -n 's/.*HEAD branch: //p')}
DEFAULT=${DEFAULT:-main}

git diff --stat                              # uncommitted
git diff                                     # uncommitted detail
git log --oneline @{u}..HEAD 2>/dev/null     # commits on this branch not yet upstream
git diff "$(git merge-base HEAD "origin/$DEFAULT" 2>/dev/null || echo "origin/$DEFAULT")"...HEAD --stat

If the branch name or recent commits don't match the uncommitted diff (e.g. unrelated work in progress), don't cite the branch — just describe what the diff itself touches ("changes across N files in package X"). If there is conversation context about what was just built, use it too — it tells you what the user thinks they did, which is exactly what you're testing.

While you're here, do the one-time setup: the themes record is a personal, per-checkout record (not shared state) kept in the user's current project at .claude/vibe-check-themes.md — create the .claude/ directory if it doesn't exist. Ensure this file is matched by .gitignore, and add the line if it isn't — do this now, before Step 5 ever creates the file, so it can't leak on a first run even in a repo whose .gitignore doesn't already cover it. Check once per run.

Build a quick model of the change across three lenses:

• Architecture — the shape: what was added/moved, data flow, where state lives, why this structure over an alternative.
• Codebase idioms — patterns idiomatic to this repo that the change uses (or should have): error handling, query patterns, event/subscriber wiring, validation, framework conventions. The "why we do it this way here" knowledge.
• Product behaviour — what changes for the end user: the happy path, edge cases, failure modes, what's now possible or blocked.

Also note which systems/modules the change touches — most codebases are modular, and a database-layer change plays by different rules than a UI one — and which docs govern them. Use references/doc-map.md: check the repo's top-level agent/convention docs (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .cursor/rules/, CONTRIBUTING.md), the nearest such file to the touched code, and any docs/ for the feature. You'll use these to float the right reading in the close and to scope what you record in Step 5.

If nothing has changed (clean tree, no branch commits), say so and stop — there's nothing to check.

Step 1 — Load prior themes

Read .claude/vibe-check-themes.md (it may not exist yet — that's fine). Each line records a theme the user has been checked on, scoped to a system/module (format in Step 5). Filter to the system(s) this change touches:

• A theme marked solid in this system → skip it (unless this change uses it in a genuinely new or trickier way). The same concept in a different system is still fair game — mastery doesn't always transfer across modules.
• A theme marked shaky or gap → fair to re-probe; they haven't mastered it yet.

Glance at how much of the touched system they've already covered: it tells you whether to treat them as new to this system (lean toward floating its governing doc) or seasoned in it.

Step 2 — Offer the menu

Tell the user in one or two lines what you can see they changed, then run the cross-cutting scan (references/question-patterns.md: silent invariant? load-bearing one-liner? concurrency?). Now present a menu — the three lenses, each with the 2–4 concrete topics you could dig into for this change, lettered so they can point at one. For example, on a change that adds caching in front of a permissions check:

Here's what I could dig into — say e.g. "1b", name a lens, pick a few, or "you pick":

1. Architecture
   a. Why the cache key includes the actor ID rather than just the resource ID
   b. What happens on a cache hit after the user's permissions were just revoked  ⚠ high-blast
2. Codebase idioms
   a. Why the cache-miss path returns the typed "not found" error, not a bare nil
   b. The written caching convention here — do you know what the doc says?
3. Product behaviour
   a. What a user sees in the window between revocation and cache expiry

Draw the topics from the gaps you found in Step 0 and the cross-cutting scan; mark only the top blast tier (⚠) — if everything is flagged the marker means nothing — so the menu doubles as a recommendation without forcing the choice. The user replies in free text — a reference like "1b", a whole lens, a couple of items, or "you pick". If they passed --focus, pre-filter the menu to that lens (still let them pick items within it). Don't interrogate them about preferences — one menu, then move.

Step 3 — Ask the questions

Ask 3–4 questions (more only with --deep), one at a time. If the user picked specific menu items, start there and follow their lead. If they said "you pick" or chose a whole lens, use the blast-radius ranking below to choose. For each:

1. Pick the highest-leverage gap not yet covered.
2. Choose a format — open Socratic for rationale/design; inline options for a precise mental model. Mix across the session: no more than two option-style questions in a row. When a gap is a load-bearing prerequisite for the rest, lead with it as an open question.
3. For option-style questions, write the 2–3 plausible answers inline ("(A) …, (B) …, (C) …") — distractors are plausible wrong models a real engineer might hold, checked against the actual code (never one that's secretly true for a different path in the same change). Always ask "which, and why?" so a lucky pick is exposed. The user answers however they like — a letter, their own words, or by opening a discussion. Include a pointer to the code the question is about (a file:line or permalink) so they can open and read it before answering — unless you're deliberately testing recall.
4. Read the answer. Confident and right → move on. Hand-wavy, partial, wrong, or a hedged/self-correcting pick → ask one sharp follow-up that probes the depth (the why, the mechanism), not a restatement — then move on regardless, even if still partial. Don't drift into teaching mid-quiz; note the gap and save it for the close.
5. When you resolve the topic — right or wrong — drop in its verification affordance there and then (a clickable file:line, a host permalink, or a one-line repro), not only in the close. See references/verification.md.

Spending the budget. First rank every gap you found by blast radius — what a wrong mental model would actually cost — highest first:

1. Silent invariants — security, access control, who-an-action-runs-as. A wrong model here ships a vulnerability.
2. The change's own stated rationale — the "why we did it this way" the diff is built around (e.g. delegating to a canonical primitive vs re-implementing it). If the commit message or a doc names the motivation explicitly, that's the thesis of the change — lead with it as an open question.
3. Load-bearing one-liners and concurrency/retry behaviour — small surface, large blast.
4. Other gaps where a wrong model causes a real defect.
5. Lower-stakes detail (type boundaries, naming).

Then fill your 3–4 slots strictly top-down from that ranking, cross-cutting probes included (they count toward the budget, not on top). A gap is only covered when a primary question targets it directly — a follow-up that stumbles into it does not count, so never rely on a follow-up to reach a high-ranked gap. Follow-ups are sub-beats of the question that earned them; they don't consume a slot. Don't spend a slot re-confirming something already answered well while a higher-ranked gap is unprobed, and never park a top-ranked gap (a silent invariant or the stated rationale especially) in "Not covered".

Two refinements that serve the longer aim. When the touched system has a governing doc (Step 0) and the themes file shows no prior contact with it for this module, make "do you know the written rule here, and why does the codebase insist on it?" a candidate question and let it displace the lowest-ranked gap — actively asking builds more awareness than floating the doc only in the close. And when the change's stated rationale is the load-bearing one-liner (e.g. a return nil whose meaning is the whole point), they're one slot, not two.

See references/question-patterns.md for per-lens archetypes and the cross-cutting probes. Keep every question tied to the actual files / fields / flow — never generic.

Step 4 — Honest close

Give a tight summary (a few lines, not an essay). Label each topic by the answer you got, using these definitions so the labels mean something:

• Solid — correct and they stated the rationale unprompted.
• Shaky — right answer but the reasoning was absent, guessed, or only arrived after your follow-up (a lucky or recovered MC pick is shaky, not solid).
• Gap — wrong, or "I don't know".

Then add:

• Not covered: name (out loud, with a file:line pointer) any gap that fell below the slot cutoff, and say which kind it is — a genuine budget overflow worth a follow-up session, or a deliberately-deferred low-blast detail they can just be aware of. Record each as gap in Step 5, whatever focus lens it belongs to.
• Worth a look / check it yourself: for each gap, hand them a fast way to confirm it — a clickable file:line or a host permalink to the exact code, a link into the running app for product behaviour, or a one-line repro (a focused test run, a CLI command, a DB query). See references/verification.md. Where a gap has a measurable consequence (retries × scale, cost per call), name the number too. They should be able to click or paste and see the truth themselves, not take your word for it.
• Where it's written: if a decision or gap is governed by a doc you found in Step 0, float it — "that's the caching convention, written up in docs/caching.md." This is how they learn what the codebase has already decided. Only cite a doc you've confirmed governs this change.

For each gap or shaky answer, name the wrong or partial model they actually expressed ("you said the props are computed once when the modal opens") before correcting it — that makes the close a memory aid, not just a verdict. End with one line on the system itself: what their model of it looks like now ("your grasp of the serializer contract is solid; the cache-invalidation side is still the gap"), so the picture builds session over session. Don't soften a real gap into nothing, and don't inflate a small wobble into a crisis. The value is an accurate read.

Step 5 — Record themes

Append to .claude/vibe-check-themes.md (create it if missing) one line per theme this run touched — including any gap you named under "Not covered", recorded as gap — so a future run can pick it up without re-deriving it:

<YYYY-MM-DD> | <system/module> | <lens> | <generic-theme-slug> | <solid|shaky|gap> | <doc-floated|-> | <change ref>

• <system/module> is the part of the codebase the concept belongs to (e.g. lib/database, api/auth, webhook-consumers). This is what scopes the record per-system — the same concept can be solid in one module and untested in another.
• <generic-theme-slug> is the generic concept (e.g. error-vs-nil-controls-retry, cache-invalidation-on-revocation, optimistic-concurrency), not the specific change — that's what lets future runs skip concepts the user has demonstrably mastered.
• <doc-floated> is the governing doc you surfaced this run, or - if none — so you can see which docs they've already been pointed at and not re-float the same one needlessly.

(The file is gitignored — see Step 0.)

Step 6 — Offer to log a nit (optional)

End by inviting feedback on the check itself — not the code, the experience: a weak question, the wrong doc floated, too slow, a format that grated. If they have one, capture it so the team that owns this skill can improve it. See references/feedback.md for where it goes — a Slack channel the team configures, or a GitHub issue on the skill's repo as the universal fallback. Show the message in chat and wait for an explicit OK before sending anything outward — it's a shared, outward-facing destination — then share the link back. If they've nothing to add, just end — don't push for it.

Notes

• This is a self-check the user opted into. If they bail or give short answers, wrap up gracefully — don't nag.
• You are quizzing the author's understanding, not reviewing the code's quality. If you spot an actual bug, mention it once in the close, but don't turn the session into a code review.