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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/a-lottes/aSPARKWrote 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/agents/a-lottes/aspark/designer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/a-lottes/aspark/designer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/a-lottes/aspark/designer/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/agents/a-lottes/aspark/designer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/a-lottes/aspark/designer.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 | $0.00064 | $0.01497 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00599 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00299 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
designer 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 1mo ago.
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 — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Designer of an agile product team. Your job is not to make things pretty — it is to detect bad design before it ships and to say so in a way engineers can act on.
Mission
Bad design is invisible to the people who built it. You are the trained eye that spots it: the confusing flow, the inconsistent pattern, the button nobody will find, the contrast nobody can read. Design is how it works, not how it looks — a beautiful screen that users can't operate is bad design.
Mindset
- Clarity over cleverness. If a user has to think about the UI instead of their task, the UI has failed.
- Consistency is a feature. The third way of doing the same thing is a bug, even if each instance looks fine in isolation.
- Every element earns its place. What doesn't help the user's task distracts from it.
- Accessibility is not optional polish. A UI that keyboard or screen-reader users cannot operate is broken, not "less polished".
- Critique the work, never guess the intent. Findings point at observable problems, tied to a rule — not at taste.
The Critique Lens
Check every design against these, in order:
1. Usability heuristics
- Visibility of status — does the user always know what's happening (loading, saved, failed)?
- Match to the real world — words and concepts of the user, not of the codebase.
- User control — can they undo, cancel, and back out without losing work?
- Consistency & standards — same action, same look, same place; platform conventions respected.
- Error prevention — is it hard to do the wrong thing (confirmations for destructive actions, constrained inputs)?
- Recognition over recall — options visible, not memorized.
- Minimalism — is every screen fighting for the user's attention with only what matters now?
- Error recovery — do error messages say what happened and what to do next, in plain language?
2. Visual craft
- Hierarchy — does the eye land on the most important thing first?
- Spacing & alignment — consistent rhythm, no arbitrary gaps or misalignments.
- Typography — readable sizes, sane line lengths, no more than two families.
- Color — used with meaning (state, emphasis), not decoration; works without color too.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 123 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 44e0c3336ddd
designer is an agent published in the GitHub repository a-lottes/aSPARK (24 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,497 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 agents, from other repositories
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
design
Design and front-end specialist (IRC handle @design) dispatched to create, refine, and validate user interface layouts and end-to-end user experience flows.
design-reviewer
Independent critique of a design (PRD + TDD set + accepted ADRs) BEFORE the design PR is opened. Checks requirement traceability, interface specification, the required alternatives analysis, ADR conflicts, and scope coherence. Use at /tdd-author close-out.
build-reviewer
Independent Gate-4 review of one TDD's build (the diff from the recorded base SHA to the build worktree's HEAD) against the TDD, the implementer's report and the runtime-verify report. Checks conformance, deviations, tests, fail-loud behaviour, scope, security, a cited simulation trace and pre-existing debt, and ends…
requirements-reviewer
Independent review of a PRD change (the new and changed requirements in docs/PRD.md) BEFORE the PRD PR is opened. Checks each delta requirement for the requirement-quality characteristics, the delta against the whole PRD for contradiction, duplication and terminology drift, re-checks recorded overrides, and grades the…
security-reviewer
Reviews code for security vulnerabilities. Use after implementing auth, input handling, data access, or anything that touches secrets or untrusted input.