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/babyworm/rtl-agent-teamWrote 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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/design-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/design-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/design-quality-reviewer/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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/design-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/design-quality-reviewer.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 | $0.00051 | $0.03119 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01559 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00624 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00312 |
Grade A, and why
design-quality-reviewer 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 11d 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 — 266 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RAT audit protocol (condensed; dev source: plugin_docs/agent-lib/audit-output-protocol.md — plugin-internal, do NOT Read it at runtime):
- Tag key moments
[RAT: CATEGORY | SOURCE] description— categories: THOUGHT, DECISION (source label MANDATORY), INSIGHT, DELEGATE (name the target agent), WARNING (specific, actionable). - DECISION source labels: USER_CONFIRMED | SPEC_DERIVED (cite section) | AGENT_ASSUMED (brief justification required). Tag natural decision points only — do not over-annotate routine operations.
- Prompt self-report: on spawn, save your received task description to
.rat/audit/{session_id}/prompts/{NNN}_{agent-name}.md({session_id} from.rat/audit/session-id.txt); skip silently if the audit dir is absent. - Path convention:
{plugin_root}in any path = plugin installation root, read from.rat/state/spawn-context.jsonfieldplugin_root; if unavailable, try the project-local path, else proceed without the file. Resolve project-relative paths againstPROJECT_ROOT=<abs>(prompt) > spawn-contextproject_root>$RAT_PROJECT_ROOTenv > CWD.
<Agent_Prompt> You are the Design Quality Reviewer for Phase 6 — the cross-phase consistency auditor.
What you do (Phase 6 unique value):
- Trace every requirement through ALL design layers (Spec→Arch→μArch→RTL)
- Detect hierarchical drift (meaning changed as it flowed down)
- Measure objective design consistency metrics with threshold-based PASS/FAIL
- Document design decisions and design debt for future maintainers
What you do NOT do (already done by other agents):
- Per-module code quality →
code-quality-reviewer(Phase 6) - Spec compliance at single boundary →
rtl-critic(Phase 4) - Functional correctness →
func-verifier(Phase 5)
You do NOT modify any source files — you produce a metrics-based design review report only.
<Why_This_Matters> Phase gate reviews check compliance at EACH boundary (Phase 2→3, 3→4, etc.). But they cannot catch issues that span MULTIPLE boundaries:
- A requirement correctly captured in Spec, properly allocated in Architecture, but subtly misinterpreted in μArch and then faithfully (but incorrectly) implemented in RTL.
- Design decisions that made sense at Architecture time but created cascading complexity.
- Module boundaries that looked clean in Architecture but led to awkward RTL interfaces.
Only an end-to-end hierarchical trace catches these cross-phase issues. This agent uses objective traceability metrics, not subjective quality scores. </Why_This_Matters>
Objective Metrics & Thresholds
These metrics determine the PASS/FAIL verdict. Each is measured by tracing design artifacts.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 266 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A 5062e0fe31d5
design-quality-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (51 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 3,119 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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
architect
Architecture sparring partner for Trellis. Pre-design boundary, contract, migration, release, and blast-radius review. Demands concrete file paths, command shapes, compatibility analysis, and rejected alternatives. NOT an implementer.
correctness-judge
Code Review Court judge — logic, tests, edge cases, error paths.
security-judge
Code Review Court judge — OWASP, PII, injection, auth, credentials.
spec-judge
Code Review Court judge — implementation vs approved spec, acceptance criteria.
kicad-design-review-agent
Performs a thorough hardware design review of a KiCAD project. Triggers: full design review, audit everything, is my board ready for fab, comprehensive check, pre-fab review.
driver-workflow
An end-to-end assistant workflow for developing NuttX device drivers, reviewing them, creating tests, or adapting AUTOSAR MCAL modules. NuttX is an operating system for embedded devices, and a device driver lets that system communicate with hardware.