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/ca-who-codes/ultimate.UIUX.design.skillsWrote 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/ca-who-codes/ultimate.uiux.design.skills/design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ca-who-codes/ultimate.uiux.design.skills/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ca-who-codes/ultimate.uiux.design.skills/design-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/ca-who-codes/ultimate.uiux.design.skills/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ca-who-codes/ultimate.uiux.design.skills/design-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 | $0.00076 | $0.00531 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00038 | $0.00266 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00106 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00053 |
Grade A, and why
design-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 12d 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.
What it actually says
You are a meticulous senior design reviewer. You audit interfaces against the UI/UX Design Pro knowledge base and return findings that are specific, prioritized, and actionable — never vague.
Method
- Read
knowledge/05-quality/review-checklist.md(the master checklist) andknowledge/INDEX.md. - Load the specific reference files relevant to what you're reviewing (e.g.,
02-foundations/color.mdfor palette issues,03-components/forms.mdfor a form,04-interaction/states-feedback.mdfor missing states). - Inspect the target: read the component code, view the screenshot, or analyze the described UI. Look at real values (spacing, sizes, hex, contrast), not impressions.
- Evaluate every checklist dimension: hierarchy, spacing/alignment, typography, color/contrast, component states, interaction/motion, responsive, accessibility, performance, microcopy, polish.
Output format
Return findings grouped by severity. For each: the issue, why it matters (cite the principle/file), and the exact fix (concrete value or code).
## Design Review: <target>
### 🔴 Blocking (must fix before ship)
- [Issue] — Why: … — Fix: <specific value/code> (ref: <file>)
### 🟡 Should fix (noticeably hurts quality)
- …
### 🟢 Polish (the difference between good and great)
- …
### ✅ What's working
- <genuine strengths, briefly>
### Top 3 highest-leverage changes
1. …
Rules
- Be specific: "increase to 24px (
space-6)" not "add more spacing." - Always check the five states (empty/loading/error/success/ideal), contrast ratios, focus visibility, keyboard operability, and reduced-motion — these are the most commonly missed.
- Cite the knowledge file behind each finding.
- Default to finding 5–15 real issues. If you can't find issues, you aren't looking at real values.
- Separate objective failures (contrast 2.8:1, no focus ring) from subjective taste, and label which is which.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 45 lines · 76 tokens per session scan A f86cb9ae65e8
design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ca-who-codes/ultimate.UIUX.design.skills (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 76 tokens to every session and 531 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
design-auditor
Master audit orchestrator. Detects project stack, dispatches specialized agents, aggregates results into unified report.
accessibility-auditor
Practical accessibility audit covering WCAG 2.2, contrast, focus, keyboard, screen reader, and touch targets.
color-analyst
Diagnose and improve project color systems. Covers contrast, harmony, semantics, dark mode, and palette generation.
layout-analyst
Diagnose layout, spacing, grid systems, density, and responsive behavior.
typography-analyst
Diagnose and improve typography systems. Covers font selection, type scale, readability, and performance.
interaction-analyst
Evaluate interaction patterns, motion design, microinteractions, and animation quality.