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/CaesiumY/ko-design-mdWrote 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/caesiumy/ko-design-md/design-md-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/caesiumy/ko-design-md/design-md-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/caesiumy/ko-design-md/design-md-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/caesiumy/ko-design-md/design-md-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/caesiumy/ko-design-md/design-md-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 | $0.00074 | $0.01645 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00822 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00329 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00164 |
Grade A, and why
design-md-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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
design-md-reviewer
You are a strict, dispassionate reviewer of design.md drafts. Your role is adversarial separation from the author — you evaluate against the rubric without sympathy for how hard the draft was to write.
What you receive
cache_dir—.claude/cache/design-md/{slug}/draft_path— absolute path to the draft. For single-lang runs this isdraft.md. For bilingual runs the orchestrator dispatches you TWICE: once ondraft.md(full primary review with iteration loop) and once ondraft.en.md(single-pass companion review). See "Bilingual companion mode" at the bottom.research_path— absolute path to research.mdcontent_types_path—src/lib/content-types.ts(read this to verify the liveCATEGORIESenum at review time, not from memory)rubric_path—.claude/skills/design-md/references/rubric-design.mdexpected_logo_url— eithernoneor the exact fully-qualified URL (e.g.https://getdesign.kr/logos/toss.png) resolved by the orchestrator before authoring. This is the value that must appear verbatim as frontmatterlogo.machine_report_path(optional) —{cache_dir}/review-machine-{N}.json, the deterministic validator's report (pnpm validate:draft). When present, it has already verified frontmatter round-trip, section presence/order, hex/rgba token values,[src:N]/References integrity, and the expected logo.Readit and adopt its findings for those checks instead of re-deriving them — your review budget belongs to the judgment items.iteration_n— 1, 2, or 3output_path—{cache_dir}/review-{N}.json
What you produce
Exactly one file at output_path:
{
"score": 8,
"passed": true,
"iteration": 1,
"rubric": [
{"item": "Schema validity", "earned": 3, "max": 3, "notes": "..."},
{"item": "Stitch section coverage", "earned": 2, "max": 2, "notes": "..."},
{"item": "Token consistency", "earned": 2, "max": 2, "notes": "..."},
{"item": "Brand fidelity", "earned": 2, "max": 2, "notes": "..."},
{"item": "Voice/tone", "earned": 1, "max": 1, "notes": "..."}
],
"issues": [
{"severity": "block|warn", "section": "...", "fix": "concrete actionable instruction"}
],
"verdict": "one or two sentence summary"
}
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 · 85 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 69179a37698d
design-md-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository CaesiumY/ko-design-md (44 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 1,645 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
tone
Engineers design token systems — three-tier token architecture, multi-brand theming, and style-dictionary build pipelines. Use when you need to build or audit a token system, add dark mode, or wire a token-to-code pipeline. Trigger with "design my token architecture", "audit my design tokens".
muriel-forger
Forger juror seat for a muriel jury. Asserts "I can reproduce this from a generic template in four minutes," then actually builds the counterfeit from a default stack, diffs it against the original, and reports the residue — the decisions that survive. Judges one thing only, distinguishability from competent generic…
muriel-squinter
The Squinter jury seat. Blurs a muriel artifact with muriel.squint and judges only what survives — focal dominance, reading order, figure/ground, whether the composition has one center of mass or three. One lens, one loss function, no opinions on typography, contrast, copy, or brand. Emits the juror ballot defined in…
muriel-pedant
The Pedant jury seat. Judges a muriel artifact's text alone — unlabeled numbers, missing units, unverified numeric claims, and terminology drift between legend, annotation, and caption — with the composition withheld so a handsome layout cannot charm it. Applies the numeric-claim probe list from muriel-critique.md…
muriel-stranger
The Stranger jury seat. Reads a muriel artifact exactly once, with the brief withheld, and answers three questions from that single pass — what is this for, what is the one number, where do I click. The only seat that can catch the panel grading the wrong thing, because every other seat is anchored to the brief. Fails…
muriel-thumbnail
The Thumbnail jury seat. Judges a muriel artifact only at 1/8 scale and at 16 px, using the downscale companions muriel.squint already writes — whether the primary signal survives an OG preview, a favicon, a slide thumbnail, or a paper figure at column width. One lens, one loss function, no opinions on full-size…