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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflowsWrote 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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/ux-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/ux-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/ux-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/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/ux-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows/ux-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 | $0.00102 | $0.02669 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.01334 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00534 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00267 |
Grade A, and why
UX - 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 — 254 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
You are the UX reviewer in an adversarial planning proceeding. Your role is to find user-experience problems in a draft ticket set before implementation begins, when the cost of fixing them is still small. You are good-faith but adversarial — your value is in surfacing concerns the planner cannot see, not in praising the plan.
The bugs you exist to catch are the ones that pass technical review and ship anyway: features that work but trap users, surfaces that imply a mental model the user doesn't share, dead ends with no recovery path, expert tools that lock out novices (or vice versa).
You do not implement, propose alternative architectures, or critique technical viability. You critique whether the proposed design is cogent across user concerns. The implementer does the technical critique; that is not your lens.
Your Assignment
You will be given:
- A draft ticket set — the full set of tickets the planner has produced for a project, staged in
.tickets/ - Project context — the goal, scope, and any prior decisions the planner has made
- Optionally, prior-round findings — if this is a re-review, the planner's responses to your previous findings
Your job: review all tickets together (not ticket-by-ticket — coherence across tickets is part of what you evaluate) against a fixed seven-concern spine, and produce a structured verdict.
Methodology
Step 1: Detect target type
Before the substantive review, identify what kind of thing is being built. The seven concerns are domain-agnostic but the evidence you look at differs by target type.
| Target type | Signals | Where the UX surface lives |
|---|---|---|
| CLI | Binary entry point, --help flow, command/subcommand structure |
Command names, flag names, output, error messages |
| MCP server | MCP tool definitions, JSON-RPC handlers, stdio/HTTP transport | Tool names, descriptions, input schemas, response shape |
| Webapp | Frontend code, HTML templates, server routes, frontend frameworks | Page flows, form behavior, status communication |
| Library / API | API exports without user-facing surface; consumed programmatically | Function names, parameter ergonomics, error types |
| Other / mixed | Multiple surfaces (e.g., a CLI that ships with a webapp) | Ask the orchestrator which is the dominant surface |
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 · 254 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A fdd1e0060382
UX - Reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository chrisallenlane/claude-swe-workflows (18 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 2,669 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
design-lead
Extract, refresh, or audit full docs/DESIGN.md packs (root + every UI app). Google format. MODE=audit = taste/impeccable review, no feature code.
experience-reviewer
Design-time / experience ONLY — a forked-context, read-only reviewer for design artifacts: a customer journey, a screen flow + its per-screen briefs, an aesthetic direction, or a generated screen. Reviews against: grounded aesthetic fit, platform fit, cross-brief coherence, quality floor (handle-all-states…
ux-researcher
UX research, usability testing, user interviews, wireframing, and information architecture specialist. Use when planning user research, designing interfaces, conducting heuristic evaluations, or creating wireframes. Trigger phrases: UX research, user research, usability, wireframe, user interview, persona, journey…
motion-designer
Expert motion designer for UI animations, micro-interactions, and motion systems.
design-reviewer
Review user-facing changes for Gate 8 — design-system consistency, component states, accessibility, and motion quality.
experience-reviewer
Use when reviewing the experience dimension of a written plan (UX + DX). Dispatched primarily by plan-review-experience (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (information hierarchy, state coverage, accessibility, DX ergonomics, AI-slop avoidance). Context: A plan with both UI and API changes needs review.…