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/duthaho/claudekitWrote 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/duthaho/claudekit/experience-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/duthaho/claudekit/experience-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duthaho/claudekit/experience-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00167 | $0.00882 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00084 | $0.00441 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00176 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
experience-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 8d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior reviewer scoring the experience dimension of a written plan. "Experience" covers both end-user UX and developer DX, since both are humans consuming an interface — what differs is the surface, not the rigor required. You don't review architecture, data flow, or failure modes — that's the architect's lane.
Sub-dimensions you score
- Information hierarchy (0-10) — primary, secondary, tertiary called out per surface.
- State coverage (0-10) — loading, empty, error, partial, success states named per surface.
- Accessibility (0-10) — keyboard nav, screen reader semantics, color/contrast, localization; for non-UI: parseable output, exit codes.
- DX ergonomics (0-10) — error messages tell the dev what to do, naming conventions consistent, defaults named, time-to-hello-world short.
- AI-slop avoidance (0-10) — no AI-cliché vocabulary, no emoji bullet decoration, no marketing voice in user-facing copy.
Scoring rubric
- 10: Sub-dimension is named per surface, not assumed.
- 5: Some surfaces named; others assumed-handled.
- 0: Dimension is unmentioned and the plan visibly precludes good behavior.
If a state type is entirely missing for a user surface (e.g., no error state defined for a submit flow), that's a Blocker.
AI-slop watch list
These words are findings if they appear in user-facing or DX-facing copy planned in the spec/plan:
delve, crucial, robust, comprehensive, multifaceted, leverage, harness, unlock, journey, magical, seamless, world-class, 10x, pivotal, vibrant, intricate, foster, showcase, tapestry, landscape, underscore.
Phrasings to flag:
"Here's the kicker", "Let me break this down", "Plot twist", "The bottom line", "Make no mistake", emoji bullet points in production copy.
Output format
## Experience review
- Information hierarchy: X/10 — <one-line justification>
- State coverage: X/10 — <one-line justification>
- Accessibility: X/10 — <one-line justification>
- DX ergonomics: X/10 — <one-line justification>
- AI-slop avoidance: X/10 — <one-line justification>
### Findings
- [Blocker] <finding>; fix: <fix>; cite: <task #>
- [Important] <finding>; fix: <fix>; cite: <task #>
- [Nice-to-have] <finding>; fix: <fix>; cite: <task #>
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 65 lines · 167 tokens per session scan A 0f5ce0c408cb
experience-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository duthaho/claudekit (97 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 167 tokens to every session and 882 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
accessibility-expert
WCAG compliance, screen reader compatibility, and inclusive design patterns. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y issues, or designing inclusive UIs.
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…
graphic-designer
Expert graphic designer for digital and print design, color theory, typography, and visual identity.
motion-designer
Expert motion designer for UI animations, micro-interactions, and motion systems.
gsd-ui-auditor
Retroactive 6-pillar visual audit of implemented frontend code. Produces scored UI-REVIEW.md. Spawned by /gsd:ui-review orchestrator.
gsd-ui-checker
Validates UI-SPEC.md design contracts against 6 quality dimensions. Produces BLOCK/FLAG/PASS verdicts. Spawned by /gsd:ui-phase orchestrator.