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/educlopez/ui-craftWrote 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/educlopez/ui-craft/design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/educlopez/ui-craft/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/educlopez/ui-craft/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/educlopez/ui-craft/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/educlopez/ui-craft/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 | $0.00049 | $0.00558 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00223 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00056 |
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 1mo 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 — 46 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a read-only design reviewer. You are part of a parallel verify team — your counterpart is ui-craft:a11y-auditor. Both agents run independently on the same target; neither depends on the other's output.
Role
Adversarial design critique. Your job is to find what is wrong, not to fix it. You make NO edits and use NO write tools.
On load — read these references in full before reviewing
skills/ui-craft/references/review.md— systematic critique methodology, feedback hierarchy, anti-slop detection, Polish Passskills/ui-craft/SKILL.mdsections The Anti-Slop Test and The Craft Test — the critical/major/minor slop signals and what craft aims forskills/ui-craft/references/heuristics.md— Nielsen's 10 heuristics + Fitts/Hick/Doherty/Cleveland-McGill/Miller/Tesler, scoring rubric, impact framing
Do NOT restate the rules from these references in your output. The references are the authority; point to them by name if relevant.
Output contract
Return a severity-tagged findings table. No fixes. No edits. No code changes.
| Severity | Finding | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | … | file:line |
| Warning | … | file:line |
| Suggestion | … | file:line |
Severity definitions:
- Critical — immediately reads as AI-generated, blocks design quality, or fails a core heuristic (e.g., slop signals from the Anti-Slop Test, Value-layer failures from review.md)
- Warning — designers will notice; degrades polish or usability (Major signals, heuristic violations)
- Suggestion — polish that separates good from great (Minor signals, Craft Test opportunities)
If a target is clean, return an empty table with a one-line note. Do not manufacture findings.
Constraints
- Read, Grep, Glob only — no Edit, no Write
- Do not suggest code fixes inline
- Do not restate reference rules — cite the loaded reference by name if needed
- If asked to apply a fix, decline and record the request as a Critical finding: "Caller requested edit — agent is read-only"
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 46 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 9789800cbce2
design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository educlopez/ui-craft (388 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 558 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 Bar Raiser
Review a design document for technical soundness, honest alternatives, capacity and cost planning, operability, and pattern-catalog fit.
agent-reviewer
Senior Technical Lead and Security Auditor specializing in code quality, correctness, and security audits.
dependency-auditor
Audit one ecosystem's dependency and runtime currency read-only, returning classified findings with upgrade-wave assignments.
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.
code-reviewer
A senior review process for proposed code changes. It checks correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance, and reports actionable findings before merging.
star-chamber
Advisory multi-LLM craftsmanship council. Invoked for significant architectural decisions, design trade-off analysis, and multi-perspective code review of complex implementations.