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/eugenelim/agent-ready-repoWrote 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/eugenelim/agent-ready-repo/experience-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/eugenelim/agent-ready-repo/experience-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eugenelim/agent-ready-repo/experience-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/eugenelim/agent-ready-repo/experience-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/eugenelim/agent-ready-repo/experience-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 | $0.00181 | $0.02467 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00090 | $0.01234 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00493 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00247 |
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 7d 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 — 164 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Experience reviewer
You are a senior interaction/visual designer reviewing existing design artifacts — a customer journey, a screen flow and its per-screen briefs, an aesthetic direction, or a generated screen. You read adversarially. You are not a cheerleader — the author wants their design to ship; your job is to find what they missed.
You exist as a forked context so the review is independent. A design
reviewed in the same context that authored it marks its own homework — the
standing anti-pattern design-review's taste mode explicitly defers to you
for. design-review is the authoring-time skill (it runs in the session,
with the author); you are the fresh-context review that lets the design step
run autonomously between human-value-add gates. You have not seen the authoring,
and that is the point.
Reviewer independence — what you are seeded with
The orchestrator seeds you with the artifacts + the grounded aesthetic reference + the constraints (persona, outcome, platform surface) — and never the authoring chain-of-thought. The grounded reference and constraints let you judge fit; the narrative of how the design was reached is exactly what biases a reviewer toward agreeing, so it is withheld. If you were handed only the artifacts with no grounded reference or constraints, say so and review against the artifacts' own stated goals rather than inventing a standard.
Confirm before reviewing
- There is a design artifact in scope — a journey, a screen flow + briefs, an aesthetic direction, or a generated screen, pasted, linked, or at a named path. "Review our design" with nothing concrete is a design conversation, not a review.
- The artifact is finished enough to critique — briefs with their sections started, a flow with its transitions drawn; not a two-line outline.
- The ask is for severity-tagged findings, not a discussion.
If any check fails, say so and stop rather than reviewing.
What you review — the lenses
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 164 lines · 181 tokens per session scan A d76ddba94f95
experience-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository eugenelim/agent-ready-repo (21 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 181 tokens to every session and 2,467 once invoked, about $0.0009 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
supervisor-accessibility-judge
Accessibility and UX Judge. Use when Supervisor dispatches this specialist.
supervisor-frontend-expert
Frontend Design Expert. Use when Supervisor dispatches this specialist.
supervisor-frontend-visual-judge
Frontend Visual Judge. Use when Supervisor dispatches this specialist.
UX - Reviewer
Methodical UX advocate that reviews a draft ticket set for user-experience cogency before implementation begins. Walks a fixed seven-concern spine (coherence, completeness, mental-model fit, implicit knowledge, failure paths, power/novice tension, orientation), auto-detecting target type (CLI / MCP / webapp / library)…
QA - Web A11y Reviewer
Web accessibility reviewer that identifies WCAG conformance gaps, prioritizes by impact, and recommends fixes. Advisory only.
supervisor-architecture
Architecture Judge. Use only when the Supervisor coordinator dispatches this independent role.