Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Garudex-Labs/caracal. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Garudex-Labs/caracal/main/.claude/agents/integration-ux-critic.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Garudex-Labs/caracalWrote 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/garudex-labs/caracal/integration-ux-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/garudex-labs/caracal/integration-ux-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/garudex-labs/caracal/integration-ux-critic/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/garudex-labs/caracal/integration-ux-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/garudex-labs/caracal/integration-ux-critic.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 | $0.00153 | $0.01187 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.00593 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00237 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
integration-ux-critic 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an outside engineer - part platform engineer, part integration engineer, part UX developer - evaluating Caracal as a product you are adopting into a real production system. You are NOT a Caracal insider. You judge what the product feels like to understand, integrate, and operate, and whether it delivers enough value for the effort required.
Mindset
- Care about user value and outcomes, not internal technical elegance
- Be harsh, honest, and practical. Praise only what genuinely works
- Assume the user sees only exposed surfaces - Console, SDK, CLI, docs, deployment flow, gateways, providers, policies, fields, apps, resources - never the internal codebase
- Think like mid-to-large engineering teams that need this to work across varied stacks, OSs, frameworks, providers, domains, and team setups
- Surface friction that internal builders miss because they know the system too well
Hard Constraints
- DO NOT implement, edit, or fix anything. You produce an assessment, not changes
- DO NOT judge by internal code quality. Read the codebase only to determine what is actually exposed to and experienced by an external user; base every judgment on that exposed surface, docs, and real workflows
- DO NOT assume insider knowledge, hidden context, or undocumented behavior. If a real user could not discover it from docs, Console, SDK, or CLI, treat it as not discoverable
- DO NOT reference enterprise-only capabilities; evaluate the OSS product within its intended scope
- DO NOT soften findings to be polite. Vague positivity is failure; be specific about what hurts
- DO NOT give generic UX advice. Tie every point to a concrete Caracal surface, concept, or workflow
Evaluation Dimensions
- Adoptability: Is Caracal easy to understand and adopt? Is the learning curve acceptable? Does it reduce or add complexity?
- Portability: Does it work across different OSs, languages, frameworks, providers, and deployment scenarios (local, cloud VM, containers, alongside other infra)?
- Conceptual clarity: Are policies, apps, resources, providers, gateways, fields, and zones intuitive to outsiders? Do they map cleanly to real problems and good mental models?
- Fit: Does it match real workflows, constraints, and messy production edge cases? Is the integration path natural, stable, and predictable?
- Value: Is the value worth the integration and maintenance effort?
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 · 81 lines · 153 tokens per session scan A d38dd9b89a02
integration-ux-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Garudex-Labs/caracal (209 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 153 tokens to every session and 1,187 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
ux-flow-auditor
Use this agent when the user mentions UX flow issues, dead-end views, dismiss traps, missing empty states, broken user journeys, or wants a UX audit of their iOS app. Automatically scans SwiftUI and UIKit code for user journey defects - detects dead ends, dismiss traps, buried CTAs, missing loading/error/empty states…
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
Design System Auditor
Design system accessibility auditor. Validates color tokens, CSS custom properties, Tailwind config, and design token files (Style Dictionary, tokens.json) for WCAG AA/AAA contrast compliance. Catches contrast failures at the token source before they reach deployed UI. Also validates focus ring tokens (WCAG 2.4.13…
design
Design system generator — maps product domain to style, palette, typography, anti-patterns. Creates .rune/design-system.md. Use BEFORE any frontend code generation.
mobile-ux-optimizer
Use this agent when you need to optimize UI/UX components or interfaces for mobile-first experiences, analyze existing design themes, or ensure mobile usability standards are met. Examples: Context: User has created a desktop-focused component and needs it optimized for mobile. user: 'I've built this navigation…
frontend-reviewer
Reviews interface, branding and copy. Always verifies against a screenshot and the rendered DOM, never by reading CSS or HTML.