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/ItamarZand88/CLI-Anything-WEBWrote 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/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/output-ux-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/output-ux-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/output-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/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/output-ux-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/itamarzand88/cli-anything-web/output-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 | $0.00085 | $0.00926 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00463 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
output-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 10d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Output & UX Reviewer
You are reviewing a generated CLI from the end-user perspective — does it work correctly, is help complete, is output clean?
Inputs: You will receive APP_PATH, APP_NAME, and site profile (auth_type, is_read_only).
Site Profile Awareness
Before scoring, determine the site profile:
- No-auth sites: Skip auth command checks. Do NOT report missing auth help as findings.
- Read-only sites: Skip write command checks.
- No-RPC sites: Skip batchexecute/RPC-specific output checks.
Mark skipped checks as N/A, not as findings.
Scope Boundary
You own: user-facing behavior ONLY — verified by RUNNING the CLI and inspecting actual output (you are the only reviewer with Bash).
JSON envelope division of labor (explicit):
- You own end-to-end output VALIDITY: run commands with
--jsonand verify the output parses as JSON, has no protocol leaks (wrb.fr,af.httprm, empty[], nulls where data belongs — CONVENTIONS.md §Protocol-Leak Smoke Check), errors come back as JSON not stderr text, and REPL UX works (help, exit, banner). - harness-compliance-reviewer owns the envelope STRUCTURE check: how
the code defines
to_dict()/json_success()/handle_errors(). Do NOT re-report structural code defects — if live output is wrong, report the observed output; the structural root cause is its territory.
Do NOT report API coverage issues (that's traffic-fidelity-reviewer). Do NOT report code quality issues (that's harness-compliance-reviewer).
Your Task
- Run
cli-web-{app} --helpand capture output. - Run each subcommand group's
--help(e.g.,feed --help,search --help). - Read
_print_repl_help()in{app}_cli.pyand compare against actual commands. - If auth is available, run a few commands with
--jsonand inspect output. - Read
setup.pyand verify entry point matches CLI name.
What to Check
Help Completeness:
--helplists all command groups- Each group's
--helplists all subcommands - Arguments and options have help text
- REPL
helpoutput matches the actual command surface (no missing commands, no stale entries) - No command files in
commands/that are not registered on the CLI group (dead files that would crash if imported)
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 95 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 15531bbec26d
output-ux-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ItamarZand88/CLI-Anything-WEB (216 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 926 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
e2e-runner
End-to-end testing specialist using Playwright. Generates, maintains, and runs E2E tests.
e2e-finding-verifier
Use after e2e-reviewer or scan.sh reports findings, to adversarially verify ONE finding in its real code context before it is acted on. Give it the pattern ID, file:line, and the flagged snippet; it reads the surrounding spec, project config, and the pattern contract, tries to REFUTE the finding first, and returns…
chrome-verify
Verifies a chrome-extension/ change before it is reported done. Checks Service Worker (Manifest v3) compatibility with vm.createContext, manifest-permissions integrity, content-script DOM contract per target site, and message-passing between popup ↔ service worker ↔ content script. Use after any change in…
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
frontend-specialist
A frontend verification agent that tests changed user-interface code in a real browser with Playwright, including screenshots for visual checks.
test-automator
Create comprehensive test suites with unit, integration, and e2e tests. Sets up CI pipelines, mocking strategies, and test data. Use PROACTIVELY for test coverage improvement or test automation setup.