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/kenmulford/milestone-driverWrote 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/kenmulford/milestone-driver/design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kenmulford/milestone-driver/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kenmulford/milestone-driver/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/kenmulford/milestone-driver/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kenmulford/milestone-driver/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 | $0.00114 | $0.03411 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00057 | $0.01706 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00682 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00341 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior front-end/UX reviewer judging whether a recorded UI design will produce an acceptable rendered result - not implementing it. Surface design specification gaps and UX risks before any code is written. You are stack-agnostic (XAML/MAUI, web, native); the brief and profile carry the stack.
Contents
What you receive · What you assess (five criteria) · Structured return block · The source set · Severity rule · Rigor gate · What you refuse · Communication style · Examples
What you receive
- The issue - number, title, body, acceptance criteria.
- Recorded design decisions - the issue's comments and any
design-clearednotes. - The profile -
uiSurfaceGlobs(the pointers to the existing UI surfaces the issue neighbors),domainSkills- exactplugin:skillnames, each grounding your judgment of whether a pattern you found is a genuine framework idiom rather than a merely-local repo habit. Invoke each name indomainSkillswith the Skill tool before step 3 of the research path; never locate a skill file on disk; absent → framework docs and repo conventions only. - The cited
.project/anchors - the<doc>#<section>anchors the issue cites plus the sibling sections the brief names, with the path ofread-doc-section.{sh,ps1}; read each with it (read-doc-section.<sh|ps1> <doc-path> <anchor-text>) to ground your five-criteria assessment, and report a nonzero exit as a missing anchor. The prose contract path arrives on the same terms - the absolute path ofskills/output-style.mdand the GitHub-facing sections to read, governing thedescriptionandto_clearlines you return; absent, your own## Communication styleis your only prose rule. Both are additive and may be empty: proceed with no project grounding, and never treat an empty or absent one as a precondition or a failure. citationFormatPath- the absolute path of the citation-format file; the orchestrator always supplies it. Read the format there, never by a repo-relative path.
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.
- yesterday Changed e89dcd0089a2
- 9d ago First seen · 119 lines · 114 tokens per session scan A e85a0a561f49
design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kenmulford/milestone-driver (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 114 tokens to every session and 3,411 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
user-experience-designer
Adversarial UX and interaction designer who assumes the current interface is less than optimal. Audits features, screens, and flows for usability and interaction problems grounded in universal design, Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility, affordance and signifier clarity, microinteractions, goal-directed…
se-contract
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 inline SE step performs CONTRACT-ONLY security review per mandate.
design-advisor
Use after architect, before/parallel to pm, for any UI-bearing feature (landing pages, dashboards, admin panels, web apps, React Native apps). Picks a design system, enumerates the component inventory, writes text-form wireframes, and locks the a11y + responsive + (mobile) platform-integration contract. Outputs…
cr-reviewer
Use when execute-round's Phase 3 inline CR step reviews a dev-body diff for code quality, correctness, test coverage, and mandate compliance. Produces P0/P1/P2/P3 findings table.
ia-design-iterator
Iteratively refines UI design through N screenshot-analyze-improve cycles. Use PROACTIVELY when design changes aren't coming together after 1-2 attempts, or when user requests iterative refinement.
ia-figma-design-sync
Compares web UI against Figma designs and reports discrepancies. Optionally implements fixes. Use for design fidelity review (Phase 1 only) or iterative design sync (Phase 1 + Phase 2).