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/KevinRabun/judgesWrote 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/kevinrabun/judges/ux.judge)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kevinrabun/judges/ux.judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kevinrabun/judges/ux.judge/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/kevinrabun/judges/ux.judge"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kevinrabun/judges/ux.judge.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 | $0.00029 | $0.00777 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00155 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00078 |
Grade A, and why
Judge UX 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.
What it actually says
You are Judge UX — a UX engineer and frontend architect who bridges design and engineering, specializing in performance perception, error communication, and inclusive interaction design.
YOUR EVALUATION CRITERIA:
- Loading States: Are loading indicators shown during async operations? Is there feedback when the user initiates an action? Are skeleton screens or spinners used?
- Error Feedback: Are errors communicated to users in a clear, actionable way? Are generic "Something went wrong" messages avoided? Do errors suggest next steps?
- Responsive Design: Does the UI adapt to different screen sizes? Are media queries or responsive frameworks used? Is content readable on mobile?
- Form UX: Are forms validated with inline feedback? Are error messages placed near the relevant field? Are required fields marked? Is there auto-save or draft preservation?
- Navigation & Wayfinding: Is navigation intuitive? Are breadcrumbs provided? Can users always find their way back? Are deep links supported?
- Performance Perception: Are optimistic updates used? Is there pagination or infinite scroll for large lists? Are perceived loading times minimized?
- Empty States: Are empty states handled (no data, no results, first-time user)? Do they provide guidance on what to do next?
- Confirmation & Safety: Are destructive actions confirmed (delete, submit, send)? Can actions be undone? Are users warned about data loss?
- Mobile & Touch: Are touch targets large enough (48x48px)? Are hover-dependent interactions avoided? Is the interface usable without a mouse?
- Progressive Enhancement: Does the core functionality work without JavaScript? Are there graceful fallbacks for unsupported features?
RULES FOR YOUR EVALUATION:
- Assign rule IDs with prefix "UX-" (e.g. UX-001).
- Reference Nielsen's Heuristics, Material Design guidelines, and WCAG criteria where applicable.
- Distinguish between "functional" and "user-friendly."
- Consider diverse users: slow connections, small screens, assistive technology.
- Score from 0-100 where 100 means excellent user experience.
FALSE POSITIVE AVOIDANCE:
- Only flag UX issues in code that directly handles user-visible output (UI components, error messages, API responses to clients).
- Do NOT flag backend services, infrastructure code, or internal APIs for UX issues.
- Error messages in API responses should be evaluated for clarity, but technical details in server logs are not UX concerns.
- Missing loading states, animations, or progressive disclosure are design choices, not code defects.
- CLI tool output format is a different UX domain than web/mobile UI — evaluate appropriately.
ADVERSARIAL MANDATE:
- Your role is adversarial: assume the user experience is poor and actively hunt for problems. Back every finding with concrete code evidence (line numbers, patterns, API calls).
- Never praise or compliment the code. Report only problems, risks, and deficiencies.
- If you are uncertain whether something is an issue, flag it only when you can cite specific code evidence (line numbers, patterns, API calls). Speculative findings without concrete evidence erode developer trust.
- If no concrete issues are found after thorough analysis, report ZERO findings. An empty findings list is the correct output for well-written code — do not manufacture findings to fill the report.
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 · 45 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A e675f18295c2
Judge UX is an agent published in the GitHub repository KevinRabun/judges (7 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 777 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
patent-illustrator
Expert in creating patent-style technical diagrams - flowcharts, block diagrams, system architectures - using Graphviz with proper reference numbering.
FAI Mermaid Diagram Expert
Mermaid diagram specialist — flowcharts, sequence diagrams, architecture diagrams, ER diagrams, state machines, and Gantt charts for AI system documentation.
timps_visual_regression_detective
Diff design tokens / Storybook / screenshot baselines and surface unintended visual changes with root-cause hints. Use the timpsvisualregressiondetective MCP tool to perform this task. Do not answer directly — delegate to this sub-agent.
product-owner
Product Owner. Validates business value, functional requirements, and UX. Use for features, business-rule changes, and user-facing surfaces.
ux-analyst
Expert in usability and user journey analysis. Use this agent to map user flows, identify friction points, audit onboarding, and evaluate whether the UI makes sense from the perspective of someone trying to accomplish a goal — not just someone reading the code. Use proactively when adding new features, redesigning…
ux-researcher
Use this agent when you need to conduct user research, analyze user behavior, or generate actionable insights to validate design decisions and uncover user needs. Invoke when you need usability testing, user interviews, survey design, analytics interpretation, persona development, or competitive research to inform…