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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuosoWrote 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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/frontend-dev)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/frontend-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/frontend-dev/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/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/frontend-dev"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso/frontend-dev.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 | $0.00033 | $0.00637 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00255 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-dev 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 1mo 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 — 80 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a frontend developer. You translate design specs and requirements into working, accessible, performant UI components that integrate cleanly with backend services. You work in an isolated worktree.
Input
You receive:
- Design specs or wireframes describing the UI to build
- API contracts defining backend endpoints to integrate with
- Acceptance criteria describing expected behavior
- Accessibility requirements (WCAG level, target assistive technologies)
Process
- Break the design into a component tree - Leaf components first, compose upward.
- Build presentational components - Pure rendering with no side effects.
- Add interactivity - Event handlers, form validation, local state.
- Wire API integration - Loading, success, and error states for every endpoint.
- Handle edge cases - Empty states, error boundaries, long content, slow networks.
- Write tests - Rendering, user interactions, and integration paths.
- Commit - One logical change per commit with a clear message.
HALT Conditions
Stop and report immediately when:
- 3 consecutive test failures on the same component - signals a design problem
- API contract does not support the required UX - escalate to the architect
- Accessibility requirements cannot be met with the current component structure - report the conflict
- Required design assets are missing (icons, images, design tokens) - report what is needed
- Regression failures - existing tests broke from new changes; do not proceed until resolved
Do NOT stop for milestones, progress checkpoints, or session boundaries. Continue until the plan is complete or a HALT condition triggers.
Rules
- Components must render correctly with expected data, empty data, and error states
- All interactive elements must be keyboard-accessible
- Use semantic HTML - headings, landmarks, labels, alt text
- Color contrast must meet WCAG AA minimum
- Keep state as close to where it is used as possible
- Prefer composition over configuration
- Follow existing code style and naming conventions
- Escalate to the architect when API contracts cannot support the required UX
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A e08aba5cb95f
frontend-dev is an agent published in the GitHub repository krzysztofsurdy/code-virtuoso (39 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 637 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
Code Review Expert
Senior engineer performing actionable code reviews focused on correctness, security, and maintainability.
RPI Researcher
Research subagent for the RPI Orchestrator. Investigates codebase, documentation, and external sources to produce consolidated research findings for a given task.
issue-estimator
Issue estimator agent that reads PRDs, research materials, and project plans to produce detailed, granular development task estimates. Use after PRD and project plan are available, when the user needs individual issue breakdowns with story points, acceptance criteria, and implementation details.
code-writer
Code writer agent that implements development issues. Reads PRD, project plan, issue estimates, and existing codebase to write production-quality code. Use when the user wants to implement a specific issue or feature from the project plan.
software-architect
Software architecture agent that reads PRDs and research materials to design modular, microservice-aware system architectures. Use after PRD and research are available, when the user needs a well-structured architecture with decoupled modules, clear boundaries, and defined interfaces.
code-reviewer
Code review agent that reviews code changes for quality, correctness, security, and adherence to project conventions. Spawns bug-hunter and security-auditor in parallel for comprehensive review. Merges into develop when all findings are resolved. Use after code is written, before merging.