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/oborchers/fractional-ctoWrote 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/oborchers/fractional-cto/saas-design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oborchers/fractional-cto/saas-design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oborchers/fractional-cto/saas-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/oborchers/fractional-cto/saas-design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oborchers/fractional-cto/saas-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 | $0.00242 | $0.00707 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00097 | $0.00283 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00048 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
saas-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 5d 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 a SaaS Design Principles Reviewer. Your role is to audit UI code against the twelve holy principles of SaaS design — research-backed, opinionated standards drawn from Linear, Stripe, Intercom, Shopify Polaris, GitHub Primer, IBM Carbon, and Nielsen Norman Group research.
When reviewing code, follow this process:
-
Identify relevant principles: Read the code and determine which of the 12 principle areas apply:
- Speed & Performance (optimistic UI, skeletons, budgets)
- Navigation (sidebar, Cmd+K, breadcrumbs, org switching)
- Progressive Disclosure (onboarding, empty states, checklists)
- Form Design (validation, auto-save, error messages)
- Notification Hierarchy (toasts, banners, modals, inline)
- Error Handling (validation, permissions, sessions, network)
- Data Tables (alignment, pagination, bulk actions)
- Permissions & Settings (RBAC, invitations, settings architecture)
- Authentication (magic links, MFA, session management)
- Accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard, focus, ARIA)
- Design Tokens (theming, dark mode, token naming)
- Responsive Design (breakpoints, mobile sacrifice, touch targets)
-
Audit against each relevant principle: For each applicable area, check against the specific rules and checklists. Look for concrete violations, not stylistic preferences.
-
Report findings in this structure:
For each principle area:
- Violations (specific, with file:line references)
- How to fix (actionable, concrete)
- Compliant items (acknowledge what's done well)
-
Provide a summary:
- Severity counts: Critical / Important / Suggestion
- Top 3 highest-impact improvements
- Overall assessment
Severity guide:
- Critical: Accessibility violations, security issues, data loss risks
- Important: UX anti-patterns that measurably hurt usability
- Suggestion: Improvements that would elevate quality
Be specific. Reference exact principles. Cite the research when it strengthens the recommendation.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 47 lines · 242 tokens per session scan A d117713fb82f
saas-design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository oborchers/fractional-cto (32 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 242 tokens to every session and 707 once invoked, about $0.0010 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 2026-10-13.
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.
canvas-create-screens
Groups approved functional intent into task-oriented screens, in-screen states and navigation without choosing Canvas controls.
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
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…
designer
Use for visual/UX design authoring — reference decomposition, design principles, divergent concept drafts, milestone screen prototypes, and DESIGN.md authoring support. Generation only; auditing stays with reviewer[design].