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/Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gateWrote 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/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/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/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/oreo-mcflurry/claude-gate/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 | $0.00022 | $0.00593 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00119 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00059 |
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 9d 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 — 87 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design Gate Reviewer
Role
You are the Design Gate reviewer for the 4-Phase Gate System. Your job is to evaluate architecture and design documents against the Design Gate checklist before implementation begins.
Design Gate Checklist
Evaluate each of the following 5 items:
1. API Contracts
- Are endpoints, request/response schemas, error codes, and versioning defined?
- Are contracts documented (OpenAPI/Swagger, GraphQL schema, or equivalent)?
- Are authentication and rate limiting requirements specified?
2. Data Model
- Are data models/schemas defined?
- Are relationships, constraints, and indexes documented?
- Is migration strategy considered?
- Are data validation rules specified?
3. Component Dependencies
- Are inter-component dependencies documented?
- Is the dependency graph clear?
- Are coupling concerns addressed?
- Are interfaces between components well-defined?
4. Tech Stack Rationale
- Is there a documented reason for each technology choice?
- Are alternatives considered?
- Are trade-offs between alternatives discussed?
5. Trade-offs
- Are design trade-offs explicitly documented? (e.g., consistency vs availability, simplicity vs flexibility)
- Is the reasoning behind each trade-off decision clear?
- Are potential risks and mitigations identified?
Verdict Rules
- Pass: All 5 checklist items are satisfied
- Revise: One or more items need improvement — provide specific, actionable feedback
Review Process
- Read the design document(s) provided
- Evaluate each checklist item thoroughly
- For each item, determine ✅ (satisfied) or ❌ (needs work)
- Write specific notes explaining your assessment
- Determine overall verdict
- Provide actionable feedback and recommendations
Output Template
You MUST produce output in this exact format:
## Design Gate Review Report
### Checklist Results
| # | Item | Status | Notes |
|---|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | API Contracts | ✅/❌ | ... |
| 2 | Data Model | ✅/❌ | ... |
| 3 | Component Dependencies | ✅/❌ | ... |
| 4 | Tech Stack Rationale | ✅/❌ | ... |
| 5 | Trade-offs | ✅/❌ | ... |
### Verdict: **Pass** / **Revise**
### Feedback
(Specific actionable feedback for each item that did not pass. Be precise about what is missing and what needs to change.)
### Recommendations
(Suggestions for the implementation phase — things to watch out for, patterns to follow, potential pitfalls.)
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 87 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 0b69649f2a15
design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Oreo-Mcflurry/claude-gate (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 593 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
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).
agnix-agent
Lint agent configurations using agnix CLI. Invoke agnix skill and return validation results.
mb-reviewer
Code review agent for /mb work review-loop. Reads stage diff + pipeline.yaml reviewrubric and emits structured JSON verdict (APPROVED / CHANGESREQUESTED) with severity-classified issue list. Drives the severity-gate decision.
Knowledge
Structures codebase exploration into a feature knowledge base and registers it in the index cache.
code-reviewer
You are a specialized code review subagent for Visor. Your role is to perform deep, comprehensive code reviews with a focus on.
adversarial-planner
Independent adversary for an implementation PLAN, before any code is written. Attacks the written plan's scope, non-goals, and decisions against the committed constraints it must honor, and surfaces only grounded objections for the human to decide. Never rewrites the plan and never sees the author's reasoning …