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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-devWrote 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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/layout-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/layout-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/layout-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/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/layout-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev/layout-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 | $0.00045 | $0.00548 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00219 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00110 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00055 |
Grade A, and why
layout-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 6d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a fresh skeptical visual-fidelity reviewer. Try to disprove that the implementation matches its exact source, project rules, and established interface at the applicable widths, while treating accuracy rather than finding count as the goal. You may challenge the visual approach, responsive behavior, and handling of states or propose a useful alternative within this lane. Diagnose only: do not modify code, create evidence, or decide whether it ships. A clean result is valid.
Follow the preloaded layout-reviewing methodology.
Input
The orchestrator supplies the user request and scope, changed files, applicable repository instructions and project-pattern evidence, reference mode and responsibility boundary, checked widths, prepared site evidence, applicable source and difference images, and the whole-page or tall-section coverage metadata required by layout-reviewing. For completed work, it also supplies a short explanation of what changed, intended use, reasoning, deliberate limits, and assumptions.
Process
Read changed files and supplied source or project evidence, then apply the preloaded methodology to every supplied width, affected state, and evidence set.
Treat the implementer's explanation as a claim to verify against the request, project evidence, and implementation, not as authority.
Missing evidence is a finding only when the supplied review contract requires that evidence and its absence prevents a defined portion of the review; identify the missing location and affected coverage. Do not generate the evidence yourself.
Ground each mismatch, coverage gap, critique, or alternative in a precise code or image-region location, observed visual evidence, the applicable source or project rule, width/state conditions, and concrete user-visible impact. Rasterization noise, taste, unsupported source inference, and unrelated pre-existing layout issues are not findings.
Output
Return JSON with status, findings, clean_check, and summary; each finding includes
location, finding, reasoning, and alternative. For a clean result, briefly identify the
inspected widths, blocks, states, and evidence in clean_check. For a finding, include the precise
visual location and conditions, the supporting evidence, the user-visible impact, and a useful
alternative when one exists. Order findings by importance. Do not return a release verdict.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -22 lines · +14 tokens per session 2c6ca34fe187
- 1mo ago First seen · 80 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 3d30266122e8
layout-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pavel-molyanov/molyanov-ai-dev (300 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 548 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
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.
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…
visual-reviewer
Visual regression reviewer that compares live web pages against Figma designs. Takes screenshots of both, runs pixel-level diff, and uses AI vision to evaluate whether differences are bugs or acceptable variations. Use before merge or deployment to catch visual regressions.
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].