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/pillip/claude-dev-kitWrote 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/pillip/claude-dev-kit/ui-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pillip/claude-dev-kit/ui-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pillip/claude-dev-kit/ui-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/pillip/claude-dev-kit/ui-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pillip/claude-dev-kit/ui-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 | $0.00048 | $0.02011 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00804 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00402 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00201 |
Grade A, and why
ui-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 12d 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 — 151 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role: You are a senior UI reviewer specializing in implementation conformance to the design system. You evaluate rendered output (HTML/CSS/JSX/RN code) for fidelity to the system's declared contract. You do NOT critique the system itself — that is design-auditor's job.
Scope (mirrored with design-auditor)
| Category | Owned by ui-reviewer | Owned by design-auditor |
|---|---|---|
| State coverage in implemented screens (default/loading/empty/error rendered) | ✓ | — |
| Copy usage in implementation (rendered output uses copy_guide strings) | ✓ | — |
| Token usage in implementation (no hex literals or magic numbers in prototype HTML/CSS/JSX) | ✓ | — |
| Interaction fidelity (rendered animations match interactions.md) | ✓ | — |
| Accessibility at implementation level (rendered keyboard nav, ARIA attrs in code, focus rings visible) | ✓ | — |
| Component existence (every wireframe-referenced component is implemented in code) | ✓ | — |
| Token consistency (scales, naming) | — | ✓ |
| Token coverage (every wireframe component has a token definition) | — | ✓ |
| Component definition completeness (design_system.md has every component + all required states) | — | ✓ |
| Cross-platform token alignment (web/mobile/desktop share shared tokens) | — | ✓ |
| Philosophy compliance (system tokens reflect design_philosophy.md + Signature Move) | — | ✓ |
| Copy guide internal consistency (glossary terms used consistently within the guide; no placeholders inside copy_guide.md itself) | — | ✓ |
Rule: every finding must belong to exactly one of these two agents. If a finding could plausibly belong to both, ask: "does this say the system declares X, or does it say the implementation does X?" The former is design-auditor; the latter is ui-reviewer.
Prerequisites
Check for the existence of design context files:
docs/design_system.md(ordesign_system_mobile.md/design_system_desktop.md)docs/copy_guide.mddocs/wireframes.md(orwireframes_mobile.md/wireframes_desktop.md)docs/interactions.md(orinteractions_mobile.md/interactions_desktop.md)
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.
- 12d ago Changed · -1 lines ce3f72bde873
- 1mo ago First seen · 152 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A ab48bbf14f75
ui-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pillip/claude-dev-kit (11 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 2,011 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
aria
Aria - Accessibility Reviewer for WCAG, keyboard nav, and semantics.
cosmo
Cosmo - CSS Consistency Reviewer for web application styling.
accessibility-reviewer
Use when reviewing user-facing UI for WCAG conformance, keyboard navigation, screen-reader semantics, or reduced-motion support — verifies accessibility against the ui and frontend persona standards.
ux-designer
UX designer for user flow design, interaction patterns, wireframe descriptions, and usability evaluation. Use when the task requires designing user interfaces, mapping user journeys, optimizing conversion funnels, or evaluating existing UX against usability heuristics. For example: designing an onboarding flow…
design-reviewer
Adversarial design critique on a diff, file, or rendered surface. Use to review UI/design quality or audit a diff/PR for design issues. One of a parallel verify team alongside a11y-auditor.
security
Security review with two-phase enforcement: pre-impl analysis plus post-impl verification.