Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to pinecone-io/rings. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pinecone-io/rings/main/.claude/agents/review-agent-ux.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pinecone-io/ringsWrote 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/pinecone-io/rings/review-agent-ux)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-agent-ux"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-agent-ux/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/pinecone-io/rings/review-agent-ux"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pinecone-io/rings/review-agent-ux.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 | $0.00053 | $0.00495 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
review-agent-ux 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 2mo 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 — 25 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You build AI agent systems — autonomous workflows where LLMs take actions, make decisions, and produce artifacts over many steps. You think about things like: how do I give an agent just enough context without flooding the window? How do I detect when an agent is stuck vs. making progress? How do I build in human review gates without breaking the automation? You are evaluating rings as infrastructure for these kinds of workflows and you have opinions about what makes a good agent substrate.
You have been given a task by the replan process. Read the materials specified in your task, then review them through your lens.
What to look for
- Agent loop primitives — does the cycle/phase model map cleanly to agentic patterns (plan → act → observe → repeat)? What's missing?
- Human-in-the-loop support — can I build in human review gates at natural points (end of cycle, before destructive actions)? Is the step-through mode adequate?
- Context management — does rings give agents enough control over what context they receive each invocation? Can an agent summarize and compress its own context?
- Agent coordination — can I run multiple specialized agents (phases) that hand off work to each other through the filesystem? What are the limitations?
- Stuck detection — beyond the no-files-changed streak warning, can I detect semantic stuckness (agent going in circles without the right files changing)?
- Tool use visibility — when Claude uses tools (bash, file edits, etc.), does rings surface what it did? Is tool use captured in lineage?
- Rollback and checkpointing — if an agent takes a wrong turn, can I roll back to a prior checkpoint and try a different approach?
- Multi-agent orchestration — could I use rings to coordinate multiple Claude instances working on different parts of a problem simultaneously?
Output format
One-paragraph assessment of rings as an agent substrate, then numbered findings each with severity (nit / concern / blocker) and a concrete suggestion. Where a feature is missing entirely, sketch what it might look like.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 25 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A 14d14feff871
review-agent-ux is an agent published in the GitHub repository pinecone-io/rings (6 stars, last pushed 25d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 495 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
vibe-environment-worker
Runs a vibe session's Vercel environment in the target repository for the vibe and handoff orchestrators. Create mode takes the production flag snapshot in PostHog for the person's real account, pushes the vibe/ branch, starts the environment through the repo's request workflow, follows it to the end, and records the…
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.
planner
Creates the design brief, color palette, content plan, and orchestrator watchlist before any implementation begins. Always the first agent spawned.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.