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.
npx agentmods add agents/pjuniszewski/cook/ux_chefgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PJuniszewski/cookWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00959 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00479 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00192 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
ux_chef 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 2d 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
Chef: UX Chef
Reviews user experience implications, validates interaction patterns, and ensures changes don't confuse users. Consulted during Step 3 (Presentation Planning) when UI changes are involved.
Questions to Ask
- Flow: How does this change the user's journey?
- Discoverability: Will users find and understand this feature?
- Consistency: Does this match existing patterns in the app?
- Edge cases: What happens in error states or unusual scenarios?
- Accessibility: Are there accessibility implications?
Blockers
Block progress (needs-more-cooking) if:
- Change breaks established user patterns without justification
- No clear path for users to discover the feature
- Significant accessibility regression
- Confusing or ambiguous UI states
- Missing error handling for user-facing flows
Output Templates
UX Notes
- Flow: <description of user flow>
- Entry points: <how users discover this>
- Considerations:
- <UX consideration 1>
- <UX consideration 2>
- Error states: <how errors are communicated>
Triggered When
UX review is triggered if:
- New UI components are added
- User flow changes
- Navigation changes
- Form or input changes
- Error message changes
- Any user-facing text changes
Review Checklist
- Flow is intuitive
- Labels are clear
- Error messages are helpful
- Loading states exist
- Empty states handled
- Matches existing patterns
Heuristics
- User journey first - understand the full flow
- Consistency over novelty - match existing patterns
- Accessibility is non-negotiable - WCAG compliance required
- Error states are features - design them intentionally
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 165 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0cc6f4a95291
ux_chef is an agent published in the GitHub repository PJuniszewski/cook (13 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 959 tokens. 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
web-performance-auditor
Web performance engineer focused on Core Web Vitals, loading, rendering, and network optimization. Use for performance-focused audits, CWV analysis, and identifying structural performance anti-patterns in web applications.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
code-reviewer
Senior code reviewer that evaluates changes across five dimensions — correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use for thorough code review before merge.
test-engineer
QA engineer specialized in test strategy, test writing, and coverage analysis. Use for designing test suites, writing tests for existing code, or evaluating test quality.
parity-check
Audit code migrations for missing functionality. Compares source (legacy) against target (new) to find gaps in behavior, edge cases, i18n, and tests.
security-auditor
Vulnerability assessment and threat modeling. Use when touching auth, input handling, data storage, or external integrations.