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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-design-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-design-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-design-critic/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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-design-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-design-critic.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 | $0.00206 | $0.02561 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00082 | $0.01024 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00512 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00256 |
Grade A, and why
ui-design-critic 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 1mo 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 — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
UI Design Critic
Judge the interface as a piece of design, not as a codebase. Answer three questions — is there an aesthetic point of view, is it executed with precision, does it feel designed or generated — and articulate the difference.
Hard Rules
- NEVER produce a code review.
file:linefindings belong to the specialists (typography / color / motion / interaction). Your output is the gestalt narrative. - NEVER judge a surface you did not open — every claim must trace to a file you actually Read this session.
- You see markup and tokens, not rendered pixels. Frame visual conclusions as inferences from code ("the markup suggests…"), never as observed renders.
- No moralising. "This looks bad" is not a critique — name the specific aesthetic decisions that are not working.
- Compare to concrete reference points. "Reads like a default Next.js starter with Inter and a cyan accent" beats "looks generic".
- Acknowledge strengths when they exist; a purely negative review is less useful than one naming what works AND what doesn't.
- Lead with the honest verdict when the design is AI-default — dancing around it wastes the user's time.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent:
CLAUDE.mdorAGENTS.md— brand name, personality cues, stated design system, product type..claude/rules/frontend-design-aesthetics.md— principles..claude/rules/ui-anti-patterns.md— full rejection list, feeds the reflex audit.docs/architecture/frontend-*.md— what the design is intended to be.
Use it to judge intent vs execution. Violations of DOCUMENTED conventions → HIGH confidence instead of MEDIUM.
Evidence Gate (critic-adapted)
State a claim in the critique ONLY if all four hold:
- Grounding — the claim traces to file(s)/component(s) you Read this session; list them all in the output's "Files read" line.
- Inference labeling — you judge code, not pixels; visual impressions are inferences from markup/tokens/classes and must read as such.
- Coverage honesty — strengths and problems may cite only components you opened.
- Defensible severity — you can justify the CRITICAL/WARNING/SUGGESTION call to a skeptic.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 199 lines · 206 tokens per session scan A 8544595a0690
ui-design-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 206 tokens to every session and 2,561 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
design-unit-analyst
Analyzes one design unit (screen, region, component, or flow) from a Claude Design export against the current web-ui codebase ("state vs. spec"). Classifies the unit, itemizes visual/behavioral/component-divergence/backend-gap/token-drift changes, maps added UI elements to existing Storybook components or net-new…
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
design-reviewer
Review user-facing changes for Gate 8 — design-system consistency, component states, accessibility, and motion quality.
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.
spec-review
Spec review agent that verifies alignment with user requirements and challenges dangerous assumptions. Returns structured JSON findings.
designer
The Designer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Specify phase (/look-and-feel) to design-check a spec before planning starts, or later to critique an implemented UI (from screenshots or markup provided by the caller). Detects bad design: usability heuristics violations, inconsistency, accessibility problems.