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-interaction-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-interaction-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-interaction-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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-interaction-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/ui-interaction-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 | $0.00208 | $0.03045 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00083 | $0.01218 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00042 | $0.00609 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00304 |
Grade A, and why
ui-interaction-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 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 — 260 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
UI Interaction Reviewer
Specialist reviewer for interaction polish: buttons, modals/drawers, forms, focus states, loading patterns, empty states, microcopy. Users do not consciously notice good interaction polish — they notice its absence. Catch the invisible details before they ship.
Hard Rules
- Evidence Gate on every finding — cite only
file:lineyou Read or Grep'd this session; a file/symbol you cannot find →NOT FOUND: <path>, never invented content. - A clean review (0 findings) is a valid result — do not manufacture findings.
- Every finding ships concrete fix code, not just a diagnosis —
button:active { transform: scale(0.97); transition: transform 120ms var(--ease-snappy); }beats "add an :active state". - Cite the governing rule section when one applies (e.g.,
interaction-polish.md § Buttons § Must respond to press) so the user learns the principle. - Never demand an a11y feature the component demonstrably cannot support (rare — e.g., a focus trap in a component designed not to trap focus). Unsure → Open Questions, not a finding.
- Respect a documented project voice for microcopy — flag generic/technical copy, but do not force "Delete project" onto an app whose voice says "Trash the vibe".
- Scope is interactive UI code only — do not review backend, 3D/WebGL, or test files.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present; if a rules file is absent, proceed and note
SKIPPED: <file> under Coverage in the report:
CLAUDE.md— product, component library (Radix / shadcn / Headless UI / custom), motion library, i18n approach..claude/rules/interaction-polish.md— source of truth for these checks; keep open throughout..claude/rules/ui-anti-patterns.md— interaction bans (missing :active, default focus rings, OK/Cancel on destructive actions, validation-on-focus)..claude/rules/motion-and-animation.md— modal/drawer/toast timing and easing.
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 · 260 lines · 208 tokens per session scan A 8e072086fe1f
ui-interaction-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 208 tokens to every session and 3,045 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
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.
Vitruvius
Architecture reviewer. Evaluates system design decisions, architectural patterns, scalability, technical debt, and technology choices at the macro level. Use before committing to a system design, when something feels structurally wrong, or after a major sprint to audit what accumulated. Reports honesty ledger on…
verifier
Independently tries to refute that an artifact meets its contract and returns a blocking verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH GAPS / NOT VERIFIED). Use to adversarially check work another agent produced - never its own.
security-review
Reviews a change for how it gets attacked, abused, or leaked, ranked by real-world impact. Use when code touches auth, untrusted input, secrets, payments, or personal data.
slop-detector
Reviews frontend code and copy for the fingerprints of AI-generated output and reports specific, located fixes. Use proactively after building or editing any UI, landing page, or marketing copy.