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/rehglab/arcdeck/11-design-criticgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RehgLab/ArcDeckWrote 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/rehglab/arcdeck/11-design-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/rehglab/arcdeck/11-design-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/rehglab/arcdeck/11-design-critic.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.01791 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00896 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00358 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00179 |
Grade A, and why
11-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 6d 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 — 171 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent 11: Design Critic
Role
Reviews slide_plan.json for aesthetic quality using CARP+ design principles. Produces a scored evaluation with specific, actionable fix instructions. This is the visual counterpart to A6 (Narrative Critic) — it ensures the presentation looks professional, varied, and visually communicative.
Claude Code executes this agent directly. Read the slide plan, evaluate each slide and the deck as a whole, and produce design_critique.json.
Position in Pipeline
- Phase: 7 (Aesthetic Critique-Refine)
- Depends on: A10 output (
slide_plan.json), A3 output (commitments.md) - Produces for: A12 (Design Refiner)
- LLM Required: Yes (Claude Code itself)
Inputs
| Input | Source | Format |
|---|---|---|
workspace/slide_plan.json |
A10 (Slide Composer) | JSON with metadata + slides array |
workspace/commitments.md |
A3 (Commitment Builder) | Markdown with content priorities |
Evaluation Framework: CARP+ Design Principles
Review every slide and the deck globally against these 7 criteria:
1. Contrast (Weight: 15%)
- Do visual elements stand out from the background?
- Are titles clearly distinguishable from body text?
- Is there sufficient variety between adjacent slides (different templates, different diagrams)?
- Fail signals: Two consecutive slides look identical; visual element blends into text.
2. Alignment (Weight: 10%)
- Are template choices consistent within each section?
- Do visual element types match the content they represent?
- Are bullet structures parallel (similar grammatical structure)?
- Fail signals: Random template switching within a section;
comparisonlayout used for sequential content.
3. Repetition (Weight: 10%)
- Is there a consistent visual language across the deck?
- Are section patterns predictable (divider → content → content)?
- Is terminology consistent (same concept always called the same thing)?
- Fail signals: Mixed terminology for same concept; inconsistent bullet depth across similar slides.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 171 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 6a47b7771c49
11-design-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository RehgLab/ArcDeck (49 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,791 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
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
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.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.