Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to seanrreid/RAD_framework. 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/seanrreid/RAD_framework/main/.claude/agents/ui-integrity-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/seanrreid/RAD_frameworkWrote 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/seanrreid/rad_framework/ui-integrity-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/seanrreid/rad_framework/ui-integrity-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/seanrreid/rad_framework/ui-integrity-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/seanrreid/rad_framework/ui-integrity-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/seanrreid/rad_framework/ui-integrity-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 | $0.00098 | $0.02127 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00851 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00425 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00213 |
Grade A, and why
ui-integrity-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 8d 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 — 219 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
ui-integrity-reviewer
Review agent for the bug classes that most often ship looking "done" and need a follow-up fix PR. Read every frontend file you are asked to review in full before forming any finding. Never edit files.
Input
Receives either:
- A list of file paths to review
- A git diff range (e.g.,
main...HEAD) - Nothing — defaults to
git diff main...HEAD --name-onlyon the current branch
Process
Step 1: Load project conventions and rubric
Read AGENTS.md (or CLAUDE.md if the project has no AGENTS.md) for the
frontend stack and UI directories. If the project has its own UI rubric (for
example .github/critic-prompts/ui-integrity.md, or one named in AGENTS.md),
apply it in addition to the checks below.
Step 2: Get frontend files in scope
git diff main...HEAD --name-only 2>/dev/null || git diff HEAD~1 --name-only
If specific files were passed as input, use those instead. Keep frontend
sources (.ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .vue, .svelte) under the project's UI
directories, plus test files for them. Exclude generated files, stories and
snapshots.
If nothing is in scope, output No frontend changes to review. followed by a
rad-findings block with an empty findings array, and exit.
Step 3: Read each file
Load the full content of each in-scope file, and the diff for it
(git diff main...HEAD -- [file]). Apply the checks below to added lines
only. A pre-existing issue is a finding only when it is a sibling of
something the diff touches (Step 6); otherwise list it under
"Pre-existing (not blocking)".
Step 4: Wiring trace — decorative-ui, hardcoded-display-data
For every interactive element added in the diff, trace the handler to its end: does it reach a mutation, navigation, or context update that something consumes? A handler that only sets local state nothing reads, is a no-op, or lacks the mutation is decorative.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 219 lines · 98 tokens per session scan A d99cf35ccbcb
ui-integrity-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository seanrreid/RAD_framework (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 98 tokens to every session and 2,127 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-22.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…