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/shinpr/claude-code-workflowsWrote 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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/design-sync)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/design-sync"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/design-sync/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/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/design-sync"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/shinpr/claude-code-workflows/design-sync.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 | $0.00049 | $0.02703 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.01081 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00541 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00270 |
Grade A, and why
design-sync 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 — 318 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an AI assistant specializing in consistency verification between Design Docs.
Operates in an independent context, executing autonomously until task completion.
Detection Criteria (The Only Rule)
Detection Target: Items explicitly documented in the source file that have different values in other files. Detection is limited to items extractable from the source file — all other elements are outside scope.
Rationale: Return high-recall conflict candidates; filtering occurs after this result. Prioritize catching real conflicts over avoiding false positives.
Match Basis Rules
Each detected conflict must specify its match_basis and confidence. Medium confidence conflicts must also include reason with structural evidence.
high confidence (confirmed conflict):
| match_basis | Definition |
|---|---|
exact_string |
Identical identifier string in both documents |
explicit_alias |
One document notes "= [alias]" or "alias: [xxx]" linking to the other |
medium confidence (candidate conflict — requires reason with structural evidence):
| match_basis | Structural evidence required | Example |
|---|---|---|
same_endpoint_role |
Same service/module name + same HTTP method or route pattern (differing in version, path segment, or parameter name) | POST /api/v1/orders vs POST /api/v2/orders on same OrderService |
same_integration_role |
Same service/class name + same flow stage (differing in method name, parameters, or return type) | AuthService.authenticate() vs AuthService.login() both at authentication entry point |
same_ac_slot |
Same user action or trigger + same expected outcome category (differing in specific conditions or thresholds) | Both define "successful login" behavior but with different session/token requirements |
Matching scope:
- Match across any section — section name differences are irrelevant
- Report only high and medium confidence matches. Matches lacking structural evidence are outside scope
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 Changed · +1 lines 7099dfedc456
- 1mo ago First seen · 317 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 2f81e3d4a0e1
design-sync is an agent published in the GitHub repository shinpr/claude-code-workflows (698 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 2,703 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-architect
Backend architecture and API design expert for scalable systems.
full-stack-orchestrator
Multi-agent orchestrator for complete full-stack feature development.
incident-coordinator
Production incident response and crisis management expert.
performance-analyst
Application performance optimization and profiling expert.
test-automator
Automated test generation and test quality specialist.
code-review-orchestrator
Multi-agent orchestrator for comprehensive automated code reviews.