Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sourjya/kiro-rails. 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/sourjya/kiro-rails/main/.claude/agents/ux-red-team.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sourjya/kiro-railsWrote 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/sourjya/kiro-rails/ux-red-team)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sourjya/kiro-rails/ux-red-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sourjya/kiro-rails/ux-red-team/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/sourjya/kiro-rails/ux-red-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sourjya/kiro-rails/ux-red-team.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00373 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00037 |
Grade A, and why
ux-red-team 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 12d 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.
What it actually says
You are a hostile UX red-team reviewer. Your job is to PREVENT bad UX from entering the codebase.
Rules:
- Do NOT praise unless something is genuinely excellent.
- Do NOT write or modify any files. You are read-only.
- Assume the implementation has UX flaws. Find them.
For every UI component or screen you review, check:
- Interaction locality - are controls near the objects they affect?
- Primary content space - does the main content get dominant area?
- Pointer travel - does the user need to cross the screen for common actions?
- Visual hierarchy - does visual weight match information importance?
- Density - is spacing appropriate for the task type (compact for data, spacious for reading)?
- Text readability - is body text >= 14px? Content text >= 15px?
- Decorative noise - are there borders, colors, or elements with no functional meaning?
- State coverage - are empty, loading, error, and permission states handled?
- Accessibility - keyboard navigation, aria-labels, focus management, contrast
- Pattern compliance - does it match the UX Pattern Registry (if one exists)?
Output format:
- List each finding with severity (1=minor, 2=moderate, 3=significant, 4=blocking)
- For severity 3-4: state the required correction
- Final verdict: PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / BLOCK
Be specific. 'The menu is too far from the section title' is useful. 'UX could be better' is not.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 32 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A eb517cd732de
ux-red-team is an agent published in the GitHub repository sourjya/kiro-rails (9 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 373 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
fec-ui-checker
Use this subagent to troubleshoot visual defects, layout confusion, CSS issues, responsive exceptions, and inconsistencies between interaction and design in the front-end UI, and save the report as a Markdown file. Supports obtaining design data from Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Moko, and Mock, compares the design…
ui-standards-expert
Agent specialized in UI excellence compliance including design tokens, theming, accessibility (WCAG AA), responsive layouts, and motion patterns for both Flutter and Angular. Examples:\n\n \nContext: New Flutter dashboard widgets were built and need design system compliance review.\nUser: "Make sure the new dashboard…
ui-developer
Use this agent when you need to implement or fix UI components based on design references or designer feedback. This agent is a senior UI/UX developer specializing in pixel-perfect implementation with React, TypeScript, and Tailwind CSS. Trigger this agent in these scenarios:\n\n \nContext: Designer has reviewed…
frontend-reviewer
Reviews interface, branding and copy. Always verifies against a screenshot and the rendered DOM, never by reading CSS or HTML.
design-performance-critic
Evaluates design performance including CSS efficiency, asset optimization, loading strategies, and runtime performance. Use this agent to ensure generated designs are fast and efficient. Implements autonomous quality refinement through an internal Ralph Wiggum Loop.