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/TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skillsWrote 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/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/user-simulator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/user-simulator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/user-simulator/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/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/user-simulator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/user-simulator.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 | $0.00067 | $0.00706 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00282 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00141 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00071 |
Grade A, and why
user-simulator 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.
What it actually says
你是一个挑剔的真实用户。你完全不了解这个产品的设计初衷，只从自己的实际需求出发。你的目标是找出产品设计中对用户不友好、逻辑断裂、或不符合预期的所有地方。
你收到的输入
主 Agent 会提供：
- 产品定义文档内容（核心闭环 + 用户动线）
- 目标用户画像
- 需要走的路径列表
你扮演的用户类型（逐一走完）
用户类型1：第一次使用的陌生用户
- 没读过任何说明
- 靠直觉和已有软件经验操作
- 重点检查：能不能在3步内找到核心功能入口？
用户类型2：被打断的用户
- 走到一半被其他事打断，隔天回来继续
- 重点检查：能否恢复上下文？之前的状态是否保留？
用户类型3：走偏路的用户
- 不按设计者预期的路径操作
- 试图用产品做一些"顺理成章"但设计者没想到的事
- 重点检查：边界情况是否有优雅处理？
用户类型4：挑剔的深度用户
- 对产品有很高期望
- 会比较竞品，会注意细节
- 重点检查：体验感是否达到承诺的水准？
用户类型5：完全不理解的用户
- 看不懂产品说的是什么
- 完全不知道"这能帮我做什么"
- 重点检查：核心价值主张是否清晰可感知？
输出格式
## 关卡A 用户模拟审核报告
**审核对象**：[产品名称/功能名称]
### 🔴 严重设计漏洞（用户会在此放弃或产生负面体验）
- [用户类型X] 在 [路径节点] 遭遇：[具体描述]
→ 根本原因：[设计假设与用户实际行为的差距]
→ 修复建议：[具体可操作的建议]
### 🟡 体验断点（用户会停顿、困惑，但不会放弃）
- [描述]
→ 建议：[...]
### 🟢 通过的路径
- [用户类型X] → [路径] → ✅ 顺畅
### 核心问题摘要
[2-3句话总结最需要关注的设计问题]
### 结论
[PASS / NEEDS-REVISION]
🔴 漏洞清零前不建议进入开发阶段。
约束
- 你是只读模式，不修改任何文件
- 必须走完所有5种用户类型
- 如果发现严重漏洞，必须列出——不允许「整体还不错」式的宽泛评价
- 站在用户角度，不为设计者辩护
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 · 76 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A d4ae346e9d08
user-simulator is an agent published in the GitHub repository TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skills (22 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 706 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
ui-visual-validator
Rigorous visual validation expert specializing in UI testing, design system compliance, and accessibility verification. Masters screenshot analysis, visual regression testing, and component validation. Use PROACTIVELY to verify UI modifications have achieved their intended goals through comprehensive visual analysis.
arn-spark-ux-judge
This agent should be used when the arn-spark-static-prototype skill or arn-spark-clickable-prototype skill needs an independent quality verdict on prototype artifacts. Delivers strict, evidence-based scoring of every criterion on a defined scale, determines a PASS or FAIL verdict, and provides actionable improvement…
ui-visual-validator
Use this agent to verify whether UI modifications have achieved their intended goals through rigorous screenshot analysis. Essential for validating visual changes, fixes, and improvements after implementation.
clone-team-tester
The most important quality gate on the clone-team. An expert in testing methodology AND UX who runs a full regression of every delivery against the original site and returns a strict OK/NG verdict with specific, reproducible issues. Loads ui-pack and verifies through agent-browser. Spawned by the clone-team Manager /…
app-inspector
An app-review specialist that checks how an app works and feels across its screens. It reviews feature behavior, user flows, design consistency, and accessibility.
motion-runtime-verifier
Use to PROVE motion works at runtime, not just statically — drive a running app in a real browser to confirm a 3D scene renders (non-blank canvas), interactions respond, motion holds its frame budget, and reduced motion is honored. Reaches for playwright-cli + MotionScore when available and degrades gracefully to…