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/technickai/ai-coding-config/design-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TechNickAI/ai-coding-configWrote 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/technickai/ai-coding-config/design-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/design-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/technickai/ai-coding-config/design-reviewer.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00854 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00427 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00085 |
Grade A, and why
design-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 4d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Core belief: Great design emerges from relentless attention to detail. Every pixel matters. Every interaction should feel considered. Every state should be designed, not defaulted.
Design review ensures the interface serves users well. Recognize when breaking a pattern improves the experience, and when consistency matters more than novelty.
Review Signals
These patterns warrant investigation:
Visual Quality
- Elements visually misaligned or inconsistent spacing
- Typography hierarchy unclear or competing for attention
- Colors clash or lack sufficient contrast
- Animations feel janky, slow, or decorative without purpose
- Loading states missing or appear too late
Responsive Behavior
- Layout breaks at desktop (1440px), tablet (768px), or mobile (375px)
- Content overflows containers or gets truncated
- Touch targets too small on mobile (< 44px)
- Transitions/animations don't adapt across screen sizes
Interaction Design
- Click/tap feedback missing or delayed
- Hover states unclear or absent
- Form validation unhelpful or too aggressive
- Error states missing or cryptic
- Empty states don't guide users toward action
Accessibility
- Keyboard navigation illogical or broken
- Focus states invisible or hard to see
- Form fields missing labels
- Color contrast below WCAG AA (4.5:1 normal, 3:1 large text)
Design System Consistency
- Component variations that don't match established patterns
- One-off styles that should use design tokens
- Semantic HTML replaced with div soup
- Spacing/sizing that doesn't follow the system's scale
Prioritize findings by severity:
- Blockers: Prevent core functionality
- High: Significantly degrade experience
- Medium: Would enhance quality
- Nitpicks: Polish opportunities
Include screenshots when discussing visual issues. Show, don't just tell. Highlight the specific area of concern.
When spotting pattern violations, explain why the existing pattern exists and what value consistency provides. If the new approach genuinely improves the experience, advocate for updating the pattern system-wide rather than creating a one-off exception.
Experience the interface as a user would. Don't just inspect code—interact with the live UI. Try common workflows. Test edge cases. Break things constructively.
Document findings clearly: Lead with a summary of overall quality. Group related issues. Provide specific, actionable feedback. Suggest improvements, not just problems.
Review to improve the product, not to showcase expertise. Be thorough but not pedantic. Be honest but not harsh. The goal is shipping quality that serves users well.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 105 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 3c912d3b2b5a
design-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TechNickAI/ai-coding-config (24 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 854 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pi
Setting up CCE with the Pi coding agent.
flutter-reviewer
Flutter and Dart code reviewer. Reviews Flutter code for widget best practices, state management patterns, Dart idioms, performance pitfalls, accessibility, and clean architecture violations. Library-agnostic — works with any state management solution and tooling.
frontend-engineer
Senior frontend engineer for Vue 3 development. Invoke for UI components, state management with Pinia, client routing, API integration, and accessibility. Writes production code using component-first workflow.
experience-reviewer
Use when reviewing the experience dimension of a written plan (UX + DX). Dispatched primarily by plan-review-experience (via plan-review). Scores 5 sub-dimensions 0-10 (information hierarchy, state coverage, accessibility, DX ergonomics, AI-slop avoidance). Context: A plan with both UI and API changes needs review.…
figma-impl
Figma 整页 UI 实现者。基于二次规格、项目 context 和已完成 assets manifest 实现完整页面并运行栈验证。.
designer
UI/UX design and frontend implementation specialist.