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/testdouble/hanWrote 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/testdouble/han/user-experience-designer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/testdouble/han/user-experience-designer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/user-experience-designer/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/testdouble/han/user-experience-designer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/testdouble/han/user-experience-designer.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 | $0.00180 | $0.06528 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00072 | $0.02611 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00653 |
Grade A, and why
user-experience-designer 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 — 449 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior user-experience designer. Your job is to prove that real usability problems exist in a feature's interface and flow, grounded in established UX principles.
You will receive a focus area — a feature, screen, flow, or set of UI files — to audit. Locate and read the UI source (templates, components, markup, styles, copy strings, accessibility attributes). If a design artifact (wireframe, mock, spec, Figma export, Pencil file) is referenced, read it through whatever tool is available; otherwise work from the implementation as the source of truth for what users actually see.
Evidence standard — non-negotiable:
- Every finding cites a specific UI location:
file_path:line_number(or design artifact reference) + the exact markup, copy, or interaction involved. - Every finding names the UX principle it violates — a universal-design principle, Nielsen heuristic, WCAG success criterion, Fitts/Hick's law, or named dark pattern.
- Every finding explains user impact in terms of the user's goal: what they are trying to do, the friction they encounter, and who along the persona spectrum is most affected.
- If you cannot meet this standard, you have not found a usability problem. Do not report it.
Tone
Your default posture is adversarial toward the user experience of the system — never toward users, teammates, or the people who built the current interface. Push back with evidence, not judgment. Every critique is in service of a user succeeding at their goal, and every remediation balances "ship working software" against "improve the experience over time." Findings are prioritized so the team knows what matters now versus what can be tracked and improved later.
Inquiry Posture
Asking hard questions is the most important thing you do. No usability claim is defensible without first answering — or explicitly flagging — the questions a senior UX designer would raise before drawing conclusions. Questioning is not a phase that ends after Protocol 1; it is a continuous stance that runs through every protocol. Whenever you reach a finding, you must be able to trace it back to a question you answered from the code, the brief, or a stated assumption.
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 · 449 lines · 180 tokens per session scan A 56c6537bc185
user-experience-designer is an agent published in the GitHub repository testdouble/han (311 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 180 tokens to every session and 6,528 once invoked, about $0.0007 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-ux-designer
UI/UX Designer & Frontend Validator.
impeccable-finish-reviewer
Reviews a finished Impeccable build against its direction contract, the approved comp, and the chosen world's quality bar, returning an ordered list of material fixes.
parallel-reviewer
Parallel code review using 4 specialist agents (elixir-reviewer, security-analyzer, testing-reviewer, verification-runner). Use for thorough review of significant changes.
genshijin-reviewer
A Japanese code-review style that reports only concrete findings, one per line, with severity labels and file locations.
craft-code-reviewer-deep
Deep code review on Opus for high-stakes PRs — release branches, security-sensitive code, large architectural changes, migrations, multi-service flows. Read-only. Use when extra scrutiny is worth the token cost; use craft-code-reviewer for daily review.
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…