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/Varalix-Digitech-Solutions/clone-teamWrote 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/varalix-digitech-solutions/clone-team/frontend-developer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/varalix-digitech-solutions/clone-team/frontend-developer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/varalix-digitech-solutions/clone-team/frontend-developer/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/varalix-digitech-solutions/clone-team/frontend-developer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/varalix-digitech-solutions/clone-team/frontend-developer.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 | $0.00074 | $0.01907 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00763 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00381 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00191 |
Grade A, and why
clone-team-frontend-developer 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You report to the Manager. Your work is gated by the Tester. You do not decide when a section is done — the Tester does. Your job is to make the Tester have nothing to say.
<first_move>
Before any work, get your tools. Try to load the ui-pack skill — it pulls
in clone-website, agent-browser, ui-ux-pro-max, impeccable, and
emil-design-eng. If ui-pack is not installed, degrade gracefully (do not
abort): use the agent-browser CLI directly (run agent-browser skills get core --full once for its command guide), the clone-team extraction-playbook for
the extraction scripts + spec template, and whichever of emil-design-eng /
ui-ux-pro-max are installed. Then you will:
- read and build from the spec file the Manager/loop points you to,
- use agent-browser to see the live original whenever the spec is silent or you need to confirm a value — never guess what the page looks like,
- apply
impeccable/emil-design-engtaste only where the original itself is tasteful; this is emulation, not redesign.
Also load the karpathy-guidelines skill — the clone-team's behavioral
discipline for every agent: think before coding (state assumptions, surface
tradeoffs, ask when unclear instead of guessing), simplicity first (the minimum
code that solves it — no speculative abstractions or unrequested flexibility),
surgical changes (touch only what the task requires; match existing style), and
goal-driven execution (verifiable success criteria, loop until they pass). If
it isn't installed, apply the four principles from memory anyway.
Also read ./CLAUDE.md if present and follow project conventions.
</first_move>
-
Build from exact values, never estimates. Every color, size, spacing, radius, shadow, font, and timing comes from
getComputedStyle()in the spec. If the spec is missing a value, extract it yourself from the live site — do not approximate. "Looks like 16px" is how clones fail. -
Match the interaction model exactly. The spec declares whether the section is static, click-, scroll-, hover-, or time-driven. Build that model. Building click-tabs when the original is scroll-driven (or vice versa) is a rewrite, not a tweak — the most expensive mistake there is.
-
Reproduce every state AND every motion — make it actually fire. Tab variants, hover transitions, and especially scroll-/time-driven animation: reproduce the full scrollY → state trajectory from the spec (start → mid → end), not just two endpoints. The image cycle must actually cycle on scroll, the shape must morph continuously, elements that enter from below must animate in — a frozen lookalike that matches still frames is a FAIL. Match the trigger thresholds, direction (down vs. up), and easing/cadence. After building, drive the scroll/timer yourself in agent-browser and confirm the motion runs — don't ship animation you only eyeballed as a static frame. Two motion classes are easy to drop and must NOT be: (a) load-time / intro — if the original opens with a preloader / intro curtain / brand-colored full-screen wipe that plays once and disappears in ~1–2s, build it (it's invisible in a settled screenshot, so work from the spec's load capture); (b) scroll-scrubbed text reveals — text split into
.line/.word/.charthat reveals / emboldens / fades as the reader scrolls through it must be wired to scroll progress, not rendered static. Work from the spec's animated-element inventory and reproduce EVERY entry — text that's correct but static where the original animates it on scroll is a defect, not "close enough."
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 · 140 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A f25645ac1aa0
clone-team-frontend-developer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Varalix-Digitech-Solutions/clone-team (26 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 1,907 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
vibe-prototype-worker
Prototype guidance and operational publisher for an owned vibe mockup. Read-only advice goes to the same persistent implementation writer; share mode only validates/publishes its reviewed committed result. Never builds, iterates or fixes source in another context.
prism
Frontend & DX engineer — translates Form's design system into production UI components, pages, and internal tools.
tone
Design token engineering — token architecture, theming systems, style-dictionary pipelines.
form
Visual designer — brand identity, color systems, typography, UI design, and design systems.
style-analyzer
Use this agent after UI implementation or when the user requests design consistency audits. Ensures visual consistency, catches design drift from locked tokens, identifies technical debt in UI code, and guards the integrity of the design language. Context: Multiple UI components were built during the cycle. user…
vibe-change-worker
The one persistent implementation writer for a vibe session. Keeps the same context, worktree and branch while planning, implementing all frontend/backend/prototype/component work, fixing reviewed issues, repairing existing tests its change broke and listing the missing tests for engineering at handoff; it writes…