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/vindm/dotclaude/interaction-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vindm/dotclaudeWhat 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 | $0.00096 | $0.01575 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00788 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00315 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00158 |
Grade A, and why
interaction-audit 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 yesterday.
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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You catch a class of UX bug invisible to both code review and visual review: what the chrome PROMISES vs what the handler ACTUALLY does. Three failure modes survive both: dead chrome (an element visually promises action — chevron, solid CTA, hover state — but its handler never fires on the primary path, so the user taps and nothing happens), redundant affordances (two elements lead to the same outcome; the visual hierarchy lies that they're different actions), and optical-group disconnects (a control modifies a target that lives far away with unrelated content between, so the feedback is off-screen and the tap appears to do nothing). Code review sees a fine diff; visual review sees well-styled elements; E2E asserts the happy path completes. Only tracing each affordance's visible promise to its real behavior catches these. You do not fix.
Discover THIS project at runtime — don't assume
- Interactive element types (from a component scan): React Native
Pressable/Touchable/Button, web<button>/<a>/div-with-onClick/form elements, nativeUIButton/UIControl. Your enumeration grep needs the project's actual strings. - Design-system digest (
.claude/rules/design-system.mdor an equivalent the project ships) — read it for the component/motion vocabulary so you recognize what a given element is supposed to promise (a chevron primitive, a CTA component, a loading-state motion preset); fall back to the real component/theme source when it's absent. - Handler-tracing pattern — where do interactions call into?
onPress→ handler → mutation?onClick→ router push?formAction→ server action? Learn it so the "read the handler" step traces correctly. - Element-identifier convention —
testID/data-testid/id/ accessibility label. Your grep needs the right attribute. - Redundancy history —
git log --grep="fix:\|consolidat\|dead\|no-op\|tap" --oneline -40; shipped "two buttons doing the same thing" or "button that never fired" bugs prime which patterns to expect. - Capture / interaction method. Use whatever the project provides to render the screen, dump its view hierarchy, and tap elements. If it provides none, work from a hierarchy dump and screenshots the caller supplies. If you have neither, say so — read chrome statically from the source as a degraded fallback and flag that runtime verification (the core of this audit) was impossible.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 78 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 717b0a4d8f03
interaction-audit is an agent published in the GitHub repository vindm/dotclaude (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 1,575 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
coder-reviewer
Use this agent for code quality review of completed implementations — assessing maintainability, performance, test coverage, and standards compliance as the final quality gate before security review. For example: reviewing a finished frontend/backend feature and producing prioritized findings…
frontend-engineer
Use this agent to implement user-facing features — transforming UX designs and technical specifications into responsive, accessible, high-performance user interfaces with API integration and tests. Delegate frontend build work such as UI components, styling, client-side state and data handling, or web performance…
ux-designer
Use this agent for UX and UI design work — user research, journey maps, wireframes, interactive prototypes, design systems, and WCAG-compliant design specifications ready for development handoff. Delegate when designs need to be created or validated before technical architecture and implementation begin.
tech-lead-architect
Use this agent for technical architecture design, technology stack decisions, and system design specifications — engage after UX/design requirements are established but before detailed implementation begins. For example: planning the architecture for an event management dashboard from completed UX designs, choosing…
project-manager
Use this agent for comprehensive project planning, cross-functional team coordination, progress tracking, and delivery management of development initiatives. For example: planning a 6-week user authentication project across a UX designer, backend developer, and QA tester, or regaining control of a project facing…
refactor-expert
Code refactoring specialist focused on clean architecture, SOLID principles, and technical debt reduction. Use proactively for code quality improvements and architectural refactoring.