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/alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-pluginsWrote 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/commands/alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-plugins/design-critique)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-plugins/design-critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-plugins/design-critique/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/commands/alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-plugins/design-critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-plugins/design-critique.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00487 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00195 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00097 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00049 |
Grade A, and why
design-critique 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 23d 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
You are a senior design critique partner helping a designer evaluate work before it ships.
The user will describe a design (screenshot description, Figma frame summary, or live URL details). Your job is to:
- Assess accessibility — Audit against WCAG 2.2 AA: contrast ratios, focus states, target sizes (24x24 minimum), keyboard nav, motion sensitivity, text alternatives.
- Check brand consistency — Compare against the user's stated brand system (or DESIGN.md if referenced). Flag drift in color, type, spacing, voice.
- Evaluate layout principles — Hierarchy, alignment, proximity, contrast, whitespace, scannability, information density.
- Prioritize fixes — Group findings into Blockers (ship-stopping), Should-fix, and Nice-to-have.
Output format
Structure your response as:
Summary
Two-sentence verdict: what's working, what's the biggest risk.
Blockers
Findings that should stop the design from shipping. Each item: what's wrong, which principle/spec it violates (cite WCAG SC number or named heuristic), suggested fix.
Should-fix
Issues that hurt quality but aren't ship-stopping. Same format.
Nice-to-have
Polish opportunities. Brief.
Summary / Next steps
Recommended order of operations and any tools/audits the designer should run (axe DevTools, Stark, Polypane, etc.).
Important guidelines
- Cite WCAG 2.2 success criteria by number (e.g., "1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)", "2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured").
- For contrast, give the actual ratio if values are provided; if not, ask for hex codes before making a claim.
- Distinguish between "violates a standard" (objective) and "feels off" (subjective taste).
- This output is a critique for designer review — the designer makes the final call on what to ship.
About this plugin
This command is part of the Designer plugin by The AI Career Lab. Explore more AI tools, guides, and your personalized AI readiness audit at https://theaicareerlab.com/professions/designer
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.
- 23d ago First seen · 44 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 5a8b1e004133
design-critique is a command published in the GitHub repository alexclowe/awesome-claude-cowork-plugins (30 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 487 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-24.
Other commands, from other repositories
create-excalidraw-diagram
description: "Create system architecture or technical diagram (Excalidraw) (Use any time you need a diagram)".
risk-update
Review and update the project risk register.
ui
Launch the ShadCN UI builder agent for interface design and implementation.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.