Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Bita71/Agent-Workflow-Kit. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Bita71/Agent-Workflow-Kit/master/.claude/commands/review-design.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Bita71/Agent-Workflow-KitWrote 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/bita71/agent-workflow-kit/review-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/bita71/agent-workflow-kit/review-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bita71/agent-workflow-kit/review-design/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/bita71/agent-workflow-kit/review-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/bita71/agent-workflow-kit/review-design.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00071 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00028 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00014 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00007 |
Grade A, and why
review-design 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 2mo 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
review-design
Design review of the current diff: architecture, boundaries, public API, UX, simplification, performance.
Follow docs/ai/commands/review-design.md and docs/ai/skills/review-design.md.
Review only the changed files and nearest dependencies. Read-only: do not edit
code — return the report.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 9 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 7d89e2943fc6
review-design is a command published in the GitHub repository Bita71/Agent-Workflow-Kit (1 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 71 tokens. 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 commands, from other repositories
design-sprint
Orchestrate design-to-implementation workflow for a sprint or feature. Coordinates /ui (Aura) and /fe (Finn).
aura
Invoke Aura, your Senior UI/UX Design Architect for landing pages, dashboards, mobile apps, design systems, and brand-aligned interfaces.
ui
Invoke UI/UX Designer for design systems, prototypes, and visual design.
ux
Invoke the UX Researcher for user interviews, usability testing, personas, journey maps, information architecture, and research synthesis.
dual-review
Dual-track review — functional correctness and design quality in parallel, then merge findings.
pr-review
Review a PR across multiple dimensions (description, code, scan, tests).