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 commands/educlopez/ui-craft/auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/educlopez/ui-craftWhat 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 | $0.00019 | $0.00804 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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
Run a technical audit of the UI at $ARGUMENTS. Load the ui-craft skill and apply the audit lens.
Step 0: Visual capture (mandatory)
Code-only review is insufficient. Every audit/critique starts with the surface as the user sees it. Try the following in order; use the first one available:
- Playwright MCP — if
playwrightMCP server is available, use it. Capture full-page screenshots at three viewports: desktop (1280×800), tablet (768×1024), mobile (375×812). Capture dark mode if the app supports it. - Browser DevTools / Chrome MCP — second choice; same viewport set.
- Other browser automation (
agent-browser,cursor-ide-browser) — third choice. - Ask the user — last resort. If no automation is available, request screenshots from the user before proceeding. Be specific:
- "Visual review needs screenshots. Please provide:
- Full-page at 1280px (desktop)
- Full-page at 768px (tablet)
- Full-page at 375px (mobile)
- Dark mode of each, if supported."
- "Visual review needs screenshots. Please provide:
Do not begin the review until visuals are captured or provided. State this explicitly to the user when no automation succeeds — don't silently fall back to code-only review.
If the user declines to provide screenshots, run a code-only pass and clearly mark the report [CODE-ONLY REVIEW — visual issues not assessed] at the top so the limitation is explicit.
Note: audit is knob-agnostic — accessibility and performance are not tunable.
Scope (non-negotiable checks):
- Accessibility — read
references/accessibility.md:- Visible
:focus-visibleon every interactive element - Keyboard reachable, no focus traps
- Touch targets ≥ 44px (mobile)
- Color not the only signal for state
- Form labels, error association, required indication
prefers-reduced-motionhonored for all animations
- Visible
- Performance — read
references/motion.mdRendering Performance section:- Only
transform/opacityanimated (nowidth/top/height) - No
transition: all will-changescoped to active interaction, removed after- Images have
width/heightoraspect-ratio(CLS) - No layout thrash in scroll/resize handlers
- Only
- Responsive — read
references/responsive.md:- Mobile-first breakpoints, no fixed-width components
env(safe-area-inset-*)respected on fixed elements- Touch zones don't overlap
- No horizontal scroll at 320px
Output format — the Review Format table from SKILL.md:
| Before | After | Why |
|---|
Group findings by priority: Critical (blocks usability/a11y) → High-impact (immediately noticeable) → Quick wins (polish).
Do NOT rewrite code unless asked. Report findings first; wait for approval before editing.
Close with a Craft Report (references/review.md → Craft Report), wrapping the findings table above — Checked states scope (a11y/perf/responsive, at which viewports), Passed carries anything inspected and found sound, Changed stays empty pre-approval, Verdict names the top priority. Produce it even on a clean audit — a11y/perf/responsive coming back clean is the finding.
Next step: /harden — turn the findings into real production coverage (rung 1).
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 61 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A ad28dbde9c86
audit is a command published in the GitHub repository educlopez/ui-craft (298 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 804 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
figma-component-library
Generate a complete component library in Figma from a design system config — atoms, molecules, and organisms with all variants, auto layout, and component properties.
create-activity
Generate a Jetpack Compose screen with proper architecture.
ship
Run the Android pre-launch checklist via parallel fan-out to specialist personas, then synthesize a go/no-go decision with rollback and staged rollout plan.
code-simplify
Simplify code incrementally while preserving behavior exactly.
add-accessibility
SwiftUI view'lara accessibility identifier ekle. "accessibility ekle", "identifier ekle", "test icin etiketle", "VoiceOver destegi ekle", "erisilebilirlik ekle" gibi isteklerde tetiklenir.
/opsx-ff
Create a change and generate all artifacts needed for implementation in one go.