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/heuristicgit 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 | $0.00053 | $0.00954 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00477 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
heuristic 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 3d 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
Score the UI at $ARGUMENTS against Nielsen's 10 + 6 design laws. Load the ui-craft skill.
Step 1 — Load the methodology. Read references/heuristics.md for the full rubric, scoring definitions, design law details, and the required output format. Do NOT invent a new format or a new scale.
Step 2 — Walk Nielsen's 10 heuristics. Score each 1-5 per the rubric:
- 1 blocks users · 2 severe friction · 3 works but confusing · 4 works, minor polish · 5 best-in-class
For every heuristic, write a concrete finding — quote text, count elements, name the broken flow. Vague findings are rejected.
Step 3 — Audit the 6 design laws. PASS / FAIL each with a specific detail:
- Fitts's Law — touch target sizing, CTA placement
- Hick's Law — choice density, nav + select sizing
- Doherty Threshold — perceived latency, optimistic UI
- Cleveland-McGill — chart encoding choice
- Miller's Law — nav depth, form section counts
- Tesler's Law — where complexity lives
Step 4 — Persona walkthrough (if --persona= present). If the args include --persona=<name>, load references/personas.md and run the matching walkthrough checklist. Supported: priya, jordan, adaeze, kwame, margo, all. Output the walkthrough as a | Checklist item | Pass/Fail | Finding | Impact | table. Without the flag, skip this step.
Step 5 — Rank findings by impact tag. Impact order: blocks-conversion > adds-friction > reduces-trust > minor-polish. Include at most 5 findings in the ranked list; cut anything at minor-polish unless there are no higher-impact findings.
Step 6 — Compute the UsabilityScore. Roll the scorecard into a 0-100 number + grade per the UsabilityScore formula in references/heuristics.md: heuristic_base = round(((mean(nielsen_scores) − 1) / 4) × 100), minus 5 × (failed design laws), clamped [0,100]. Same A/B/C/D/F bands as UICraftScore. Always label it (judged) — it is not deterministic and must never gate CI. If the args include --json, also emit the machine-readable block. If the user asks for the full picture, build the Extended quality report by fetching the deterministic UICraftScore (node scripts/eval.mjs <path> --json or the score_ui MCP tool) and placing both side by side — never average them.
Step 7 — Output. Use the exact scorecard format in references/heuristics.md:
## Heuristic Scorecardtable## Design Law Audittable## Persona Walkthroughtable (only if--persona=was passed)## Top findings (ranked by impact)— numbered list, 3-5 items## UsabilityScoreblock — the 0-100 score + grade + component breakdown
Knob awareness: knob-agnostic. Usability is not a knob — a 2 is a 2 whether CRAFT_LEVEL is 3 or 9. Do not soften scores based on CRAFT_LEVEL.
Output contract:
- This command produces a critique artifact, not code. No edits unless the user explicitly asks in a follow-up.
- The scorecard is machine-parseable markdown. A PM can paste it into any issue tracker and file tickets row-by-row. Frame it that way in any preamble.
- No "First Impressions" paragraph, no hedging, no praise padding. Tables + ranked list only.
Do NOT edit code. This is a scored critique.
Next step: Fix the findings, then /finalize — the scorecard is the input to a gated ship (rung 3).
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 47 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A c4f3963d16a7
heuristic is a command published in the GitHub repository educlopez/ui-craft (298 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 954 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
upgrade
Upgrade the skillshare CLI binary and/or the built-in skillshare skill.
rust-features
Get Rust version changelog and new features.
diff
Compare two SKILL.md files section-by-section. Parses frontmatter and body sections independently, showing exactly what changed.
add-skill
Scaffold a new skill with validation, plugin generation, and README update.
new-skill
Scaffold a new skill directory following this repo's spec.
daily-standup
../../.github/prompts/daily-standup.prompt.md.