CCManager is a command-line application for managing multiple sessions of AI coding assistants across Git worktrees and projects. It is for developers working with tools such as Claude Code, Gemini CLI, Codex CLI, Cursor Agent, Copilot CLI, Cline CLI, OpenCode, and Kimi CLI, and the catalogue entries provide commands and instructions for its workflows.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to kbwo/ccmanager. 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/kbwo/ccmanager/main/.claude/commands/kiro/validate-design.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kbwo/ccmanagerWrote 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/kbwo/ccmanager/validate-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kbwo/ccmanager/validate-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kbwo/ccmanager/validate-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/kbwo/ccmanager/validate-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kbwo/ccmanager/validate-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 | $0.00007 | $0.01323 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00529 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00265 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
validate-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 1mo 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- validate-design — 95% identical, 2 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 180 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Design Validation
Interactive design quality review for feature: $1
Context Loading
Prerequisites Validation
- Design document must exist:
.kiro/specs/$1/design.md - If not exist, stop with message: "Run
/kiro:spec-design $1first to generate design document"
Review Context
- Spec metadata: @.kiro/specs/$1/spec.json
- Requirements document: @.kiro/specs/$1/requirements.md
- Design document: @.kiro/specs/$1/design.md
- Core steering documents:
- Architecture: @.kiro/steering/structure.md
- Technology: @.kiro/steering/tech.md
- Product context: @.kiro/steering/product.md
- Custom steering: All additional
.mdfiles in.kiro/steering/directory
Task: Interactive Design Quality Review
Review Methodology
Focus: Critical issues only - limit to 3 most important concerns Format: Interactive dialogue with immediate feedback and improvement suggestions Outcome: GO/NO-GO decision with clear rationale
Core Review Criteria
1. Existing Architecture Alignment (Critical)
Evaluation Points:
- Integration with existing system boundaries and layers
- Consistency with established architectural patterns
- Proper dependency direction and coupling management
- Alignment with current module organization and responsibilities
Review Questions:
- Does this design respect existing architectural boundaries?
- Are new components properly integrated with existing systems?
- Does the design follow established patterns and conventions?
2. Design Consistency & Standards
Evaluation Points:
- Adherence to project naming conventions and code standards
- Consistent error handling and logging strategies
- Uniform approach to configuration and dependency management
- Alignment with established data modeling patterns
Review Questions:
- Is the design consistent with existing code standards?
- Are error handling and configuration approaches unified?
- Does naming and structure follow project conventions?
3. Extensibility & Maintainability
Evaluation Points:
- Design flexibility for future requirements changes
- Clear separation of concerns and single responsibility principle
- Testability and debugging considerations
- Documentation and code clarity requirements
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 180 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 2f144af5f4a3
validate-design is a command published in the GitHub repository kbwo/ccmanager (1,266 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 1,323 once invoked, about $0.0000 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
review-code
Write review report to {rundir}/outputs/review-report.md.
review
Perform a comprehensive code review with actionable feedback.
review
Get a code review from Gemini (via agy) as a second opinion.
implement
Have Gemini (via agy) implement a task by editing files directly.
adversarial-review
Get a devil's advocate review that challenges your design decisions.
ask
Ask Gemini (via agy) a question, optionally with file context.