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/oborchers/fractional-ctoWrote 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/oborchers/fractional-cto/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oborchers/fractional-cto/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oborchers/fractional-cto/design-review/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/oborchers/fractional-cto/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oborchers/fractional-cto/design-review.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 | $0.00020 | $0.00328 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00066 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
design-review 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 5d 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 the current code, component, screenshot, or visual artifact against the visual-design-principles skills.
Follow this process:
- Identify which visual design areas are relevant to the current context (layout, typography, color, whitespace, hierarchy, consistency, craftsmanship, expression, responsive, accessibility)
- For each relevant area, invoke the corresponding visual-design-principles skill
- Evaluate the current artifact against each skill's review checklist
- If reviewing code (HTML/CSS/JSX), check for specific measurable violations (contrast ratios, spacing values, font sizes, image optimization)
- If reviewing a screenshot or visual description, evaluate against the observable indicators and scoring rubrics
- Report findings organized by principle, using this format for each:
[Principle Name] (Score: X/5)
- Violations found (with specific file/line references for code, or visual location for screenshots)
- What to fix and how
- Items that already comply
- Provide a summary with:
- 8-dimension score breakdown (Layout, Typography, Color, Whitespace, Hierarchy, Consistency, Craftsmanship, Expression) — each scored 1-5
- Total score out of 40
- Total violations by severity (critical / important / suggestion)
- Top 3 highest-impact improvements to make first
Focus on actionable, specific feedback. Reference the exact principle and research being violated.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 29 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A b6c530e03fb4
design-review is a command published in the GitHub repository oborchers/fractional-cto (32 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 328 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 2026-10-13.
Other commands, from other repositories
ux-recommend
The v2 flagship. Runs the 5-parallel-search Python engine across 11 data manifests (75+ styles, 170+ palettes, 65+ type pairs, 120+ components, 170+ industries, 110+ UX laws, 50+ motion presets, 120+ anti-patterns, 92 brand specs) and returns a complete recommended design system for your project — with always-on…
color-specialist
Use when colour is failing. Contrast below AA, a palette with no system behind it, dark mode that is only inverted light mode, or semantic colours that carry no meaning.
responsive-design-specialist
Use when a layout breaks between sizes. Arbitrary breakpoints, type that does not scale, images that blow out the grid, or a desktop design retrofitted onto mobile.
revisar-ui
Auditoria visual retroativa de 6 pilares do código frontend implementado.
bolder
Read and follow the instructions in agents/skills/bolder.md. Also read and follow agents/frontend-design/design-all.md and any referenced files in agents/frontend-design/reference/ as needed.
frontend-design
Read and follow the instructions in agents/frontend-design/design-all.md. Also read all referenced files in agents/frontend-design/reference/ as needed for the task.