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 skills add beel-collab/presets.dev --skill ui-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/beel-collab/presets.devWrote 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/skills/beel-collab/presets.dev/ui-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/beel-collab/presets.dev/ui-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/beel-collab/presets.dev/ui-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00023 | $0.00634 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00317 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
ui-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 4d 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to ui-review — 17 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
UI Review
Overview
Part of StyleSeed, this skill audits UI code against the Toss seed's conventions instead of reviewing it as generic frontend work. It focuses on design-token discipline, component ergonomics, accessibility, mobile readiness, typography, and spacing consistency.
When to Use
- Use when a component or page should follow the StyleSeed Toss design language
- Use when reviewing a UI-heavy PR for consistency and design-system violations
- Use when the output looks "mostly fine" but feels off in subtle ways
- Use when you need a structured review with concrete fixes
Review Checklist
Design Tokens
- no hardcoded hex colors when semantic tokens exist
- no improvised shadow values when tokenized shadows exist
- no arbitrary radius choices outside the system scale
- no random spacing values that break the seed rhythm
Component Conventions
- uses the project's class merge helper
- supports
classNameextension when appropriate - uses the agreed typing pattern
- avoids wrapper components that only forward one class string
- reuses existing primitives before inventing new ones
Accessibility
- touch targets large enough for mobile
- visible keyboard focus states
- labels and
aria-*attributes where needed - adequate color contrast
- reduced-motion respect for animation
Mobile UX
- no horizontal overflow
- safe-area handling where relevant
- readable text sizes
- thumb-friendly interaction spacing
- bottom nav or sticky actions do not obscure content
Typography and Spacing
- uses the system type hierarchy
- display and headings are not overly loose
- body text remains readable
- spacing follows the seed grid instead of arbitrary values
Output Format
Return:
- A verdict: Pass, Needs Improvement, or Fail
- A prioritized list of issues with file and line references when available
- Concrete fixes for each issue
- Any open questions where the design intent is ambiguous
Best Practices
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 86 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 3775df4afd00
ui-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository beel-collab/presets.dev (2 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 634 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to ui-review, differing in 17 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
apply-mantel-styles
Provides guidelines for applying Mantel's brand styles to diagrams and frontend components. Use when asked to create visuals that need to align with Mantel's branding.
web-artifacts-builder-v2
Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artefacts using modern frontend web technologies (React 19, Tailwind CSS v4, shadcn/ui). Use for complex artefacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn/ui components - not for simple single-file HTML/JSX artefacts.
diagrams-as-code
Use only when creating architecture diagrams with Python's diagrams library (mingrammer/diagrams).
mermaid-diagrams
Use the mermaid-diagrams skill whenever you are creating or updating mermaid diagrams. Provides guidance on mermaid best practices.
code-review-recent-changes
Review recent changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) across three independent axes - Standards, Spec, and Maintainability - producing severity-ordered findings with an explicit verdict. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, or recent committed changes.
code-review
Use this skill after completing multiple, complex software development tasks before informing the user that work is complete.