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 skills/fusengine/agents/design-reviewnpx skills add fusengine/agents --skill design-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fusengine/agentsWrote 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/fusengine/agents/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fusengine/agents/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fusengine/agents/design-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 | $0.00029 | $0.03025 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.01512 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00605 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00302 |
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 yesterday.
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 179 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Findings are tagged P0-P3 (Blocking / Major / Minor / Polish) and reported individually — there is NO aggregate score, health score, or letter grade, ever; an aggregated number invites self-grading theater.
The visual review is a bounded loop, maximum 2 fix cycles: the loop exits PASS only once the register-applicable positive floors are actually met, and a plateau (cycle 2 repeating cycle 1's finding) stops immediately even at cycle 1 of 2.
Before any "done" claim, a mandatory in-loop challenger gate judges the deliverable blind — fresh-context, off a rendered PNG only, never fed this procedure's own reasoning. A Block from the challenger must be resolved or owner-accepted before "done" is reported.
Design Review — Final Quality Gate
When
After design-motion (web/webapp) or directly after the mockup (design-ios/
design-android). The last step before reporting any design deliverable done — never
skipped, never reported as passed if it wasn't actually run
(references/review-procedure.md Failure Handling).
Input
- The complete rendered artifact: components/mockup with animations (if any) and interactive states.
design-system.mdas the audit baseline (tokens, forbidden fonts, contrast floors).- The
Je reproduisline written bydesign-web/design-webapp— three declared elements, two tagged[corpus: {reference}/{tokens section}](measured procedure, the craft) and one tagged[sector: {url} — register](register signal only;[sector: none — register from brief]is valid, an empty slot is not). A missing or untagged line is a blocking Part 1 finding — the binary verdict has no input without it. - The corpus pages opened (Gate 0 artefact 3): at least two
{reference}-recode/index.html, named. The[corpus: …]tags prove the corpus was read, never that it was seen — and a page sourced from markdown alone clears every mechanical check and reads dead. Absent ⇒ blocking Part 1 finding. - The on-screen inventory (Gate 0 artefact 4): what each section physically carries,
plus the screen-holding-floor verdict. Blocking when
VISUAL_DENSITY≤ 3 orDESIGN_VARIANCE≥ 6; reported otherwise. - Any declared premium pattern(s); the signature element (
design-methodStep 2) instead gets a Signature Dominance verdict. - The plan's two structural picks — hero treatment
(
design-method/references/macrostructure-bank.md) and body sequence (design-method/references/body-sequence-bank.md). A plan naming neither is itself a detector signal (anti-slop entry 15).brandregister; aproductdeliverable carries neither. - The register (
brand/product, fromdesign-methodGate 0) — an input, never inferred mid-review: check 14's floors, Part 2 item 8's floors and the Lookalike Test (item 8b) all branch on it.
What ships with it
12 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- references/anti-ai-slop-audit.md 13 KB
- references/audit-checklist.md 4.1 KB
- references/consistency-checks.md 3.9 KB
- references/elicitation-visual.md 2.7 KB
- references/motion-audit.md 5.3 KB
- references/motion-verdict.md 3.2 KB
- references/pre-flight-checklist.md 37 KB
- references/review-procedure.md 19 KB
- references/ux-laws.md 3.9 KB
- references/ux-nielsen.md 6.4 KB
- references/ux-patterns.md 4.2 KB
- references/ux-wcag.md 2.9 KB
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.
- yesterday First seen · 179 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A ff0282e66ec3
design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository fusengine/agents (25 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 3,025 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
designing-interfaces
Creates a design system for software with a UI. Use when a project has a user interface and architecture is confirmed — whether creating from scratch or extracting patterns from existing code.
evaluate
Run accessibility checks and discover issues mapped to WCAG criteria.
guidelines
Package all brand elements into a complete brand guidelines document.
visual
Define visual identity — colors, typography, logo usage, and imagery style.
report
Generate a structured accessibility audit report with remediation guidance.
a11y
Review work through the lens of an accessibility specialist.