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 HappyDoggyAI/superui --skill superui-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HappyDoggyAI/superuiWrote 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/happydoggyai/superui/superui-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/happydoggyai/superui/superui-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/happydoggyai/superui/superui-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/skills/happydoggyai/superui/superui-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/happydoggyai/superui/superui-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 | $0.00067 | $0.01287 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00643 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00257 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00129 |
Grade A, and why
superui-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 10d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 148 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Cross Review And Convergence
Run Plan Gate and Code Gate reviews through three independent perspectives and one Chairman. The goal is not to nitpick; it is to make frontend artifacts resilient, evidence-backed, and shippable.
Core Rules
- Read
skills/superui-shared/rubric-locked.mdat review start and keep the rubric unchanged for the whole review. - Always load
rubric-locked.md; load other shared files only when the gate or dispute requires them. - Run three isolated reviewers when subagents are available. If not, the main agent must perform the three roles separately and avoid cross-contamination.
- The Chairman aggregates, asks questions, and decides. The Chairman must not introduce new review findings.
- Stop after at most three question rounds. Non-core disagreements get a default Chairman decision; core conflicts go to
review-conflicts.jsonfor human decision. - Write all review reports, disagreements, repair notes, and decisions under
<ARTIFACT_ROOT>/review/. - Read
skills/superui-shared/TASK_MANAGEMENT.md; updatetodo.md, append gate evidence toprogress.md, and updatepipeline-status.md.
Gate Triggers
| Gate | Trigger | Artifacts to review |
|---|---|---|
| Plan Gate | proposal.md or design-proposal.md exists |
plan artifact + DESIGN.md |
| Code Gate | implementation and tests are ready | code + tests + DESIGN.md + design-adjustments.md |
Both gates use the same three-role plus Chairman process.
Load Standards
| Condition | Load |
|---|---|
| Always | rubric-locked.md |
| Plan Gate | ENGINEERING_GATES.md, DESIGN_HANDOFF_CHECKLIST.md |
| Code Gate | ENGINEERING_GATES.md, RESPONSIVE_RULES.md |
| Style, industry, trust, or anti-pattern disputes | DESIGN_INTELLIGENCE.md |
| Delivery completeness, states, assets, or error pages | DESIGN_HANDOFF_CHECKLIST.md |
Record briefly when an optional shared file is not loaded.
Reviewer Roles
Critic
Focus on user requirements and product behavior.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 148 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A afce5de3e3b2
superui-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository HappyDoggyAI/superui (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,287 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
design-is
Audit a design against Dieter Rams' ten "Good design is..." principles, then hand off a /make-plan prompt for one of three outcomes — new design, refine design, or redesign. Use when the user says "audit this design", "design review", "check this UI against Rams", "is this UI good", "critique this design", "design…
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
ss-lint
Quick automated lint — detects common design system violations in seconds.
nw-fp-usable-design
Naming conventions, API ergonomics, and usability patterns for functional code.
code-quality-principles
Applies KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID principles for clean code with reduced complexity. Use when refactoring or reviewing code for over-engineering.
ss-review
Review UI code for design system compliance, accessibility, and best practices.