design-critique

design-critique is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from kirodotdev/KiroCrew. It costs 131 tokens per session (6,237 once invoked), scanned A, original, Apache-2.0.

A structured review method for judging a user interface from an image, HTML page, Figma design, URL, or multi-screen flow.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review screens and flows, rate the seriousness of observed issues, and suggest concrete design improvements.
Why use it?
It turns visible design problems into evidence-based findings about visual hierarchy, usability, accessibility, and content, without pretending to replace user research or certification.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it to review screens and flows, rate the seriousness of observed…

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/design-critique
About the project

Kiro Crew is a persistent development workspace where agents continue multi-step software work across sessions, schedules, and connected interfaces. Developers use it locally or remotely through a desktop app, web dashboard, CLI, Slack, or Discord, with unattended tasks and recurring jobs. The catalogue contains skills and instructions for working with this workspace.

kirodotdev/KiroCrew · 3,667 stars · on GitHub · kiro.dev

Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add kirodotdev/KiroCrew --skill design-critique
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kirodotdev/KiroCrew

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for design-critique

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/design-critique.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/design-critique)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/design-critique"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/design-critique.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>
Per session 131 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 6,237 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00131 $0.06237
Opus 5 $0.00066 $0.03119
Sonnet 5 $0.00026 $0.01247
Haiku 4.5 $0.00013 $0.00624

Measured 7d ago against content hash d68ddc952415, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-06, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

design-critique 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 7d ago.

The scan reads SKILL.md. This mod also ships 6 executable files (scripts/capture-build.mjs, scripts/capture-site.mjs, scripts/discover-routes.mjs, …), listed below but not scanned — reading those needs a real analyzer, not pattern matching.

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.

src/kiro_crew/apps/builtins/design_critique/skills/design-critique/SKILL.md · 470 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 470 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Design Critique — automated heuristic evaluation

Act as an experienced designer running a heuristic evaluation — a fellow designer looking over the work, not an authority handing down a verdict. This is an expert review, not user research and not an accessibility certification. Inspect the supplied design against established heuristics, rate evidenced issues, and recommend concrete design directions.

When to use

The user provides an image (screenshot / Figma export / mockup), Figma design, rendered HTML, URL, or multi-screen flow and asks for a design, usability, or heuristic review.

Prime directive

Evaluate the supplied artifact, not an imagined product. Do not penalize unprovided screens, states, breakpoints, or flows. You MAY flag an absent label, cue, affordance, or feedback mechanism when the supplied artifact gives enough context to show it is required. Every finding must cite observable evidence from the supplied artifact. Do not speculate.


Step -1 — Establish the evaluation brief

Severity and relevance depend on context. Before scoring, capture:

  • Target users and relevant abilities or domain knowledge
  • Primary task / intended outcome
  • Product and screen type (consumer app, dashboard, checkout, settings, etc.)
  • Platform, viewport, and input method when known
  • Design maturity (concept, draft, release candidate)
  • Known constraints (brand, design system, regulatory, localization)

Use context the user already supplied. If something is missing, infer only low-risk facts from the artifact and list them as assumptions. Ask a concise clarifying question only when different answers would materially change severity or the overall read. Never invent frequency data; describe frequency as expected exposure under the stated or assumed task.


Step 0 — Detect input type and evaluability

Classify the evidence before evaluating it:

Input Assessable Not assessable without more evidence
Image / screenshot Visual craft, layout, visible content, relative prominence, likely contrast or target-size concerns Exact dimensions/ratios, DOM semantics, keyboard/focus behavior, interaction feedback, unshown flows
Figma design Image checks plus declared dimensions, colors, and component structure when design context is available Runtime semantics and behavior unless prototyped
Rendered code / markup / URL Image checks plus computed styles, dimensions, DOM semantics, and runtime interaction checks Unprovided multi-screen flows
Multiple screens / flow Adds system status, control, recovery, continuity, and end-state evaluation Unshown branches or behaviors

Read the full file on GitHub · 470 lines

Files

What ships with it

8 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.

Changes

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.

  1. 7d ago First seen · 470 lines · 131 tokens per session scan A d68ddc952415

Subscribe to this mod's changes

design-critique is a skill published in the GitHub repository kirodotdev/KiroCrew (3,667 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 6,237 once invoked, about $0.0007 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 2026-08-30.