Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to MAIAS-project/maias. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MAIAS-project/maias/main/.claude/skills/maias-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/MAIAS-project/maiasWrote 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/maias-project/maias/maias-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/maias-project/maias/maias-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/maias-project/maias/maias-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/maias-project/maias/maias-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/maias-project/maias/maias-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 | $0.00049 | $0.00817 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00409 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
maias-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 12d 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 — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
maias-review
Two layers: mechanical validation (the toolchain's job) and semantic critique of the information architecture (yours).
Layer 1 — mechanical (always first)
./node_modules/.bin/maias validate <file> --json
(Build with npm run build from the repo root if the binary is missing.) Report every finding with its line reference. Errors make the document invalid — lead with them. When there are zero diagnostics, say exactly that in one line ("validator: clean — 0 errors, 0 warnings") and move on to Layer 2; do not pad the mechanical layer. Ground any spec questions in docs/spec/llms.txt; for specific constructs: states → docs/spec/07-states.md, auth/deep links → 09-links-and-gating.md, presentation modes → 04-navigation.md.
Layer 2 — semantic critique
The validator proves the document is well-formed; you judge whether the IA is good. Work through:
Journey integrity
- Dead ends: screens with no outbound navigation that aren't natural terminals (confirmations are fine; a form with no continue is not).
- Journeys without exits: does each flow's last screen lead somewhere (
replaceinto the main experience, or back)? - Entry/exit seams: are flow transitions marked
presentation: replacewhere back-navigation into a finished journey would be wrong (post-auth, post-checkout)?
Navigation consistency
- Similar screens, similar patterns: do all detail screens open the same way? Are modals used for the same class of task everywhere?
- Hub balance: tabs with one screen vs. tabs hiding fifteen — is depth where the user expects it?
- Self-targets and circular pairs the validator only warns about: are they intentional?
- Elements-first discipline (spec §4.2): links with an on-screen affordance should be elements with
target, notnavigation.secondaryitems. The validator flags exact duplicates (W010); you flag the softer version — a secondary item that plainly describes a laid-out control (same label as a button, a "View X" pairing an obvious list row). - Pre-0.3 keys (screen
actions,app.links) in a ≤0.2 document: valid, but suggestmaias migratewhile the document is young.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 53 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 7098cf4362c3
maias-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository MAIAS-project/maias (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 817 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.
ss-review
Review UI code for design system compliance, accessibility, and best practices.
code-quality-principles
Applies KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID principles for clean code with reduced complexity. Use when refactoring or reviewing code for over-engineering.