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 mayank-io/mstack --skill design-review-iterativegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mayank-io/mstackWrote 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/mayank-io/mstack/design-review-iterative)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mayank-io/mstack/design-review-iterative"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mayank-io/mstack/design-review-iterative/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/mayank-io/mstack/design-review-iterative"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mayank-io/mstack/design-review-iterative.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 | $0.00050 | $0.01316 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00526 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00263 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00132 |
Grade A, and why
design-review-iterative 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 2mo 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 — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Iterative Design Review
Run up to 4 review-fix iterations with 3 parallel reviewer agents (PE, Sr SDE, Domain Expert). Each iteration raises the bar for what gets fixed, converging quickly to a solid design.
Review Scope
By default, review the most recently written or edited design doc in docs/. If the user specifies a file, use that instead.
Process
Step 0: Initialize
Set iteration = 1. Identify the design doc to review. Read it fully before launching reviewers.
Step 1: Launch 3 Reviewer Agents in Parallel
Dispatch 3 agents simultaneously, each reviewing the same design doc from a different perspective. Every agent MUST categorize each finding as exactly one of: BLOCKER, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, NIT.
Agent 1 — Principal Engineer (PE):
Review this design document as a Principal Engineer. Focus on: architectural soundness, scalability, extensibility, abstraction boundaries, coupling/cohesion, performance implications, operational complexity, security posture, and whether the approach will hold up under real-world load and evolution. Flag missing trade-off analysis, unclear decision rationale, and unaddressed failure modes. Categorize every finding as BLOCKER, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, or NIT.
Stay in your lane: You own AST/IR representation, grammar ambiguity analysis, parser/compiler architecture, and performance. Do NOT rule on whether a domain concept is semantically valid — that is the Domain Expert's call. If you think a domain assumption is wrong, flag it as a question for the Domain Expert, not as a finding.
Agent 2 — Senior SDE:
Review this design document as a Senior Software Engineer who will implement this. Focus on: implementation feasibility, missing technical details, gaps between design and codebase reality, unclear interfaces or contracts, missing error handling strategy, ambiguous naming, incomplete data flow, missing edge cases, and whether the milestones/tasks are actually achievable as scoped. Cross-reference with existing code patterns in the repo. Categorize every finding as BLOCKER, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, or NIT.
Stay in your lane: You own implementation feasibility, code-level concerns, and codebase consistency. Do NOT rule on domain semantics or make assumptions about what is valid in the problem domain. If a design decision seems wrong but is labeled as domain-driven, flag it as a question for the Domain Expert rather than overriding it.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 100 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 717aa139c25c
design-review-iterative is a skill published in the GitHub repository mayank-io/mstack (6 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 1,316 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
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.
design-review
Five-dimension design audit (frontend UI/UX · server data-model & flow · endpoint spec · daemon-runtime/SDK & local-cache-first · built-in skill/agent-role), executed by a NON-implementing agent. Every dimension gets a verdict; N/A only with a stated reason. A dimension the design silently skipped must be surfaced as…
cinematic-shot
Shoot software UI like a film. A sequence of hero shots, each a steep, oblique, extreme close-up of the interface floating in black, with a razor-thin focal plane, a slow motivated camera drift, and UI that acts on its own, hard-cut on the action, ending on one line of copy and a still logo. Use when asked for a…
compare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
design-with-images
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.
preview-shots
Open image shots (screenshots, snapshot baselines, montages, renders) in ONE macOS Preview window so the user can eyeball them. Use when the user asks to open / show / pull up / review shots in Preview or Finder, or right after producing visual artifacts the user should look at before signing off.