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/mblode/agent-skills/ui-verificationnpx skills add mblode/agent-skills --skill ui-verificationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mblode/agent-skillsWrote 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/mblode/agent-skills/ui-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mblode/agent-skills/ui-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mblode/agent-skills/ui-verification.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 5.1 | $0.00074 | $0.03131 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00037 | $0.01566 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00626 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00313 |
Grade A, and why
ui-verification 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 — 153 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
UI Verification
Owns the browser session. Every other UI skill in this repo reasons about source and infers what the user will see; this one loads the page and measures it.
- IS: booting the app, driving it with a browser, and running the probes that decide a rule at runtime: computed boxes, injected failures, observed layout shift, a scripted Tab walk, an axe scan per theme. Output is findings keyed to rule ids with reproducible evidence, plus the clearing re-run after a fix.
- IS NOT: finding defects by reading source or deciding their tier and ship verdict (
ui-designAudit mode owns both); building or restyling UI (ui-designBuild); authoring a durable test suite (write Playwright tests); pixel-diff regression against a baseline (Chromatic, Percy); field performance (RUM or CrUX; Lighthouse is a lab tool).
The division of labour is the point. A static audit reports what the code will probably do; it cannot see a 40px control whose hit area a pseudo-element already expands to 44, or a retry button wired to nothing. This skill reproduces or kills each of those, so a finding arrives with a measurement instead of a confidence.
Contents
- When to run
- Probe catalogue
- Progress checklist
- 1. Establish the session
- 2. Select the probe set
- 3. Run the probes
- 4. Decide each finding
- 5. Clearing re-run
- 6. Report
- Honesty rules
- Gotchas
- Related skills
When to run
| Situation | What this skill does |
|---|---|
A ui-design audit emitted findings and the user wants them confirmed |
Run only the probes those rule ids map to, in references/rule-coverage.md |
| No audit ran; the user points at a route or a running app | Detect features, run the full battery on the resolved routes |
| A fix just landed for a previously reproduced finding | Run the clearing re-run only (step 5) |
| The user asks for captures across themes or widths | probes/theme-locale-matrix.md alone |
A design-system.md claims a scale and someone needs it checked |
Read the claimed values off computed styles on a real page; a theme value the build overrides never reaches the browser |
What ships with it
13 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.
- evals/evals.json 5.6 KB
- probes/axe-scan.md 4.1 KB
- probes/console-network.md 3.9 KB
- probes/failure-injection.md 6.3 KB
- probes/focus-walk.md 5.4 KB
- probes/layout-shift.md 4.9 KB
- probes/target-size.md 5.8 KB
- probes/theme-locale-matrix.md 4.8 KB
- probes/viewport-stress.md 5.3 KB
- probes/web-vitals.md 3.9 KB
- references/evidence-output.md 6.5 KB
- references/rule-coverage.md 7.2 KB
- references/session-setup.md 6.6 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 · 153 lines · 74 tokens per session scan A 435438f0f616
ui-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository mblode/agent-skills (103 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 74 tokens to every session and 3,131 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
e2e-testing
Playwright E2E testing patterns, Page Object Model, configuration, CI/CD integration, artifact management, and flaky test strategies. Use when writing Playwright tests, structuring page objects, or fixing flaky E2E runs in CI.
cmux-browser
Browser automation with cmux embedded webviews (not Chrome/Chromium). Use when $CMUXWORKSPACEID is set and you need to open sites, interact with pages, wait for state changes, or extract data. Snapshot/ref workflow for reliable element targeting.
autonomous-loops
Patterns and architectures for autonomous Claude Code loops — from simple sequential pipelines to RFC-driven multi-agent DAG systems.
mle-workflow
Production machine-learning engineering workflow for data contracts, reproducible training, model evaluation, deployment, monitoring, and rollback. Use when building, reviewing, or hardening ML systems beyond one-off notebooks.
cpp-coding-standards
C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io). Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.
django-patterns
Django architecture patterns, REST API design with DRF, ORM best practices, caching, signals, middleware, and production-grade Django apps.