Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to me2resh/apexyard. 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/me2resh/apexyard/main/.claude/skills/approve-design/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/me2resh/apexyardWrote 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/me2resh/apexyard/approve-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/me2resh/apexyard/approve-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me2resh/apexyard/approve-design/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/me2resh/apexyard/approve-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me2resh/apexyard/approve-design.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00026 | $0.02717 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.01358 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00543 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00272 |
Grade A, and why
approve-design 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 9d 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 — 188 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/approve-design - Record Per-PR Design-Review Approval
Writes .claude/session/reviews/<owner>__<repo>__<pr>-design.approved (repo-qualified path, see AgDR-0060) with the current HEAD SHA so the require-design-review-for-ui.sh merge-gate hook will let a UI PR through. Without this marker, the hook blocks merges on any PR that touches .tsx, .jsx, .vue, .svelte, .css, .scss, .sass, .less, or design-tokens* files.
This skill is the design-review analog of /approve-merge (which writes the CEO marker for the merge gate). Same pattern, different gate.
The one rule you must not break
INVOKE THIS SKILL ONLY ON EXPLICIT, PER-PR, DESIGN-REVIEW APPROVAL.
The valid invocation triggers look like this:
- "design approved" / "UI looks good" / "design review passed" — if and only if the surrounding context clearly names a specific PR and the designer has actually reviewed the PR's visual changes.
- "PR #42 design approved" / "the UI in #42 looks right" — names the PR explicitly.
- A reply to your own "PR #42 has UI changes — design review approved?" message that consists of any affirmative token — because you just named the PR and the user/designer is responding to that specific question.
Invalid triggers (do NOT run this skill):
- "looks good" / "nice" / "approved" — when said about a Figma mockup, a design spec, a screenshot, or any artifact that is not a specific PR's diff. Design review means reviewing the actual code changes in a PR, not a mockup. A mockup approval and a PR approval are different moments.
- "the design is fine" — when said in a planning context ("let's go with this design approach") rather than a PR-review context ("I've looked at the PR diff and the implementation matches the design"). The skill is for the latter.
- "go" / "continue" / "ship it" — when these are umbrella responses to a multi-step plan. Same rule as
/approve-merge. - Your own inference that "the designer probably approves because they liked the mockup earlier." NO. Mockup approval ≠ implementation approval. Stop and ask.
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 188 lines · 26 tokens per session scan A 3a2dced9c15d
approve-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository me2resh/apexyard (498 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 2,717 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
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.