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 me2resh/apexyard --skill design-reviewgit 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/design-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/me2resh/apexyard/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me2resh/apexyard/design-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/me2resh/apexyard/design-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me2resh/apexyard/design-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 54 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
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 | $0.00044 | $0.01851 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00925 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00370 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00185 |
Grade A, and why
design-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 11d 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 — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/design-review — Solution Architecture Review
Review a design artifact — a technical design doc, a migration AgDR, or a feature spec / PRD — for architectural soundness before any code is built against it. This is the non-code analog of /code-review: where Rex reviews a code PR, Tariq (the Solution Architect) reviews the design.
The Tech Lead authors the design; Tariq reviews it. Authoring and reviewing are deliberately separate — an author reviewing their own design is the gap this role closes.
Activated agent + role
When /design-review runs:
- Primary reviewer: the Solution Architect agent (Tariq) at
.claude/agents/solution-architect.md— reviews the design against the architecture review lens (NFRs, patterns, tech debt, AgDR linkage, risk, trade-offs, traceability, migration safety) and discovers + applies adopter handbooks exactly as Rex does. - Escalation: the Head of Engineering — for enterprise / cross-project / new-tech-stack concerns that exceed the Solution Architect's remit.
- Conditional Security Auditor: if the design touches auth / crypto / secrets / user data, chain
/security-reviewfor the deeper pass.
See .claude/rules/role-triggers.md for the full activation protocol. Per the role's isolated-work-class, the reviewer runs as a spawned sub-agent.
Usage
/design-review 42 # review the design in PR #42
/design-review 42 your-org/your-repo # specify the repo
/design-review docs/designs/checkout.md # doc-only review (no PR yet)
Process
0. Write the active-reviewer marker (REQUIRED — me2resh/apexyard#843, when reviewing a PR)
Before spawning the Solution Architect agent (Tariq) for a PR review, write the active-reviewer session marker. It records that this review pass is the sanctioned one and suppresses warn-review-marker-write.sh's advisory warning on the *-architecture.approved write (same convention as /code-review's rex marker; that hook warns and never blocks since #1026 — AgDR-0111). Use the SAME resolved owner/repo from step 1 (below) — the sibling-repo resolution in split-portfolio v2 matters here too. At skill entry:
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 129 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 7e098a10a151
design-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository me2resh/apexyard (498 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,851 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…
next-cache-components-optimizer
Drive a Next.js route to instant navigation by setting up an agentic loop, under Cache Components / PPR, on initial load (hard navigation) and client-side navigation (soft navigation). Encode the goal as a failing @next/playwright instant() e2e and work it to green, one verified route at a time; the shipped test then…
next-partial-prefetching-adoption
Turn on Partial Prefetching in a Next.js app and work through the insights it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable or adopt Partial Prefetching, flip the partialPrefetching flag, opt routes in with export const prefetch = 'partial', audit Link prefetch={true} behavior, preserve existing prefetched UI with…