Material UI is a React component library that provides an independent implementation of Google's Material Design system. Developers use it to build interfaces from reusable React components, with additional advanced components available through MUI X. The catalogue add-ons provide project-specific skills and instructions for working with Material UI.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to mui/material-ui. 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/mui/material-ui/master/.agents/skills/material-ui-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mui/material-uiWrote 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/mui/material-ui/material-ui-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mui/material-ui/material-ui-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mui/material-ui/material-ui-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/mui/material-ui/material-ui-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mui/material-ui/material-ui-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Snyk pass
- 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 | $0.00137 | $0.04826 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00055 | $0.01930 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00965 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00483 |
Grade A, and why
material-ui-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 1mo 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 — 442 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Material UI Review
Review current diff. Find regressions and correctness bugs first. Also find
cleanup (reuse / simplification / efficiency). Default effort: medium. See
Effort levels for depth and subagent fan-out.
Argument hint: [low|medium|high|xhigh|max] [--fix] [--comment [inline]] [<target>]
This skill is opt-in only: run it when the user explicitly asks for it by
name (/material-ui-review, $material-ui-review, "the Material UI review skill", or a CI
job configured to use it). A plain "review my changes" or "review this PR", or
wrapping up an implementation, is not an invocation — review without this
workflow unless the user names it.
medium = precision. Every finding actionable. high, xhigh, max =
recall. Missed bug ships. Keep uncertain findings when mechanism is real;
label them clearly.
Scope
Local review: diff branch against upstream
(git diff @{upstream}...HEAD, fall back to main / master, or HEAD~1).
Fold in uncommitted + untracked changes — review often runs pre-commit. If PR link,
branch name, or file path passed as argument, review that target instead.
Effort levels
- low — bugs only. Flag runtime-correctness bugs and regressions. Skip Tests, Simplifications, Docs, and test/fixture hunks. No subagents. Precision bias.
- medium (default) — main agent reviews Bugs, Tests, Simplifications, Docs, and triggered API/performance concerns. Main agent verifies candidates. Large, risky, fragile, shared, or cross-component diff? Add exactly one adversarial bug hunter agent. Small, low-risk, isolated diff? No subagent. Precision bias.
- high — spawn 3 independent subagents: bugs/regressions, test gaps, simplifications. Main agent reviews the whole diff, including bugs, docs, and triggered API/performance concerns. Main agent dedups and sanity-checks. Large, risky, fragile, shared, or cross-component diff? Add exactly one adversarial bug hunter agent. No verifiers. No final sweep.
- xhigh —
highplus a docs subagent and one fresh missed-bug sweep. Fan out adversarial bug hunters across the highest-risk affected code regions (modules/components — not the four review areas). Max 2 adversarial bug hunters total, including the hunter inherited fromhigh. Other role subagents do not count toward this cap. No verifiers. Recall bias. - max —
xhighplus an independent verifier for every surviving candidate. Cover every affected code region across max 6 adversarial bug hunters total, including hunters inherited fromxhigh; other role and verifier subagents do not count toward this cap. When there are more than 6 regions, give the highest-risk regions dedicated hunters and group related remaining regions into shared assignments. Prioritize public runtime code, shared utilities, cross-component invariants, and fragile state/timing boundaries. Maximum recall.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 442 lines · 137 tokens per session scan A da78e08a679e
material-ui-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository mui/material-ui (99,284 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 137 tokens to every session and 4,826 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
extending-hobby-smoke-tests
Design, extend, review, or debug PostHog Hobby end-to-end smoke tests in bin/hobby-ci.py and .github/workflows/ci-hobby.yml. Use when adding an ingestion round trip, deciding whether a product belongs in Hobby CI, changing the CI Hobby service topology or API-key scopes, or diagnosing a smoke test that captures data…
agent-upkeep
Perform one small, scoped maintenance improvement to the Elements monorepo and open a single reviewable pull request. Use this skill for scheduled or unattended upkeep runs that improve unit test coverage for one file, fix one behavioral bug in one module, or move one off ESLint rule toward enforcement to reduce…
compiler-commit
Use when you want to verify compiler changes and commit with the correct convention. Runs tests, lint, and format, then commits with the [compiler] or [rust-compiler] prefix.
compiler-verify
Use when you need to run all compiler checks (tests, lint, format) before committing. Detects whether TS or Rust code changed and runs the appropriate checks.
code-review
Reviews code for bugs, security issues, and best practices.
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…