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 paruff/uFawkesAI --skill design-compliancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/paruff/uFawkesAIWrote 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/paruff/ufawkesai/design-compliance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/paruff/ufawkesai/design-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paruff/ufawkesai/design-compliance/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/paruff/ufawkesai/design-compliance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/paruff/ufawkesai/design-compliance.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 | $0.00027 | $0.00437 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00087 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00044 |
Grade A, and why
design-compliance 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 7d 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.
What it actually says
Skill: Design Compliance Validation
Load trigger:
"load design-compliance skill"> DORA: Cap 1 (AI Policy) Token cost: Low
Purpose
Verify that the build output matches the design.
Responsibilities
- Validate architecture alignment
- Validate component boundaries
- Validate interfaces and data models
- Validate integration points
Inputs
design.md- Build output (code, manifests)
Outputs
design-compliance.json
Validation Rules
Architecture Alignment
- Layer structure follows design (UI → Service → Data)
- No circular dependencies between layers
- Dependency direction matches design
- Shared libraries used as intended
Component Boundaries
- Components match design decomposition
- No cross-component coupling beyond what design specifies
- API contracts between components match design
Interfaces and Data Models
- Public interfaces match design
- Data models match design schemas
- Request/response shapes match design
- Error types match design
Integration Points
- External service integrations match design
- Database access patterns match design
- Messaging patterns match design
- Authentication flow matches design
Output Format
{
"skill": "design-compliance",
"status": "pass | fail",
"checks": [
{
"area": "Architecture alignment",
"status": "pass | fail",
"details": "Description of compliance or violation"
}
],
"violations": []
}
Success Criteria
- Build output matches the design
- Component boundaries respected
- Interfaces and data models correct
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 87 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 77f0fd454480
design-compliance is a skill published in the GitHub repository paruff/uFawkesAI (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 437 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
template-comprehensive-assessment
Full checkout audit for the Research Project Template — tests, architecture, docs, manuscript, pipeline. USE WHEN user asks for comprehensive assessment, full repo review, health check across projects, audit everything, or pre-merge sanity sweep for template exemplars — even without naming docs/prompts or a skill. Not…
shipjaw-challenge
Optional full adversarial ritual for locking a Shipjaw phase plan, ADR, or tech/product decision — durable challenge-report.md via proposer vs challenger (prefer a separate subagent). Use when the user runs /shipjaw-challenge, challenge this plan, wants a written challenge report, locking a meaty phase, contester ce…
karpathy-guidelines
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.
improve-codebase-architecture
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
adr-review
Review an ADR the user has written in docs/adr/. Use when the user says an ADR is ready for review or asks for feedback on a decision record. Never use this to write or rewrite an ADR for them.
code-review
Use before merging a diff. A structured review pass for correctness bugs, safety issues, and needless complexity.