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/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/frontend-quality-reviewernpx skills add ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit --skill frontend-quality-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kitWrote 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/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/frontend-quality-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/frontend-quality-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit/frontend-quality-reviewer.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 | $0.00049 | $0.02315 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.01157 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
frontend-quality-reviewer 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 4d 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 — 203 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Frontend Quality Reviewer
Purpose
Review frontend work for correctness, maintainability, decomposition, security, performance, TypeScript safety, architecture fit, visual quality, UX gates, verification honesty, and independent loop judgment without turning review findings into an unapproved rewrite.
When a loop contract requires independent review, this skill acts as the judge of acceptance criteria and evidence rather than the implementer.
When To Use
Use this skill when:
- the user asks for review, audit, critique, or quality check;
- a significant frontend implementation needs a final quality pass;
- a bugfix or refactor has broad impact and review is appropriate;
- a loop contract requires independent review;
- verification failed and was repaired during a loop;
- claims about security, performance, architecture, decomposition, visual fidelity, UX, or verification need evidence.
When Not To Use
Do not use this skill for direct implementation, bugfixing, refactoring, design spec writing, visual QA only, test creation, package installation, or broad rewrites.
If review finds required fixes, report them first. Do not apply fixes unless the user asked for a combined review-and-fix task or explicitly approves a follow-up fix.
Required Context
- Read
AGENTS.md. - Read
common/review-severity-model.md. - Read
common/independent-review-rules.mdwhen acting as loop judge or independent reviewer. - Read the current Goal Contract, Execution Plan, coverage map, and stable identifiers when the work uses durable planning.
- Read
common/verification-loop-rules.mdwhen loop attempts or verification evidence are in scope. - Read
common/approved-patterns.mdandcommon/anti-patterns.mdwhen reviewing changed components. - Read
common/ui-ux-priority-checklist.mdwhen reviewing rendered UI or user interaction. - Read conditional UX rules only when the changed surface includes them:
common/css-modules-specificity-rules.mdfor CSS Modules changes;common/form-feedback-rules.mdfor forms and feedback states;common/navigation-ux-rules.mdfor navigation and route flows;common/data-visualization-rules.mdfor dashboards, charts, tables, metrics, or reports;common/icon-quality-rules.mdfor icons or visual symbols;common/mobile-responsive-rules.mdfor responsive surfaces.
- Read
common/typescript-discipline.mdfor TypeScript surfaces. - Read
common/security-review-rules.mdwhen auth, secrets, unsafe HTML, redirects, external input, or permissions are in scope. - Read
common/performance-review-rules.mdwhen performance claims are in scope. - Read
common/build-tool-boundary-rules.mdandcommon/lint-verification-rules.mdwhen code changed. - Read affected source files, diffs, project overlays, loop contract, verification output, and rendered evidence needed for the review.
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 203 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 2247daa764ea
frontend-quality-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository ytvee-dev/webdev-agent-kit (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 2,315 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
design-dna
Extract, define, and apply design DNA across three dimensions: design system (tokens), design style (qualitative feel), and visual effects (Canvas, WebGL, 3D, particles, shaders, scroll effects, etc.). Use this skill when: (1) a user wants to see the full 3-dimension design structure/schema, (2) a user provides…
playwright-cli
Automates browser interactions for testing and validating your own web applications using playwright-cli. Use when you need terminal-first browser control for navigation, form filling, screenshots, tracing, bound browser sessions, debugging, or generating Playwright test code. Only use against applications you own or…
shipping-reproducible-results
Package completed data analysis and ML work so an independent recipient can reproduce the claimed results, verify artifact lineage, and operate the handoff within its stated scope. Use when finalizing a project, study, model package, or review bundle; not for deploying to a live system.
actions-reusable-workflows
Wire a repository to the bitwise-media-group/github-workflows reusable workflows — thin, SHA-pinned caller workflows for CI, security (CodeQL) scanning, release (release-please/GoReleaser/Zensical docs), the signature-preserving fast-forward /merge + merge-review-ack + merge-notice flows, and add-to-project — plus the…
go-style
Modern Go code style for stdlib-first programs — error wrapping with %w, sentinel errors, structured logging with log/slog, context threading, consumer-defined interfaces, nil-safe constructors, net/http servers with method-pattern routing, flag/env configuration for services, and cobra commands with viper…
diagnosing-ml-failures
Isolate the root cause of ML performance drops, inconsistent evaluations, prediction errors, and training-serving mismatches across data, labels, splits, pipelines, models, metrics, and runtime behavior. Use when investigating a reproducible failure or regression, not routine model selection or general performance…