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 zakariaf/Flutter-Skills --skill design-review-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zakariaf/Flutter-SkillsWrote 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/zakariaf/flutter-skills/design-review-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zakariaf/flutter-skills/design-review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zakariaf/flutter-skills/design-review-workflow/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/zakariaf/flutter-skills/design-review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zakariaf/flutter-skills/design-review-workflow.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 | $0.00146 | $0.03102 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.01551 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00620 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00310 |
Grade A, and why
design-review-workflow 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 12d 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 — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design review workflow
One structured design/QA pass per app or feature, at the very end, on the release build — never a per-task visual critique. During the build, development speed wins and no task is blocked on aesthetics; when the last build task is done and CI is green, exactly one pass runs: a screenshot sweep + an on-device pass → graded findings → one scoped fix round → a dated sign-off that gates release.
Non-negotiable rules
- Once per app/feature, at the end — never per-task. Blocking a build task on a visual critique, or demanding review screenshots inside a task's acceptance criteria, is the failure this skill prevents. If something looks broken mid-build, file a note and keep moving; review it in the pass.
- Trigger = last build task done AND all CI gates + tests green. Green gates are a precondition, not part of the review — this pass judges only what the eye and ear catch. Never re-litigate what CI already proves (determinism, lint, l10n key parity, layer gates).
- Review the release build, not a debug build. A debug banner, debug-mode jank, or an un-overridden status bar wastes the sweep. Standardize the status bar (fixed clock, full battery) so shots differ only where the UI differs.
- Sweep the full matrix — every screen the app can show. Each screen × {light, dark} × {LTR, RTL} × largest text scale × reduce-motion. Dynamic screens get shot in each meaningful state (empty, mid, full/success). One file per matrix cell, machine-sortable names, all artifacts under one review folder inside the write-set.
- Every accessibility-floor violation is a BLOCKER — however beautiful the screen. Contrast, tap-target size, text-scale reflow, color-never-alone, RTL correctness, and reduce-motion safety are the shared floor. A floor miss always grades BLOCKER; aesthetics never buy it back.
- Grade every finding BLOCKER / FIX / NOTE. BLOCKER = floor violation or a shipping-stopper (must fix now); FIX = clearly below bar, fixable this round; NOTE = recorded, deferred to the backlog. Consolidate into one deduped table before fixing.
- Exactly one fix round. Fix BLOCKERs + FIXes as a single scoped unit, re-run gates/tests, re-shoot only affected cells (overwrite — the folder stays one truth), verify each finding against its new shot. Open no new critique during verification — new observations become NOTEs. A surviving BLOCKER means no sign-off and an escalation, not a second round.
- Do destructive on-device steps last. Force-stop, previous-release migration, wipe/reinstall, and a deliberate crash each destroy the state before them. Ordering them last means the audio/reader/scale passes aren't redone.
- Ship a dated sign-off artifact that gates release. Date, reviewer, commit sha, build flavor, the matrix inventory, the findings table with resolutions, and a verdict line (SIGNED OFF, or NOT signed off + the escalated blocker). It is a tracked file, not a loose note, and release tasks depend on it.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 136 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 4dc4c671b495
design-review-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository zakariaf/Flutter-Skills (2 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 146 tokens to every session and 3,102 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
tmux-real-user-testing
A real-user test workflow for Qwen Code's terminal interface, using tmux to drive the program and capture readable screen snapshots. tmux is a tool for running and observing terminal sessions.
e2e-testing
Guide for running end-to-end tests of the Qwen Code CLI, including headless mode, MCP server testing, and API traffic inspection. Use this skill whenever you need to verify CLI behavior with real model calls, reproduce user-reported bugs end-to-end, test MCP tool integrations, or inspect raw API request/response…
terminal-capture
Automates terminal UI screenshot testing for CLI commands. Applies when reviewing PRs that affect CLI output, testing slash commands (/about, /context, /auth, /export), generating visual documentation, or when 'terminal screenshot', 'CLI test', 'visual test', or 'terminal-capture' is mentioned.
agent-reproduce-align
Use after a Codex or Claude Code feature has been implemented in Qwen Code to run the selected reference agent and Qwen Code under the same scenario, capture HTTP and terminal traces, compare request bodies, tool/function schemas, outputs, and iterate until the reproduced behavior is close enough.
qa-testing
Verify your work by actually operating the app or website you changed, instead of assuming it works. Strongly recommended whenever you build, modify, or debug a web app, website, or desktop GUI app. Drive real browsers with the agent-browser CLI and native desktop apps with the cua-driver CLI. These are installed on…
qa-test-planner
Generate comprehensive test plans, manual test cases, regression test suites, and bug reports for QA engineers. Includes Figma MCP integration for design validation.