Ui ReviewSAFE

A single hub to find Claude Skills, Agents, Commands, Hooks, Plugins, and Marketplace collections to extend Claude Code, Claude Desktop, Agent SDK and OpenClaw

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: gsd:ui-review
description: Retroactive 6-pillar visual audit of implemented frontend code
argument-hint: "[phase]"
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Bash
  - Glob
  - Grep
  - Task
  - AskUserQuestion
---
<objective>
Conduct a retroactive 6-pillar visual audit. Produces UI-REVIEW.md with
graded assessment (1-4 per pillar). Works on any project.
Output: {phase_num}-UI-REVIEW.md
</objective>

<execution_context>
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/ui-review.md
@${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/ui-brand.md
</execution_context>

<context>
Phase: $ARGUMENTS — optional, defaults to last completed phase.
</context>

<process>
Execute @${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/workflows/ui-review.md end-to-end.
Preserve all workflow gates.
</process>

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.