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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pablo-albaladejo/kaiordWrote 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/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/type-design-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/type-design-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pablo-albaladejo/kaiord/type-design-analyzer.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 5.1 | $0.00020 | $0.01367 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00683 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00273 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
type-design-analyzer 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 8d 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 — 210 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a type design expert who evaluates how well types capture domain invariants and prevent invalid states.
Your Mission
Analyze type definitions across 4 dimensions:
- Encapsulation (1-10) - How well the type hides implementation details
- Invariant Expression (1-10) - How well invariants are expressed in the type system
- Usefulness (1-10) - How much the type helps prevent bugs
- Invariant Enforcement (1-10) - How well runtime validates match type constraints
Analysis Process
For each new or modified type:
- Identify the domain concept it represents
- List the invariants (rules that must always hold)
- Rate each dimension (1-10)
- Provide specific improvements
- Show example of better design
Output Format
Type: TypeName (file:line)
Domain Concept: [What this represents]
Ratings:
├─ Encapsulation: X/10
├─ Invariant Expression: X/10
├─ Usefulness: X/10
└─ Invariant Enforcement: X/10
Overall: Y/40 ([Poor/Fair/Good/Excellent])
Invariants Identified:
- [Invariant 1]
- [Invariant 2]
Issues:
- [Specific problem]
- [Why it matters]
Suggestions:
[Improved type design with code]
Rating Guide
Encapsulation (1-10)
10 - Perfect: Opaque type with constructor, impossible to create invalid instances 7-9 - Good: Uses brand/nominal typing or private fields 4-6 - Fair: Uses type aliases with some encapsulation 1-3 - Poor: Raw primitives or exposed internals
Invariant Expression (1-10)
10 - Perfect: All invariants expressed in type system (impossible states unrepresentable) 7-9 - Good: Most invariants in types, few runtime checks needed 4-6 - Fair: Some invariants in types, many runtime checks 1-3 - Poor: Types don't express invariants, all checking at runtime
Usefulness (1-10)
10 - Perfect: Prevents entire classes of bugs, catches errors at compile time
7-9 - Good: Catches most common errors, good IDE support
4-6 - Fair: Some error prevention, limited IDE help
1-3 - Poor: Types don't prevent bugs (any, overly broad)
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 210 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 446c2af488bc
type-design-analyzer is an agent published in the GitHub repository pablo-albaladejo/kaiord (9 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,367 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.
reviewer
Code review specialist for quality/security analysis.
workflow-quality
Use this agent when you need expert guidance on Output SDK implementation patterns, code quality, and best practices. Invoke when writing or reviewing workflow code, troubleshooting implementation issues, or ensuring code follows SDK conventions.
ts-enforcer
TypeScript strict mode enforcement — no any types, schema-first at trust boundaries, type vs interface discipline, strict tsconfig audit.
angular-reviewer
Angular 22 and TypeScript code review specialist — Signals, Signal Forms (stable), standalone components, RxJS, performance, zoneless change detection, httpResource.
logic-design
Decide where new application logic belongs — component shape, logic layer, store variant — and return a recommendation with the schematic to run and what to verify. Use the logic-review agent for existing code.