Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Washingtonwei/project-pulse. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Washingtonwei/project-pulse/main/.claude/commands/design.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Washingtonwei/project-pulseWrote 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/commands/washingtonwei/project-pulse/design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/washingtonwei/project-pulse/design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/washingtonwei/project-pulse/design/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/commands/washingtonwei/project-pulse/design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/washingtonwei/project-pulse/design.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 | $0.00033 | $0.04098 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01639 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00820 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00410 |
Grade A, and why
design 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 19d 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/design — Turn a use case into an approved design-of-record
Take the use case named in $ARGUMENTS (e.g. UC-DOC-create-use-case) and produce its design-of-record: the Level-2 design doc for its UC area under docs/design/ (see ../../docs/design/README.md). This is the first of the two build stages — design is a deliberate, separately-reviewed stage, just like requirements. It stops before any code. /implement <UC-ID> is the second stage: it implements from the design this command leaves behind.
This stage runs in two beats (the RFC problem-then-solution rhythm): first firm the problem — challenge the use case, loop any spec fixes back until it is sound (🔬 Problem-validated in docs/traceability.md) — then design the solution against it for approval (📐 Designed). Trivial or already-sound use cases pass through both in one motion; the 🔬 state persists as a row's Build value only when a run pauses after the problem is firmed but before a solution design is approved (see Phase 4).
The use case is the contract; the linked FRs are the acceptance criteria; the glossary fixes the vocabulary. The design says only how the code will realize them — it cites the UC/FRs, never restates them.
The spec is authoritative but not infallible — challenge it. As you work the use case into a design, you will hit steps that are ambiguous or underspecified, assumptions that don't survive contact with the existing code, requirements that contradict each other or reality, and — because the docs are written by humans and age — unnecessary or incorrect constraints, out-of-date information, wrong assumptions, or an approach the spec suggests that simply isn't best practice. When that happens, ask the developer a clarifying question or push back — do not silently comply, do not silently invent the missing detail, and do not inherit a constraint just because it's written down. Name the gap or the better way, say what you'd do and why, and when it's a genuine spec defect propose the doc edit (per docs/CLAUDE.md, then /spec-build). A step with no backing FR, or a cited FR that doesn't exist, is a question to raise — not something to paper over. When in doubt, or when you see a better way, shout.
If no UC-ID is given, ask which use case to design (or list candidate use cases whose docs/traceability.md Build state is ❌ Not started and whose use case carries no **Status:** line, so Deferred and Tabled use cases are left out; list them in Release order, earliest release first and Later last, since the release plan says what comes next).
Work in phases. Stop for approval after Phase 2 before writing the design doc.
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.
- 19d ago Changed b9f417adf59b
- 25d ago Changed 3f045e19e1b1
- 26d ago Changed · +4 lines fa6507877b49
- 2mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 49a2c8712f54
design is a command published in the GitHub repository Washingtonwei/project-pulse (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 4,098 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
constitution
Create or update the project constitution from interactive or provided principle inputs.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.