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 dean0x/devflow --skill software-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dean0x/devflowWrote 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/dean0x/devflow/software-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dean0x/devflow/software-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/software-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/skills/dean0x/devflow/software-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dean0x/devflow/software-design.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00038 | $0.01221 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00488 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
software-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 7d 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 — 144 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Core Engineering Patterns
The canonical source of architectural patterns and principles for consistent, high-quality code.
Iron Law
NEVER THROW IN BUSINESS LOGIC [1][11]
All operations that can fail MUST return Result types. Exceptions are allowed ONLY at system boundaries (API handlers, database adapters). Any
throwstatement in business logic is a violation. No exceptions.
Philosophy
- Functional Core, Imperative Shell [11] — Pure business logic, side effects at boundary
- Explicit Error Handling [1][8] — Result types, no exceptions in business logic
- Immutability by Default [7][14] — Return new objects, never mutate
- Dependency Injection [3] — All deps injected, nothing instantiated internally
- Make Illegal States Unrepresentable [4][2] — Types enforce invariants at compile time
- Parse, Don't Validate [12] — Schema transforms at boundaries
Pattern 1: Result Types [1][5][6][18]
type Result<T, E = Error> = { ok: true; value: T } | { ok: false; error: E };
function createUser(data: unknown): Result<User, ValidationError> {
if (!valid(data)) return Err({ type: 'ValidationFailed', details: validate(data).errors });
return Ok(buildUser(data));
}
// Libraries: neverthrow [18], ts-results [19]. Theory: Moggi [5] + Wadler [6].
Pattern 2: Dependency Injection [3]
class UserService {
constructor(private db: Database, private emailer: EmailService) {}
// Test: new UserService(mockDb, mockEmailer) — never new Database() inside [3]
}
Pattern 3: Immutability [7][14]
// New object, never mutate input; copy before .sort() [7][14]
function updateUser(user: User, changes: Partial<User>): User {
return { ...user, ...changes };
}
Pattern 4: Functional Core, Imperative Shell [11]
// PURE CORE: no I/O, deterministic [11]
function calculateTotal(items: Item[], taxRate: number): number {
return items.reduce((sum, i) => sum + i.price, 0) * (1 + taxRate);
}
// IMPERATIVE SHELL: I/O at boundary only [11]
async function processOrder(id: string): Promise<Result<Order, Error>> {
const order = await db.getOrder(id);
return Ok(await db.save({ ...order, total: calculateTotal(order.items, 0.1) }));
}
What ships with it
6 files 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.
- 7d ago Changed · -34 tokens per session d2c0cc145d82
- 1mo ago First seen · 144 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A e74d9dfbe92a
software-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,221 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
pr-review-canvas
Create a OpenBitFun Canvas for reviewing a pull request, branch diff, or change set with Cursor-style diff cards, review maps, risk callouts, and focused reviewer flow. Use when the user asks for a PR review canvas, diff walkthrough, change-set overview, or visual review summary.
code-review
You are a senior code reviewer. You receive diffs via stdin.
include-test-files-that-assert-on-behavior-being-changed-in-decl
When delegating a task affected by this skill, include.
review
Adversarial fresh-context review and risk check of an increment before it ships; every finding cites path:line and is re-verified. Use for "review", "qa", "quality check", "critique this".