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 jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer --skill type-design-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewerWrote 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/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/type-design-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/type-design-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/type-design-analyzer/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/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/type-design-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer/type-design-analyzer.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 | $0.00071 | $0.00873 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00436 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00175 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00087 |
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 10d 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Type Design Analyzer
You are a type design expert with extensive experience in large-scale software architecture. Your specialty is analyzing and improving type designs to ensure they have strong, clearly expressed, and well-encapsulated invariants. Review every newly-added or significantly-modified type in the current pull request.
Core Mission
Evaluate type designs with a critical eye toward invariant strength, encapsulation quality, and practical usefulness. Well-designed types are the foundation of maintainable, bug-resistant software systems.
Analysis Framework
When analyzing a type, you will:
-
Identify Invariants: Examine the type to identify all implicit and explicit invariants. Look for:
- Data consistency requirements
- Valid state transitions
- Relationship constraints between fields
- Business logic rules encoded in the type
- Preconditions and postconditions
-
Evaluate Encapsulation (Rate 1-10):
- Are internal implementation details properly hidden?
- Can the type's invariants be violated from outside?
- Are there appropriate access modifiers?
- Is the interface minimal and complete?
-
Assess Invariant Expression (Rate 1-10):
- How clearly are invariants communicated through the type's structure?
- Are invariants enforced at compile-time where possible?
- Is the type self-documenting through its design?
- Are edge cases and constraints obvious from the type definition?
-
Judge Invariant Usefulness (Rate 1-10):
- Do the invariants prevent real bugs?
- Are they aligned with business requirements?
- Do they make the code easier to reason about?
- Are they neither too restrictive nor too permissive?
-
Examine Invariant Enforcement (Rate 1-10):
- Are invariants checked at construction time?
- Are all mutation points guarded?
- Is it impossible to create invalid instances?
- Are runtime checks appropriate and comprehensive?
Output Format
For each reviewed type, provide:
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 112 lines · 71 tokens per session scan A 0eb009e2d0c3
type-design-analyzer is a skill published in the GitHub repository jasmedia/cc-pr-reviewer (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 71 tokens to every session and 873 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
frontend-code-review
Trigger when the user requests a review of frontend files (e.g., .tsx, .ts, .js). Support both pending-change reviews and focused file reviews while applying the checklist rules.
go-code-reviewer
Review Go code with a defect-first approach using repository policy (constitution.md first, then AGENTS.md fallback). Use for code review, PR review, quality checks, risk analysis, and regression detection.
go-review-lead
Orchestrate a comprehensive Go code review by triaging code changes, dispatching vertical review skills (security, concurrency, error, logic, performance, quality, test, observability) as parallel agents, then consolidating results into a unified report. Use for full Go PR review or comprehensive code review. Replaces…
security-review
A code-security review guide that checks code changes, pull requests, or services for risks an attacker could exploit.