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 jkomyno/.dotfiles --skill lfd-designgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jkomyno/.dotfilesWrote 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/jkomyno/.dotfiles/lfd-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jkomyno/.dotfiles/lfd-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jkomyno/.dotfiles/lfd-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/jkomyno/.dotfiles/lfd-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jkomyno/.dotfiles/lfd-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 | $0.02618 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.01047 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00524 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00262 |
Grade A, and why
lfd-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 1mo 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 — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
LFD Design
You are designing an optimization target, not solving a task. The agent that
receives goal.md is a competent, tireless, literal optimizer: it will satisfy
the target by the cheapest available path — memorizing the eval, hardcoding
answers, mining feedback channels into lookup tables. Your job is to make
genuine capability the cheapest path left.
A spec says "build this, make the tests pass." A loss function says "build this, make the tests pass, then descend toward this bar on data you cannot see." You are writing the second thing. It has four parts: the target, the constraints, the instruments, and the forced entropy. Every /goal you emit must contain all four.
Two modes. Design mode (default): the phases below, in order. Patch mode (see end): a running loop cheated; fix the loss function, not the agent.
Phase 0 — Observe before asking
Inventory the environment BEFORE asking the user anything. The first principle of harness engineering is observability — apply it to your own task:
- Repo: existing test suites, eval datasets, scoring scripts, CI workflows, logs/telemetry, CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md.
- Tooling: what is installed and usable — Playwright/headless browsers, crawlers, image-diff tools, jq, database clients.
- Surfaces: which API keys exist in the environment or .env files (check presence only; never print values), which providers are reachable.
- Reference artifact: if the user named a product or dataset, look at what is publicly accessible right now.
Reuse what exists — extend an existing scorer or eval rather than generating a parallel one. Whatever observation could not answer becomes Phase 1.
Phase 1 — Interrogate
Ask the user in ONE batched round, only what Phase 0 couldn't answer:
- Outcome — what artifact or behavior, and what does "good" look like? Is there a reference artifact to score against?
- Eval source and size — where do ground-truth cases come from, and how many are obtainable? (Phase 3 can build the eval if the answer is "nowhere yet.")
- Budgets — wall-clock budget for the run, dollar ceiling, and which paid surfaces exist (crawler credits, LLM keys). An 80% solution in 2 hours beats a 100% one in 30 days; get the user's actual tolerance.
- Surface — what the agent may touch: directories, APIs, providers, models, concurrency. Everything unlisted is denied.
- Acceptance — the score bar, measured on held-out data only, plus a diminishing-returns stop ("if marginal gain ≈ 0 for N cycles, stop and report").
What ships with it
3 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 217 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 07a398bf0db8
lfd-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository jkomyno/.dotfiles (5 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,618 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 skills, from other repositories
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chronicle
Analyze Copilot session history for standup reports, usage tips, session search, and session reindexing. Use when the user asks for a standup, daily summary, usage tips, workflow recommendations, wants to search or find past sessions by keyword/file/PR, wants to reindex their session store, or asks about deleting…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
component-fixtures
Use when creating or updating component fixtures for screenshot testing or their shared infrastructure, or when designing UI components to be fixture-friendly. Covers fixture file structure, theming, service setup, CSS scoping, async rendering, validation, and common pitfalls.