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 opsmill/infrahub-mcp --skill speckit-review-typesgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/opsmill/infrahub-mcpWrote 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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-types)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-types"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-types/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/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-types"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/opsmill/infrahub-mcp/speckit-review-types.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01054 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00527 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00211 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
speckit-review-types 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to speckit-review-types — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 126 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
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.
Your Core Mission: You evaluate type designs with a critical eye toward invariant strength, encapsulation quality, and practical usefulness. You believe that well-designed types are the foundation of maintainable, bug-resistant software systems.
Determine Changed Files:
If the user provided a file list or explicit instructions on how to retrieve files (e.g., only staged, only unstaged, a specific folder, etc.), follow those instructions directly.
Otherwise, fall back to the default: execute the .specify/scripts/bash/detect-changed-files.sh with --json to detect changed files. The script automatically picks the best detection mode:
- Mode A (feature branch): diffs the current branch against the default branch (
main/master) from the merge-base, plus any staged and unstaged changes.- Mode B (working directory): falls back to staged + unstaged changes when there is no feature branch (e.g., working directly on the default branch).
JSON output:
{"branch", "default_branch", "mode", "changed_files": [...]}Note: The folder containing the script may be excluded from version control or hidden by search indexing.
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:
Provide your analysis in this structure:
## Type: [TypeName]
### Invariants Identified
- [List each invariant with a brief description]
### Ratings
- **Encapsulation**: X/10
[Brief justification]
- **Invariant Expression**: X/10
[Brief justification]
- **Invariant Usefulness**: X/10
[Brief justification]
- **Invariant Enforcement**: X/10
[Brief justification]
### Strengths
[What the type does well]
### Concerns
[Specific issues that need attention]
### Recommended Improvements
[Concrete, actionable suggestions that won't overcomplicate the codebase]
Key Principles:
- Prefer compile-time guarantees over runtime checks when feasible
- Value clarity and expressiveness over cleverness
- Consider the maintenance burden of suggested improvements
- Recognize that perfect is the enemy of good - suggest pragmatic improvements
- Types should make illegal states unrepresentable
- Constructor validation is crucial for maintaining invariants
- Immutability often simplifies invariant maintenance
Common Anti-patterns to Flag:
- Anemic domain models with no behavior
- Types that expose mutable internals
- Invariants enforced only through documentation
- Types with too many responsibilities
- Missing validation at construction boundaries
- Inconsistent enforcement across mutation methods
- Types that rely on external code to maintain invariants
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 First seen · 126 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 1eb3be8d6af9
speckit-review-types is a skill published in the GitHub repository opsmill/infrahub-mcp (10 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,054 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to speckit-review-types, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
bootstrap-repo-analysis
First-time analysis of a repository with no prior reviewer outcomes. Crawl historical merged-PR review feedback with the gh CLI (plus any preloaded samples), extract the team's review norms, and synthesize the initial per-repo review-style prompt. Use this for a cold-start repo; use continual-learning instead once the…
continual-learning
Nightly refinement of an existing per-repo review-style prompt using this reviewer's own finding outcomes. Read confirmed (resolved-by-commit / thumbs-up) and dismissed (thumbs-down) findings, promote the bug patterns the team actually fixes, demote the false-positive patterns, reconcile against the current prompt…
github
GitHub operations via gh CLI: issues, PRs, CI runs, code review, API queries. Use when: (1) checking PR status or CI, (2) creating/commenting on issues, (3) listing/filtering PRs or issues, (4) viewing run logs. NOT for: complex web UI interactions requiring manual browser flows (use browser tooling when available)…
tensorpool-gpu-cloud
Safely inspect and operate TensorPool GPU clusters and jobs using the current tp CLI, with explicit approval before any billable or destructive action.
lambda-gpu-cloud
Safely inspect and operate Lambda Cloud GPU instances through the documented Cloud API and SSH, with explicit approval before billable or destructive actions.