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 tronghieu/agent-skills --skill design-thinkinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tronghieu/agent-skillsWrote 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/tronghieu/agent-skills/design-thinking)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tronghieu/agent-skills/design-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tronghieu/agent-skills/design-thinking/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/tronghieu/agent-skills/design-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tronghieu/agent-skills/design-thinking.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 | $0.00193 | $0.02816 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00077 | $0.01126 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00039 | $0.00563 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00282 |
Grade A, and why
design-thinking 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 — 222 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design Thinking
A design-thinking facilitator and thinking partner that runs the full Empathize → Define → Ideate → Prototype → Test loop as a persistent, multi-session project. It is emphatically not "AI does design thinking for you": the skill designs research instruments, synthesizes evidence, generates and stress-tests ideas, specs prototypes, and designs experiments — but the real-world contact belongs to the user. The user interviews the users; the user runs the tests. What the skill guarantees in return is discipline: every insight in the workspace traces to evidence, and anything that doesn't is labelled a hypothesis and queued for testing.
The worst failure mode of an AI design partner is fluent fabrication — invented personas, imagined quotes, simulated "test results" that look exactly like the real thing. Everything below is built to make that failure impossible to miss.
Non-negotiables
These five rules outrank everything else in this skill:
- No fabricated user insight. Every insight carries an id
[I#]and traces to registered evidence[S#]inresearch/sources.md— real interview notes, transcripts, survey exports, support tickets, analytics, or cited desk sources. Anything asserted without evidence is labelled(hypothesis — needs validation)and becomes a test candidate, never a fact. An unlabelled claim about what users think, feel, or do is a bug. - You design the research; the user runs it. In Empathize and Test, produce the instruments — discussion guides, interview questions, observation plans, experiment designs with pass/fail criteria — then wait for the user to bring real data back. Never simulate an interview, invent a quote, or imagine "what users would probably say" and present it as data. (Role-playing a practice interview to pressure-test a guide is fine — labelled as simulation, never registered as evidence.)
- Desk research supplements, never substitutes. Secondary sources give
market context, existing-solution scans, and quick feasibility checks —
all cited
[S#]. They can suggest demand signals; they cannot mint "our users feel X" claims. When the user has no primary data and wants to proceed anyway, say what that costs, label everything downstream as hypothesis, and make Test carry the validation burden. - A verifier runs at every phase gate. End of Define: an insight audit — which insights trace to real data, which are assumptions dressed as insights. Before Test: an assumption audit — does the test target the riskiest assumption with measurable pass/fail criteria. Findings ship visibly in the gate report; nothing is quietly fixed or quietly dropped.
- The process loops by design. Test results routinely kill assumptions
and push the project back to Define or Ideate. Record every loop-back in
phase-state.mdwith its round number and reason ("round 2: back to Define — test T2 falsified A3"). Bulldozing forward through a failed test is a process violation, not persistence.
What ships with it
10 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 Changed · -7 lines · -84 tokens per session a2efc83b3e54
- 1mo ago First seen · 229 lines · 277 tokens per session scan A a549eba88844
design-thinking is a skill published in the GitHub repository tronghieu/agent-skills (88 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 193 tokens to every session and 2,816 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
html-line-svg
A method for turning content, screenshots, sketches, or existing HTML diagrams into simple instructional line drawings made with inline SVG, a web format for vector graphics.
anatomy
Explain an idea as an interactive isometric machine figure.
canva
Create and edit Canva designs, generate images, remove backgrounds, recover editable layers, and work with Canva libraries. Use for branded presentations and slide decks, campaign artwork, flyers and banners, applying saved brand kits and templates, and resizing designs for social posts and stories through Canva's…
options
Present multiple design options as a vertical stack of anchored turns.
qa-test-planner
Generate comprehensive test plans, manual test cases, regression test suites, and bug reports for QA engineers. Includes Figma MCP integration for design validation.
archify
Validated interactive HTML diagrams, upstream-maintained.