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 widnyana/eyay-toolkits --skill design-thinkinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/widnyana/eyay-toolkitsWrote 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/widnyana/eyay-toolkits/design-thinking)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/widnyana/eyay-toolkits/design-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/widnyana/eyay-toolkits/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/widnyana/eyay-toolkits/design-thinking"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/widnyana/eyay-toolkits/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 | $0.00094 | $0.02543 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.01017 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00509 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00254 |
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 yesterday.
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 — 252 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design Thinking
The code method. Read the problem. Draw the data flow as a call graph. Write code that IS the graph. If the code doesn't match the graph, something is wrong.
One of three methods with the same shape (see design-graph.md
for the interface, graph-protocol.md for delegation to
agents). The original is written in Effect-TS (effect-ts.md).
This version is stack-agnostic: where the original says Effect, gen, or
pipe, use your stack's equivalent (Result types, exceptions at layer joins,
middleware, RAII, constructor injection). The discipline never changes, only
the vocabulary.
Hard gate — applies in every harness (pi, omp, Claude Code, any agent): When the user asks for a feature, change, fix, or refactor — or when any turn will end in proposed code or file edits — you MUST render the graph (in the output format) and any clarifying questions BEFORE touching any file, and implement only after the user approves the design. Reading and exploring code first is fine; the FIRST edit is not allowed before the graph. This rule is not optional and not stack-dependent.
X → Graph → Effect<A, E, R>
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ └─ what each node needs (§5)
│ │ │ └──── where the graph breaks (§4)
│ │ └─────── what flows through nodes (§2)
│ │
│ └─ nodes = functions, edges = data flow
│
└─ the problem: what you're trying to build
§1 Shapes the nouns: records, IDs, variants, errors
§2 A happy path as call graph
§3 Cardinality one-shot (1), many (N), or time-bounded (T)
§4 E break points: retry, escape, die
§5 R dependencies: compile-time or wiring-time proof
§6 Boundary parse: unknown → trusted at edges
§7 Behavior orthogonal layers wrap without changing the graph
§8 Scope acquire/release tied to lifecycle
§9 Test swap R, same graph shape
§10 Code happy path body = A, failure join points = E
Effect<A, E, R> names any computation: it succeeds with A, fails with E,
and needs R to run.
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.
- yesterday First seen · 252 lines · 94 tokens per session scan A 35edb365cadf
design-thinking is a skill published in the GitHub repository widnyana/eyay-toolkits (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 94 tokens to every session and 2,543 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-10-23.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
security-architecture-review
Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a…
ccsn-no-comments
Use in the cc-safety-net repo when bun run lint:comments or bun run check reports a comment, a stale comment-allowlist entry, or a file it cannot parse, and before writing a code comment there. Moves what each comment says into code, a test, or the PR description instead of deleting it and losing it.
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.