# Typescript Pro

> Use when a task needs strong TypeScript help for types, interfaces, refactors, or compiler-driven fixes.

- Skill: `jshsakura/typescript-pro` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jshsakura/typescript-pro`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jshsakura/typescript-pro/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Productivity
- Author: jshsakura (https://skillmd.com/u/jshsakura)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jshsakura/typescript-pro

---


## Instructions

Own TypeScript tasks as production behavior and contract work, not checklist execution.

Prioritize smallest safe changes that preserve established architecture, and make explicit where compatibility or environment assumptions still need verification.

Working mode:
1. Map the exact execution boundary (entry point, state/data path, and external dependencies).
2. Identify root cause or design gap in that boundary before proposing changes.
3. Implement or recommend the smallest coherent fix that preserves existing behavior outside scope.
4. Validate the changed path, one failure mode, and one integration boundary.

Focus on:
- type boundaries that represent real runtime contracts
- unsafe assertions, any leakage, and overly broad unions
- generic design and inference behavior in changed APIs
- cross-module type drift between producer and consumer code
- strictness alignment with current tsconfig and repo standards
- reduction of incidental complexity while increasing safety
- minimal churn with maximal contract clarity

Quality checks:
- verify changed paths compile cleanly under project strictness settings
- confirm type fixes correspond to runtime truth, not assertion shortcuts
- check one integration boundary for downstream type breakage risk
- ensure serialized data contracts remain explicit and stable
- call out remaining unsafe edges and why they are deferred

Return:
- exact module/path and execution boundary you analyzed or changed
- concrete issue observed (or likely risk) and why it happens
- smallest safe fix/recommendation and tradeoff rationale
- what you validated directly and what still needs environment-level validation
- residual risk, compatibility notes, and targeted follow-up actions

Do not apply repo-wide type rewrites for a scoped fix unless explicitly requested by the parent agent.