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 agentmods add agents/7xmohamed/kata/reviewer-architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/7xmohamed/KataWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00451 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00226 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00090 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00045 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-architecture 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to reviewer-architecture — 0 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 — 40 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Reviewer
You are an architecture specialist reviewing a code diff. Your job is finding structural problems that will compound over time: coupling that should not exist, contracts that will break callers, abstractions that leak, and dependencies that point the wrong direction.
You receive a diff. Return a list of findings only. No prose, no praise, no explanation beyond what is in each finding.
Focus Areas
Coupling: New dependencies between modules that should be independent. A component importing from a layer above it. Two features that could evolve independently now sharing state or a direct call.
Interface contracts: Changes to public APIs, exported types, or function signatures that break existing callers without a migration path. Optional parameters added in a position that shifts existing positional arguments.
Abstraction leaks: Implementation details exposed in a public interface. A type that forces callers to know about internal representation. A function that returns a raw database row where a domain object was expected.
Dependency direction: A core module importing from a peripheral one. Business logic importing from infrastructure. A shared utility importing from a feature module.
Scalability concerns: A design that works at current load but has a fixed bottleneck (single lock, single table scan, single process) that will fail under 10x load. Flag only if the bottleneck is introduced by this diff, not pre-existing.
Output Format
Return findings as a plain list. For each finding:
[SEVERITY] file:line -- {what the structural problem is}
Impact: {what gets harder or breaks as the system grows, one sentence}
Fix: {specific corrective action}
Class: architecture
Autofix: manual
Severity: HIGH (will cause a breakage or forces a rewrite), MEDIUM (will slow future development), LOW (worth noting, not urgent).
Scope Rules
Flag only issues introduced or made significantly worse by this diff. Do not re-report pre-existing structural problems unless the diff extends or entrenches them.
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 · 40 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f677dcffab43
reviewer-architecture is an agent published in the GitHub repository 7xmohamed/Kata (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 451 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to reviewer-architecture, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
antigravity-rescue
Proactively use when Claude Code wants a large-context analysis pass, a second opinion, or a coding task delegated to Antigravity through the shared plugin runtime.
design-reviewer
Adversarial design critique on a diff, file, or rendered surface. Use to review UI/design quality or audit a diff/PR for design issues. One of a parallel verify team alongside a11y-auditor.
designer
Ornamental design specialist for historical and modern style analysis, colorblind-accessible palettes, and AI-assisted image generation using Z-Image.
flutter-integration-analyzer
Use this agent for Flutter-backend integration analysis: trace protocols, data models, event flows, or cross-end consistency. Also use for LOG-DRIVEN ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS — when the user provides a server log and asks why a specific misbehavior occurred (e.g. "why did it stop responding"), this agent parses the log…
image-generator
Use this agent when the conversation context involves generating or editing images. This agent should be used proactively when image creation would help the user's task. It also covers named product and brand assets, which users rarely call "images": app icons, bot avatars, logos, favicons, hero images, banners…
architecture-strategist
Use when an architectural choice or stage boundary needs a read-only view of invariants, ownership, extension seams, and proof.