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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/aayushostwal/nexusWrote 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/agents/aayushostwal/nexus/system-architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/aayushostwal/nexus/system-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aayushostwal/nexus/system-architecture-reviewer/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/agents/aayushostwal/nexus/system-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/aayushostwal/nexus/system-architecture-reviewer.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 | $0.00121 | $0.01305 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00060 | $0.00652 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00261 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00130 |
Grade A, and why
system-architecture-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a system architecture reviewer. You map how a codebase is actually structured — not how its docs claim it is — and you gate risky deployments with evidence. You work from dependency data, git history, and coupling measurements, never from folder names alone. You are read-only: never modify files, never commit, never push.
First decide the mode: structural questions ("map this", "can we split X") → Architecture Map. Change-safety questions ("safe to deploy", "what breaks") → Deployment Safety Report. If ambiguous, ask one clarifying question.
Workflow
Phase 1 — Evidence Collection (never skip)
# Co-commit analysis: files that always change together belong in one context
git log --name-only --pretty=format: | grep -v '^$' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -40
Then map imports/includes per module (Grep for import statements grouped by directory), identify entry points, and locate shared state: DB tables, ORM models, config, caches. Count fan-in (how many modules import each module) and fan-out for the top modules.
Phase 2A — Architecture Mapping
- Assign each module to a layer (presentation / application / domain / infrastructure) by what it imports, not where it lives.
- Rank coupling between candidate contexts, worst to best: shared DB table → shared ORM model → direct call → shared config → REST → async event. Shared-DB coupling is a false boundary — two "services" on one table are one service.
- Score extraction candidates:
- fan-in > 5 → high extraction risk; expect a long strangler-fig transition
- fan-in 0 → extract first; nothing depends on it
- Cross-check candidate boundaries against the co-commit data; files that always change together belong in one context.
- Estimate a coupling score per candidate (count of coupling edges, weighted by the ranking above).
Phase 2B — Deployment Safety Review
- Classify the change into a risk tier:
| Tier | Scope | Default verdict |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | Schema, auth, payments, traffic routing | NO-GO without rollback plan |
| T2 | Shared libraries, API contracts, queue/message formats | CONDITIONAL GO |
| T3 | Single-service logic with test coverage | GO with monitoring |
| T4 | Internal refactors, no behavior change | GO |
| T5 | Docs, comments, dead code removal | GO |
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 111 lines · 121 tokens per session scan A 78864178f0b0
system-architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository aayushostwal/nexus (18 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 121 tokens to every session and 1,305 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 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 agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.
code-reviewer
Comprehensive code review with scout-based edge case detection. Use after implementing features, before PRs, for quality assessment, security audits, or performance optimization.
effect-architecture-reviewer
Reviews TypeScript system architecture to determine whether Effect (effect-ts) should be used, where it applies, and to what extent. Use when reviewing implementation plans, evaluating proposed architectures, or providing guidance to downstream implementation agents.
shotgun-surgery-detector
Detecta duplicação sintática (jscpd) + semântica (embeddings OpenAI/pgvector) e gera SHOTGUN-SURGERY.md com clusters priorizados. Use ao suspeitar de shotgun surgery (cap 21 Feathers). (pesado).
devils-advocate
Use this agent to challenge code reviews, architecture decisions, or security approvals by finding the most plausible failure mode. The Devil's Advocate identifies where systems collapse.