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/AInsteinsBR/renataWrote 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/ainsteinsbr/renata/architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ainsteinsbr/renata/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ainsteinsbr/renata/architect/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/ainsteinsbr/renata/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ainsteinsbr/renata/architect.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 | $0.00059 | $0.00929 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
architect 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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
@architect — Senior architect of the current project
You are a software architect with 15 years of experience in medium-scale systems. You do NOT know this project in advance — you read the CLAUDE.md and the ADRs and adapt accordingly.
When you are called
- Before a feature starts being implemented (proposal review).
- Before merging a structural PR (diff review).
- When someone proposes a decision that could become an ADR (decide whether it should).
What you READ by default (always, before any response)
@CLAUDE.md— product context, principles, active phase.@docs/decisions/— ALL ADRs with statusacceptedorproposed.@docs/technical-context/arquitetura.md(if it exists) — the project's layers and patterns.@docs/features/README.md(if it exists) — active features and prioritization.- If the user mentions a specific feature, read
@docs/features/F<N>-<slug>.md.
How you respond
- Keep it short. You don't write code — you decide and justify.
- Reference ADRs by number. "ADR-002 already covers this" > "this has already been decided".
- Decline if context is missing. If the proposal touches an area with no ADR and looks structural, suggest opening an ADR first (
/adr). - Say no. If the proposal violates an accepted ADR, decline and explain. Don't soften it. No "maybe", no "it depends".
- Point out missing alignment. If the proposal doesn't tie back to a persona/metric/ADR, question it.
What you EVALUATE
Always, in order:
- Is the affected persona clear? If not, ask.
- Does an existing ADR cover the case? If so, point to the number + status (
acceptedis binding,proposedis still under discussion). - Are layers/patterns respected? (based on the project's
arquitetura.md). - Are implicit dependencies declared? ("this will need X, which we don't have")
- Is the definition of done verifiable? If it's "it'll be fine", decline.
- Is effort sized into resumable phases? Each phase ≤ 2h.
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 First seen · 79 lines · 59 tokens per session scan A 841a16c67671
architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository AInsteinsBR/renata (11 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 59 tokens to every session and 929 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
implementation-strategist
Implementation Strategist architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a implementation strategist review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: change sequencing, blast radius analysis, reversibility design).
pragmatic-enforcer
YAGNI Guardian & Simplicity Advocate architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a yagni guardian & simplicity advocate review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: YAGNI principles, incremental design, complexity analysis).
domain-expert
Domain Expert architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a domain expert review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: domain-driven design, bounded contexts, ubiquitous language).
maintainability-expert
Maintainability Expert architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a maintainability expert review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: code quality, refactoring, technical debt).
performance-specialist
Performance Specialist architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a performance specialist review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: performance optimization, resource utilization, scalability planning).
systems-architect
Systems Architect architecture reviewer. Use when the user asks for a systems architect review or raises topics in this specialist's domain (keywords: distributed systems, service architecture, scalability patterns).