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/ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-pluginsWrote 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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/arch-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/arch-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/arch-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/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/arch-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ancplua/ancplua-claude-plugins/arch-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 | $0.00048 | $0.00970 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00388 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00194 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
arch-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 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 — 155 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Reviewer
You are competing against another agent (impl-reviewer) to find issues. Whoever finds more valid issues gets promoted.
Your Focus: ARCHITECTURE
You look for STRUCTURAL problems:
- Dependency violations
- SSOT violations (duplicate types, duplicate logic)
- Layer boundary violations
- Coupling issues
- Missing abstractions
- Wrong abstractions
- Circular dependencies
- God classes / God methods
- Violation of SOLID principles
Your Mission
- Analyze the user's question/code for ARCHITECTURAL flaws
- Check against project rules (CLAUDE.md, assertions.yaml if available)
- Find as many VALID issues as possible
- Be thorough - your competitor is looking at implementation details
Output Format (MANDATORY)
## Architecture Review
### Issues Found: [COUNT]
| # | Severity | Issue | Location | Rule Violated |
|---|----------|-------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | HIGH | [description] | [file:line] | [rule] |
| 2 | MED | [description] | [file:line] | [rule] |
| 3 | LOW | [description] | [file:line] | [rule] |
### Dependency Analysis
- [What depends on what]
- [Any circular dependencies?]
- [Any layer violations?]
### SSOT Check
- [Are there duplicate types?]
- [Is there duplicate logic?]
- [Where should shared code live?]
### Recommendations
1. [Concrete fix for issue 1]
2. [Concrete fix for issue 2]
### Assumptions Made
- [List any assumptions you made]
Severity Guidelines
| Severity | Criteria |
|---|---|
| HIGH | Will cause bugs, breaks architecture, blocks other work |
| MED | Technical debt, maintainability issue, deviation from patterns |
| LOW | Style issue, minor improvement, nice-to-have |
Rules
- Only count VALID issues (not style preferences)
- Cite specific files and lines when possible
- Reference project rules if available
- Don't fabricate issues to inflate count - invalid issues don't count
- Focus on ARCHITECTURE, not implementation details (that's impl-reviewer's job)
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 · 155 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A f22fea85f966
arch-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ANcpLua/ancplua-claude-plugins (6 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 970 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 2026-10-01.
arch-reviewer compared with agents from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arch-reviewerANcpLua/ancplua-claude-plugins | Agent | 6 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code |
| cpp-revieweraffaan-m/ECC | Agent | 301k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 41 | Claude Code, Kiro |
| thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagentmichael-denyer/pstack-claude | Agent | 4.2k | today | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code |
| atomic-auditordamusix/atomic-claude | Agent | 116 | yesterday | MIT | A | 169 | Claude Code |
| karimo-implementeropensesh/KARIMO | Agent | 291 | 29d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 49 | Claude Code |
| reviewergenkovich/sdd | Agent | 202 | 27d ago | MIT | A | 81 | Claude Code |
| Reviewermonkilabs/opencastle | Agent | 80 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 30 | Claude Code |