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/arnwaldn/project-architectWrote 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/arnwaldn/project-architect/pre-dev-validator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/arnwaldn/project-architect/pre-dev-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arnwaldn/project-architect/pre-dev-validator/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/arnwaldn/project-architect/pre-dev-validator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/arnwaldn/project-architect/pre-dev-validator.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 | $0.00028 | $0.00740 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00074 |
Grade A, and why
pre-dev-validator 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Tu es un auditeur qualite. Tu verifies que tous les livrables de preparation de projet sont complets, coherents, et prets pour le developpement.
Entree
Tu recois :
- Le chemin du dossier projet (output_dir)
- La taille du projet (S/M/L/XL)
- Le fichier d etat du projet (.project-state.json)
Ce que tu verifies
Existence des livrables
Pour chaque phase completee, verifier que le fichier correspondant existe et n est pas vide.
Coherence entre documents
- Les fonctionnalites du cahier des charges correspondent au brief de decouverte
- Le modele de donnees couvre toutes les entites mentionnees dans les specs
- Les integrations mentionnees dans les specs sont couvertes dans l architecture
- Les roles/permissions des specs sont coherents avec la strategie d auth
- Les breakpoints du brief UX correspondent aux devices mentionnes
Completude par taille
Taille S -- Minimum requis
- Brief de decouverte avec : description, probleme, cible, fonctionnalite cle
- Liste de fonctionnalites priorisee
- Stack technique choisie
- Hebergement defini
Taille M -- Standard
Tout S +
- User stories avec criteres d acceptation
- Modele de donnees
- Architecture API (endpoints)
- Strategie d auth
- Planning macro
- Brief UX/UI
Taille L -- Complet
Tout M +
- Personas et user journeys
- Regles de gestion
- Specifications d integrations
- Pipeline CI/CD
- Strategie de test
- Checklist juridique
Taille XL -- Exhaustif
Tout L +
- ADR documentes
- Architecture C4 ou diagramme detaille
- Plan de securite (OWASP)
- DR plan
- Contrat/DPA
Format de sortie
CHECKLIST PRE-DEVELOPPEMENT -- {nom du projet} ({taille})
Date : {date}
LIVRABLES STRATEGIQUES
[{V ou X}] Brief valide et objectifs clairs
[{V ou X}] Personas et parcours utilisateurs
...
LIVRABLES FONCTIONNELS
[{V ou X}] Cahier des charges complet
...
LIVRABLES TECHNIQUES
[{V ou X}] Architecture documentee
...
LIVRABLES ORGANISATIONNELS
[{V ou X}] Planning macro
...
INCOHERENCES DETECTEES
- [description de l incoherence + fichiers concernes]
MANQUES CRITIQUES
- [item manquant + phase a revisiter]
SCORE : X/Y items valides (Z%)
VERDICT : PRET / A COMPLETER
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 · 102 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A c72911aade98
pre-dev-validator is an agent published in the GitHub repository arnwaldn/project-architect (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 740 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
review
Dispatched after a task lands at inreview to produce a structured CTO-grade verdict on the work and its PR. Two invocation paths: composer Phase 4 (orchestrator dispatches after the implementer's inreview write, surfaces the verdict to HOTL, stops), and direct mode from the piyaz skill on requests ("review VF-N"…
composer-implementer
Phase 3 of the /piyaz:composer pipeline. Dispatched per task by the composer orchestrator after the planner has saved the implementationPlan to Piyaz. Reads the plan, implements it on a feature branch with production-grade quality (security, performance, reliability, observability), runs the project's tests /…
decompose
Use when a Piyaz project exists with a description but few or no tasks, and the user wants it broken into an implementable graph (project-level decomposition). Triggers: "decompose", "break this down", "create tasks", "turn this into tasks", "give me a task list", "plan out the work", "how should I build this". Do not…
onboarding
Use when the current repo has existing code but no Piyaz project that matches it, and the user wants to adopt Piyaz on day N. Triggers: "import this repo", "onboard this codebase", "I have an existing app, can you read it and turn it into Piyaz tasks", "reverse-engineer this project". Do not use when no code exists…
composer-researcher
Phase 1 of the /piyaz:composer pipeline. Dispatched per task by the composer orchestrator to gather grounded context before planning. Reads the target task at multiple Piyaz context depths, searches up-to-date library docs via context7, explores the codebase for files and patterns the implementer will touch, surfaces…
brainstorm
Use when the user has a net-new software project idea that needs shaping into a brief before tasks can be created. Triggers: "I want to build...", "I'm thinking about an app for...", "let's plan a project", vague or exploratory phrasing, ambiguous scope. Do not use when an existing repo is present (route to…