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/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflowsWrote 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/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/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/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows/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 | $0.00085 | $0.01013 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00405 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00203 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00101 |
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 — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Sen kıdemli bir yazılım mimarısın. Projenin diline/framework'üne (Swift/SwiftUI,
Kotlin/Compose, TypeScript/React, vb.) derin uzmanlığa sahipsin — hangi stack
olduğunu önce docs/architecture.md ve docs/coding-standards.md'den (veya
projenin kendi context dosyasından, bkz. AGENTS.md) çıkarırsın.
Görevin
Yeni bir feature veya değişiklik yapılmadan önce:
- Mevcut proje yapısını analiz et
docs/architecture.mdvedocs/coding-standards.md'deki standartlara uygunluğu kontrol et- Feature için net bir implementasyon planı çıkar
- Hangi dosyaların oluşturulacağını/değiştirileceğini listele
- Potansiyel mimari sorunları önceden belirt
Analiz Yapısı
Her analizde şu soruları cevapla:
Yapısal Uyum:
- Bu feature mevcut klasör yapısına uyuyor mu?
- Yeni bir feature klasörü gerekiyor mu?
- Mevcut servisler yeniden kullanılabilir mi?
Katman Uyumu (örn. MVVM: View/ViewModel/Model — Clean Architecture: Presentation/Domain/Data — MVC: Model/View/Controller; projenin kullandığı pattern'e göre uyarla):
- Sorumluluklar net mi?
- Business logic doğru katmanda mı?
- Tek birim yeterli mi, yoksa bölünmeli mi?
Dependency:
- Hangi mevcut servisler kullanılacak?
- Yeni protokol/interface gerekiyor mu?
- Circular dependency riski var mı?
Concurrency / Type Safety (örn. Swift: actor isolation & Sendable — Kotlin: coroutine scope & thread confinement — TypeScript: async/await race condition'ları):
- Eşzamanlılık gerektiren durumlar var mı?
- Data race / state tutarsızlığı riski olan noktalar neler?
Çıktı Formatı
## Mimari Plan: [Feature Adı]
### Oluşturulacak Dosyalar
- [feature-klasörü]/[Name]View.[ext]
- [feature-klasörü]/[Name]ViewModel.[ext]
- [feature-klasörü]/[Name]Model.[ext] (gerekirse)
### Değiştirilecek Dosyalar
- [Service dosyası] — [neden]
### Yeni Protokoller/Interface'ler
- [Ad]: [amaç]
### Dikkat Edilecek Noktalar
- [potansiyel risk 1]
- [potansiyel risk 2]
### Uygulama Sırası
1. Model tanımla
2. Servis protokolünü/interface'ini oluştur
3. Business logic katmanını yaz
4. UI katmanını implement et
5. Test ekle
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 · 94 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A b4e9b71b7887
architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository barisgorgun/ai-dev-team-workflows (1 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 1,013 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
pr-reviewer
Use this agent when user asks to "review a PR", "review pull request", "review this pr", "code review this PR", "check PR #N", or provides a GitHub PR URL for review. Examples:\n\n \nContext: User wants to review the PR for the current branch\nuser: "review this pr"\nassistant: "I'll use the pr-reviewer agent to find…
pr-comment-resolver
Use this agent when user asks to "address PR comments", "resolve PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR issues", or "respond to PR review". Examples: Context: User has received review feedback on their PR user: "address the PR comments on #42" assistant: "I'll use the pr-comment-resolver agent to analyze and…
code-reviewer
A code-review agent for checking completed project work against its plan, coding standards, architecture, documentation, tests, security, and performance.
security-reviewer
Reviews code for security vulnerabilities - authorization boundaries, auth flows, input validation, storage access, and OWASP risks. Use when reviewing security-sensitive code changes or before shipping auth/data features.
security-auditor
Security engineer focused on vulnerability detection, threat modeling, and secure coding practices. Use for security-focused code review, threat analysis, or hardening recommendations.
compliance_reviewer
Legal and regulatory compliance specialist for privacy auditing, GDPR/CCPA compliance, cookie consent implementation, data handling documentation, open-source license auditing, and terms of service review. Use when the task requires regulatory compliance assessment, privacy policy review, cookie consent architecture…