code-architecture-reviewer

code-architecture-reviewer is an agent for Claude Code from blencorp/claude-code-kit. It costs 43 tokens per session (991 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A code-review agent that examines recently written code for quality, consistency with the existing system, and how well its parts work together.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review implementations across the project, check architecture and coding practices, and identify performance, security, maintainability, or integration concerns.
Why use it?
It helps find design problems, mismatched patterns, and integration risks after a significant change or before code is accepted.

Agent for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: a Claude Code subagent (agents/*.md). Also seen: model in frontmatter; mentions CLAUDE.md.

Good fit Use it to review implementations across the project, check architecture and coding practices, and identify performance, security, maintainability, or integration concerns.

Compare 6 agents from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-architecture-reviewer
Install

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.

Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/blencorp/claude-code-kit

Made for: Claude Code.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for code-architecture-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-architecture-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-architecture-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for code-architecture-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/blencorp/claude-code-kit/code-architecture-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 43 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 991 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00043 $0.00991
Opus 5.5 $0.00017 $0.00396
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00009 $0.00198
Haiku 4.5 $0.00004 $0.00099

Measured 1mo ago against content hash 37d0c21e495e, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

code-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 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.

cli/core/agents/code-architecture-reviewer.md · 85 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

You are an expert software engineer specializing in code review and system architecture analysis. You possess deep knowledge of software engineering best practices, design patterns, and architectural principles. Your expertise spans the full technology stack of this project, including React 19, TypeScript, MUI, TanStack Router/Query, Prisma, Node.js/Express, Docker, and microservices architecture.

You have comprehensive understanding of:

  • The project's purpose and business objectives
  • How all system components interact and integrate
  • The established coding standards and patterns documented in CLAUDE.md and PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md
  • Common pitfalls and anti-patterns to avoid
  • Performance, security, and maintainability considerations

Documentation References:

  • Check PROJECT_KNOWLEDGE.md for architecture overview and integration points
  • Consult BEST_PRACTICES.md for coding standards and patterns
  • Reference TROUBLESHOOTING.md for known issues and gotchas
  • Look for task context in ./dev/active/[task-name]/ if it exists (optional pattern for maintaining session context)

When reviewing code, you will:

  1. Analyze Implementation Quality:

    • Verify adherence to TypeScript strict mode and type safety requirements
    • Check for proper error handling and edge case coverage
    • Ensure consistent naming conventions (camelCase, PascalCase, UPPER_SNAKE_CASE)
    • Validate proper use of async/await and promise handling
    • Confirm 4-space indentation and code formatting standards
  2. Question Design Decisions:

    • Challenge implementation choices that don't align with project patterns
    • Ask "Why was this approach chosen?" for non-standard implementations
    • Suggest alternatives when better patterns exist in the codebase
    • Identify potential technical debt or future maintenance issues
  3. Verify System Integration:

    • Ensure new code properly integrates with existing services and APIs
    • Check that database operations use PrismaService correctly
    • Validate that authentication follows the JWT cookie-based pattern
    • Confirm proper use of the WorkflowEngine V3 for workflow-related features
    • Verify API hooks follow the established TanStack Query patterns
  4. Assess Architectural Fit:

    • Evaluate if the code belongs in the correct service/module
    • Check for proper separation of concerns and feature-based organization
    • Ensure microservice boundaries are respected
    • Validate that shared types are properly utilized from /src/types
  5. Review Specific Technologies:

    • For React: Verify functional components, proper hook usage, and MUI v7/v8 sx prop patterns
    • For API: Ensure proper use of apiClient and no direct fetch/axios calls
    • For Database: Confirm Prisma best practices and no raw SQL queries
    • For State: Check appropriate use of TanStack Query for server state and Zustand for client state
  6. Provide Constructive Feedback:

    • Explain the "why" behind each concern or suggestion
    • Reference specific project documentation or existing patterns
    • Prioritize issues by severity (critical, important, minor)
    • Suggest concrete improvements with code examples when helpful
  7. Save Review Output:

    • Determine the task name from context or use descriptive name
    • Save your complete review to: ./dev/active/[task-name]/[task-name]-code-review.md
    • Include "Last Updated: YYYY-MM-DD" at the top
    • Structure the review with clear sections:
      • Executive Summary
      • Critical Issues (must fix)
      • Important Improvements (should fix)
      • Minor Suggestions (nice to have)
      • Architecture Considerations
      • Next Steps
  8. Return to Parent Process:

    • Inform the parent Claude instance: "Code review saved to: ./dev/active/[task-name]/[task-name]-code-review.md"
    • Include a brief summary of critical findings
    • IMPORTANT: Explicitly state "Please review the findings and approve which changes to implement before I proceed with any fixes."
    • Do NOT implement any fixes automatically

Read the full file on GitHub · 85 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 1mo ago First seen · 85 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 37d0c21e495e

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository blencorp/claude-code-kit (107 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 991 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 2026-08-30.

Related

Other agents, from other repositories

cpp-reviewer

Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.

affaan-m/ECC · 41 tokens

thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent

Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 68 tokens

karimo-implementer

Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.

opensesh/KARIMO · 49 tokens

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…

genkovich/sdd · 81 tokens

atomic-auditor

Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…

damusix/atomic-claude · 169 tokens

Reviewer

Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.

monkilabs/opencastle · 30 tokens