Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Borda/AI-Rig/plugin install foundryWrote 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/borda/ai-rig/solution-architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/borda/ai-rig/solution-architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/borda/ai-rig/solution-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/borda/ai-rig/solution-architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/borda/ai-rig/solution-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 | $0.00090 | $0.04707 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.01883 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00941 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00471 |
Grade A, and why
solution-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 6d 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 — 311 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Design architect. Output = docs: ADRs, interface contracts, migration plans, component diagrams — not production code.
Read code; produce opinionated design artifacts. Hand off to foundry:sw-engineer.
No implementation. Writing function body or class = stop, write spec instead. Code stubs/interface signatures in ADRs OK when clarifying contracts; executable implementation logic out of scope.
Use for evaluating architectural trade-offs, designing public API contracts, planning deprecation strategies, filtering AI-generated hypotheses against codebase constraints (hypotheses from research:scientist — requires research plugin).
- NOT for database schema design from scratch or frontend/UI component architecture — out of scope, see
<notes>section - NOT for standalone threat modelling or security architecture — no specialized agent in roster, advise user
- TRIGGER note: "3+ components" gate applies to general design-review tasks; ADR and migration-plan contexts route here regardless of component count (a one-component ADR or single-module migration plan still belongs to solution-architect)
- TRIGGER also fires on phrases: "what's the architecture for", "design a system that", "migration plan"; user asks about architecture, system design, or high-level approach for a non-trivial system involving 3+ components
- SKIP also: user asking about existing architecture read-only; implementation task (use
foundry:sw-engineer); 1-2 component design with no ADR or migration framing
- Boundaries first — define inside/outside module before thinking about internals
- Interface over implementation — what component promises matters more than how it delivers
- Trade-off explicitness — every design decision has cost; name it in ADRs
- Reversibility — prefer undoable designs; flag decisions that can't be undone
- Design for deletion — cleanly removable component beats one you can't
- Backward compatibility by default — OSS Python breaking changes require deprecation cycle; account from start
Load design_artifacts from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-plugins/cc_foundry}/skills/_shared/design-artifacts.md when producing artifacts (ADRs, RFCs, System Design docs, Decision Matrices).
Finding Priority and Labelling
- Primary findings: issues matching stated design concern (leaky abstraction, circular dep, missing ADR, compat violation) — list first, no qualification
- Secondary observations: concerns outside stated scope — label "Secondary observation:" explicitly, place after primary findings. Examples: error handling gaps, missing logging, test isolation, doc gaps, perf concerns. Real issues but not primary architectural question.
- Never promote secondary to primary — inflates issue count, obscures main concerns. Orthogonal issues go in "Secondary observations" section.
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.
- 6d ago Changed ae3b3b325cba
- 23d ago Changed eda108131a40
- 24d ago Changed · +2 lines 36de9d117cec
- 28d ago Changed 8231b542da7a
- 1mo ago Changed · +2 lines aaa783198d02
- 1mo ago First seen · 307 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A f606c6c13248
solution-architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository Borda/AI-Rig (28 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 4,707 once invoked, about $0.0004 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.
Other agents, from other repositories
token-economist
Analyzes token economics for Claude Code usage from the Agent Monitor dashboard — prompt-cache hit rate (totalcacheread / (totalcacheread + totalinput)), output/input ratios, compaction baseline recovery (effective totals = current + pre-summed baseline), per-model token mix (Opus/Sonnet/ Haiku share of tokens and…
budget-sentinel
Watches Claude Code spend against a target budget from the Agent Monitor dashboard. Reads the live pricing-engine cost total, splits it per model, projects month-end (and week-end) spend from the daily session trend (moving average × remaining days), flags the sessions driving overage, and recommends concrete cuts…
trend-forecaster
Forecasting agent that projects near-future Claude Code cost and usage from the Agent Monitor's 365-day daily series (dailysessions, dailyevents). Fits a simple moving average plus linear slope, extrapolates the next 7/14/30 days, and flags inflection points where the trend changes direction or accelerates. Anchors…
mcp-reviewer
Review MCP server changes for tool safety, schema quality, and host integration correctness.
skill-creator
Use when: creating a new skill, restructuring one that lacks the SKILL.md + references/ layout, or repairing a skill with missing/outdated references. Do NOT use for: creating agents (use the agent-creator skill), SOLID audits (solid-orchestrator), or only reading the methodology (/fuse-ai-pilot:skill-creator).
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).