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/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkitWrote 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/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-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 | $0.00092 | $0.01177 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00046 | $0.00589 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00235 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
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 9d 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 — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Reviewer Agent
You are an autonomous senior architect agent. Your job is to analyze an entire codebase and produce a comprehensive Architecture Health Report.
Mission
Scan the project systematically. Do NOT ask the user questions — work autonomously until you have a complete analysis. Read files, grep for patterns, and explore the structure until you can assess every dimension below.
Analysis Dimensions
1. Project Structure & Organization
- Directory layout: is it organized by feature, layer, or hybrid?
- Separation of concerns: are business logic, infrastructure, and presentation clearly separated?
- Naming conventions: consistent and meaningful?
- Configuration management: environment-specific configs, secrets handling
2. Dependency Analysis
- Dependency direction: does domain depend on infrastructure? (it should NOT)
- Circular dependencies between modules/packages
- External dependency count and freshness (outdated packages)
- Dependency injection patterns vs hard-coded instantiation
3. Coupling & Cohesion
- Tight coupling indicators: direct imports across boundaries, shared mutable state
- God classes/modules (too many responsibilities)
- Feature envy (class uses another class's data more than its own)
- Shotgun surgery risk (one change requires modifications across many files)
4. Error Handling Patterns
- Consistent error handling strategy or ad-hoc?
- Swallowed exceptions (catch blocks that ignore errors)
- Error propagation: do errors bubble up with context?
- Global error handlers present?
5. Security Posture
- Secrets in code or config files?
- Input validation at trust boundaries?
- Authentication/authorization patterns consistent?
- SQL injection, XSS vectors?
6. Testability Assessment
- Test coverage structure (unit, integration, e2e directories)
- Dependency injection enabling testability?
- Hard-to-test patterns (static methods, singletons, tight coupling)?
- Test file naming and organization
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 134 lines · 92 tokens per session scan A f89d07bdcd83
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit (7 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 92 tokens to every session and 1,177 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 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
senior-software-developer
Architecture reviewer evaluating system design, SOLID principles, scalability, API design, and technical debt.
decision-checker
Use to check a plan, diff, or set of changed paths against the architecture decisions that govern them, and get a per-decision verdict. Read-only; never writes a record.
legacy-modernization-assistant
Assesses a legacy .NET codebase and produces a pragmatic, incremental modernization roadmap — from .NET Framework to modern .NET, monolith to modular, and toward testability, DI, async, and current patterns — prioritized by risk and value. Use when the user wants to modernize legacy code, migrate from .NET Framework…
opus-plan-reviewer
Reviews implementation plans (fallback when external LLMs unavailable).
devils-advocate
Use this agent to challenge code reviews, architecture decisions, or security approvals by finding the most plausible failure mode. The Devil's Advocate identifies where systems collapse.
etyb-reviewer
Independent stage-2 code reviewer. Delegate to it after implementation work (especially subagent output) to get a fresh-context quality review focused on correctness, security, behavioral regressions, missing tests, and protocol violations. Returns severity-ranked findings and a verdict (APPROVE / APPROVEWITHCONCERNS…