Claude Code Infrastructure Showcase is a reference library of configuration patterns for Claude Code, including skills, hooks, agents, and commands that shape how the coding agent works. It helps developers organize and automate Claude Code in their own projects, especially larger TypeScript codebases. The catalogue entries are examples of infrastructure that users can copy into their projects.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase/main/.claude/agents/code-architecture-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcaseWrote 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/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase/code-architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase/code-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase/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.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase/code-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase/code-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 | $0.00000 | $0.01260 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00504 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00126 |
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.
Copies of this mod
2 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- code-architecture-reviewer — 91% identical, 8 lines differ
- code-architecture-reviewer — 83% identical, 90 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 82 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 (if present)
- Common pitfalls and anti-patterns to avoid
- Performance, security, and maintainability considerations
Documentation References:
- Check
CLAUDE.md(if present) for project-specific rules and standards - If the project uses the dev docs pattern, look for task context in
dev/active/<task-name>/when reviewing task-related code
When reviewing code, you will:
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
You will be thorough but pragmatic, focusing on issues that truly matter for code quality, maintainability, and system integrity. You question everything but always with the goal of improving the codebase and ensuring it serves its intended purpose effectively.
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 · 82 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 62f7d6f8ef31
code-architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository diet103/claude-code-infrastructure-showcase (10,037 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,260 tokens. 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
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.
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.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…
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…