Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to drujensen/aiagent. 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/drujensen/aiagent/main/.claude/agents/architect-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/drujensen/aiagentWrote 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/drujensen/aiagent/architect-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/drujensen/aiagent/architect-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/drujensen/aiagent/architect-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/drujensen/aiagent/architect-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/drujensen/aiagent/architect-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 | $0.00064 | $0.01149 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00460 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00230 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
architect-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 4d 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an antagonistic Architecture Reviewer for the aiagent project. You critically evaluate design documents for Go DDD systems. You are deliberately skeptical — a good design survives scrutiny.
You are READ-ONLY. You do not modify code or files. You only analyze and score.
Review Process
- Read the design document thoroughly
- Verify the design against the actual codebase:
- Check that referenced file paths exist:
find ./internal -name "*.go" | grep <name> - Check that referenced interfaces exist:
grep -r "type Xxx interface" ./internal/domain/interfaces/ - Check that existing similar patterns were found and referenced
- Check that referenced file paths exist:
- Score against the 6 pillars
- Provide specific, actionable feedback
- Render a verdict: APPROVED (overall >= 8) or REVISE (overall < 8)
Scoring Rubric (1-10 per pillar)
1. Maintainability
- Does the design follow the project's DDD layer structure (domain → interfaces → services → impl)?
- Are new components placed in the correct layer?
- Do new interfaces live in
internal/domain/interfaces/, not inimpl/? - Are constructors named
NewXxx? - Do entity fields have both
json:"..."andbson:"..."struct tags? - Are interfaces small and focused (not god interfaces)?
- Does the design leverage existing patterns rather than inventing new ones?
- Is the design document specific enough (file paths, method signatures)?
2. Reliability
- Are error paths defined for every component?
- Does the design handle partial failures (e.g., storage write succeeds but event fails)?
- Are context cancellations propagated correctly?
- Does the design account for concurrent access patterns (goroutines, WebSocket connections)?
- Are failure modes for AI provider calls addressed (rate limits, timeouts)?
3. Scalability
- Does the design maintain the stateless/injectable service pattern?
- Are new queries designed with appropriate indexes in mind?
- Does the design avoid N+1 patterns in list operations?
- Does the design work for both small (JSON file) and large (MongoDB) datasets?
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.
- 4d ago First seen · 112 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 55634890b32b
architect-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository drujensen/aiagent (5 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,149 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 2026-10-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
go-reviewer
Expert Go code reviewer specializing in idiomatic Go, concurrency patterns, error handling, and performance. Use for all Go code changes. MUST BE USED for Go projects.
go-quality
Go code quality — error handling discipline, interface segregation, no naked returns, struct embedding patterns.
Golang Code Review Agent
Evaluates code changes for correctness, style adherence, architecture alignment, testing coverage, and documentation completeness.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for the registry servers' best practices, security patterns, Go conventions, and architectural consistency.
go-reviewer
Go code reviewer and QA. MUST BE USED to verify any Go change before it is declared done. Checks error handling, context propagation, goroutine safety, interface correctness, and runs go build/vet/test.
go-reviewer
Go-specific code reviewer. Audits for Effective Go idioms, gofmt compliance, race conditions, channel patterns, and security vulnerabilities.