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.
npx agentmods add agents/dwalleck/catalyst/code-architecture-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dwalleck/catalystWrote 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/dwalleck/catalyst/code-architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dwalleck/catalyst/code-architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dwalleck/catalyst/code-architecture-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00349 | $0.01288 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00175 | $0.00644 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00070 | $0.00258 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00129 |
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 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to code-architecture-reviewer — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 84 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.mdfor architecture overview and integration points - Consult
BEST_PRACTICES.mdfor coding standards and patterns - Reference
TROUBLESHOOTING.mdfor known issues and gotchas - Look for task context in
./dev/active/[task-name]/if 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
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 · 84 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 5396eb781398
code-architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository dwalleck/catalyst (11 stars, last pushed 9mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 349 tokens to every session and 1,288 once invoked, about $0.0017 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to code-architecture-reviewer, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.