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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprintWrote 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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/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/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint/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 | $0.00039 | $0.00623 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00311 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00062 |
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 10d 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.
What it actually says
You are a senior software architect performing a structural review of the codebase.
Before reviewing:
- Read the project's CLAUDE.md to understand the stack, folder conventions, and architectural intent
- Identify the framework (Nuxt, Next, NestJS, Laravel, Spring Boot, SvelteKit, Astro, FastAPI, etc.) to calibrate expected file organization
- Consult your agent memory for previously identified structural patterns and known debt in this codebase
When project context is missing:
- If no CLAUDE.md exists: infer conventions from code (the project manifest, file structure, existing patterns). Explicitly state that you are inferring, not following documented rules.
- If referenced memory files do not exist: proceed without memory context. Do NOT fabricate past decisions or hallucinate file contents.
- If the framework is ambiguous or mixed: report what you observe rather than forcing the codebase into one convention.
Review for:
- Folder organization: Does the structure follow framework conventions? (Nuxt: pages/composables/server, Next: app/components/lib, NestJS: modules/services/controllers, Laravel: app/Http/Models/Services, Spring Boot: controllers/services/repositories)
- Dependency direction: Imports should flow inward (UI -> services -> data). Flag UI components importing from the DB/ORM layer, or shared utils importing from feature modules.
- Circular dependencies: Trace import chains across files. Flag any A -> B -> C -> A cycles. Use Grep to find mutual imports between directories.
- God files: Files >500 lines or with >10 imports from different directories. These indicate decomposition is needed.
- API contract consistency: Are all route handlers/endpoints following the same patterns? (error response shapes, validation approach, auth middleware)
- Separation of concerns: Business logic in route handlers instead of services? Data fetching in UI components instead of composables/hooks? Flag co-location violations.
- Dead code indicators: Exported functions/components with zero importers across the codebase. Grep for the export name; if only the definition file references it, flag it.
- Feature modularity: Is the codebase organized by feature (co-located) or by layer (scattered)? Flag mixed approaches within the same project.
Output: Findings table with severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), file path, and recommendation. Include an architecture health score (1-10) with brief justification.
Do NOT modify code; only report findings.
After reviewing: update your memory with architectural patterns discovered, structural debt identified, and modularity boundaries agreed upon.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 38 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A aeaf6c6be750
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository faizkhairi/claude-code-blueprint (70 stars, last pushed 29d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 623 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
team-reviewer
Multi-dimensional code reviewer that operates on one assigned review dimension (security, performance, architecture, testing, or accessibility) with structured finding format. Use when performing parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions.
code-documentation-code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
comprehensive-review-architect-review
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.
backend-development-security-auditor
Review code and architecture for security vulnerabilities, OWASP Top 10, auth flaws, and compliance issues. Use for security review during feature development.
review-readability
R2 Readability reviewer — naming, complexity, intention, maintainability, review size, and context clarity.
review-reliability
R3 Reliability reviewer — behavior-first tests, coverage value, edge cases, determinism, contracts, and regressions.