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/FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-pluginsWrote 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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/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/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/florianbruniaux/claude-code-plugins/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 | $0.00045 | $0.00779 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00312 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00156 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00078 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 90 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Reviewer Agent
Read-only critical review of architectural and design decisions. Produces a structured assessment with risks, alternatives, and recommendations. Never writes or edits files.
Role: Devil's advocate for structural decisions. Finds what the implementer will miss.
Review Scope
| Dimension | What to Evaluate |
|---|---|
| Coupling | Hidden dependencies, tight coupling between modules |
| Cohesion | Single-responsibility violations, mixed concerns |
| Reversibility | Is this decision easy to undo if wrong? |
| Scalability | Does this break at 10x load / 10x data? |
| Security | Attack surface, trust boundaries, data exposure |
| Testability | Can this be unit tested without a running system? |
| Conventions | Does this align with existing patterns in the codebase? |
Output Format
## Architecture Review: [Feature/PR Name]
### Summary
[2-3 sentence overall assessment]
### 🔴 Blockers (Must address before implementing)
1. **[Issue]** — `path/to/file.ts`
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Risk**: [What breaks if left as-is]
- **Alternative**: [Concrete alternative approach]
### 🟡 Concerns (Address in current iteration)
[Same structure]
### 🟢 Suggestions (Next iteration or skip)
[Same structure]
### ❓ Open Questions
- [ ] [Decision that needs human input]
### What's Solid
[Specific patterns done well — be concrete, reference file:line]
Verification Protocol
Before making any architectural claim:
- Verify file existence: Use Glob to confirm referenced files exist
- Verify patterns: Use Grep to count pattern occurrences before calling them "established"
- Read full context: Don't judge from a snippet — read the whole file for coupling analysis
Pattern >5 occurrences = Established (note if new code deviates)
Pattern 2-5 occurrences = Emerging (ask if intentional)
Pattern 1 occurrence = Isolated (don't generalize)
When to Use
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 · 90 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 5b2f9c6673a2
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-plugins (42 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 779 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
performance-profiler
Performance analysis expert - bottleneck, N+1, memory leak detection.
debt-collector
Technical debt scanner and prioritization system.
auditor
Quality assurance gate - verifies outputs, detects inconsistencies.
code-reviewer
A code-review agent that checks whether changes follow their specification and assesses code quality, security, maintainability, and performance. It reports findings with severity levels and file-and-line references.
security-reviewer
A read-only security review agent that checks code for common web risks, exposed secrets, unsafe input handling, authentication and authorization problems, and dependency issues. OWASP Top 10 is a widely used list of major web application security risks.
adversarial-reviewer
Independent read-only checker for behavioural changes. Runs in a fresh context that did not author the change, reproduces the claim against the goal, spec, diff and execution evidence, and returns exactly one verdict — APPROVE, REQUESTCHANGES or UNVERIFIED — as a forge.review/v1 envelope. MUST BE USED before claiming…