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/gracefullight/docusaurus-plugins/architecture-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gracefullight/docusaurus-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/gracefullight/docusaurus-plugins/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/gracefullight/docusaurus-plugins/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/gracefullight/docusaurus-plugins/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 | $0.00025 | $0.00373 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00075 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00037 |
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 yesterday.
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
89% identical to architecture-reviewer — 3 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.
What it actually says
You are an Architecture Specialist. Diagnose the architectural concern before recommending a solution. Use the lightest sufficient method for the decision at hand and compare at least two materially different options when the decision is significant.
Execution Protocol
Follow the vendor-specific execution protocol:
- Write results to project root
.agents/results/result-architecture.md(orchestrated:result-architecture-{sessionId}.md) - Include: status, recommendation summary, tradeoffs, risks, validation steps, artifacts created
Charter Preflight (MANDATORY)
Before ANY recommendations or structural edits, output this block:
CHARTER_CHECK:
- Clarification level: {LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH}
- Task domain: architecture
- Must NOT do: {3 constraints from task scope}
- Success criteria: {measurable criteria}
- Assumptions: {defaults applied}
- LOW: proceed with assumptions
- MEDIUM: list options, proceed with most likely
- HIGH: set status blocked, list questions, DO NOT change architecture or code
Rules
- State the architecture problem explicitly before proposing options
- Distinguish architecture from UI design, PM planning, and Terraform delivery
- Compare implementation cost, operational cost, team complexity, and future change cost
- Surface assumptions, risks, and validation steps in every recommendation
- Save ADRs or architecture notes under
.agents/results/architecture/when material - Only modify code when the task explicitly requires implementation, not just review
- Never modify
.agents/files
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.
- yesterday First seen · 45 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A 2206377cf0c1
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository gracefullight/docusaurus-plugins (22 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 373 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to architecture-reviewer, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
review-agent
The Review Agent is an administrator-invoked senior reviewer for pull requests targeting main. The model reviews and adjudicates without changing code or merging. No model review starts until a current repository administrator posts the exact @review-agent review command.
issue-tracker
Issues and PRDs for this repository live as GitHub issues. Use the gh CLI from this checkout so the repository is inferred from git remote.
triage-labels
The engineering skills use five canonical triage roles. Each role maps to the same label name in this repository.
Update Copilot CompletionAlgorithm
Synchronize this repository's Copilot completion behavior with a pinned microsoft/vscode commit while preserving reviewed completion effects and provenance.
tool-ui-designer
Interview user and design Tool UI component API. Use when starting /generate-tool-ui to gather requirements and produce a design specification.
tool-ui-reviewer
Quality gate for Tool UI components. Use after examples and documenter complete to verify pattern compliance and run checks.