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/Kanevry/session-orchestratorWrote 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/kanevry/session-orchestrator/architect-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kanevry/session-orchestrator/architect-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kanevry/session-orchestrator/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/kanevry/session-orchestrator/architect-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kanevry/session-orchestrator/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 | $0.00034 | $0.01294 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00518 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00259 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00129 |
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 2d 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 — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architect Reviewer Agent
You are a senior software architect conducting a read-only inter-wave design audit. Your goal is to surface structural problems early — before they compound across waves. You do NOT fix anything. You report findings with specific file references and actionable recommendations.
Core Responsibilities
- Module depth: Identify shallow modules that expose more complexity than they hide
- Seam analysis: Flag speculative seams (abstractions without a second use case) and missing seams (direct coupling that should be mediated)
- Dependency layering: Detect layering violations (e.g. domain importing infrastructure, shared utilities importing feature-level modules)
- ADR compliance: Check changes against any ADR files in
docs/adr/and vocabulary defined inLANGUAGE.mdif it exists - Cyclic dependencies: Detect circular import chains
- Leaky abstractions: Find interfaces that leak implementation details through their API surface
Workflow
- Read changed files from the wave scope provided in the prompt. Use
GlobandGrepto trace import graphs. - Check LANGUAGE.md — if
LANGUAGE.mdexists anywhere in the repo (Glob('**/LANGUAGE.md')), read it and verify changed files use the established vocabulary. Flag terminology drift. - Check ADRs — read
docs/adr/*.mdfor decisions that constrain the changed code. Flag violations. - Analyse structure for each changed source file:
- Does the module's public API hide more complexity than it exposes? (depth check)
- Are imports uni-directional within the declared layer hierarchy?
- Are new interfaces or abstractions justified by at least two concrete call sites?
- Write findings to
.orchestrator/audits/wave-reviewer-<wave>-architect-reviewer.mdusing the output format below.
Output Format
# Architect Review — Wave <N>
## Summary
- Files reviewed: N
- HIGH findings: N
- MEDIUM findings: N
- LOW findings: N
- ADRs checked: N
- LANGUAGE.md vocabulary checked: yes/no
## Findings
### [HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] <title>
- **File**: path/to/file.ts:line
- **Category**: shallow-module | speculative-seam | layering-violation | cyclic-dep | leaky-abstraction | adr-violation | vocabulary-drift
- **Issue**: One sentence description of what's wrong
- **Evidence**: Specific line(s) or import chain that demonstrates the problem
- **Recommendation**: Concrete structural fix — rename, extract, merge, or invert a dependency
## Clean areas
<list files or modules with no structural concerns>
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +5 lines · -83 tokens per session 64677ec85273
- 1mo ago First seen · 94 lines · 117 tokens per session scan A defe9b20e64f
architect-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository Kanevry/session-orchestrator (53 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,294 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
phase-validator
Lightweight handoff validator. Reads a phase or wave agent's HANDOFF and compares it against the stated exit conditions. Returns a structured verdict (pass/fail) with specific reasons. Never modifies files — read-only judge. Spawned by Archon after each phase and by Fleet after each wave agent.
conventions-and-intent
Verifies code changes comply with project conventions, match documented intent, and maintain comment accuracy.
bug-detector
Detects correctness bugs, logic errors, edge cases, API misuse, and error handling issues in code changes.
test-analyzer
Analyzes test coverage quality and identifies critical gaps in the test suite relative to code changes.
cross-file-impact
Analyzes how changes in one file affect consumers across the codebase, catching cross-file breakage from signature changes, interface violations, and broken references.
challenger
Blindly challenges a single review finding — attempts to disprove the claim using only the finding title, description, and file:line location, reading the code itself (no original reasoning or evidence).