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/kbichave/skillsWrote 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/kbichave/skills/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/kbichave/skills/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbichave/skills/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/kbichave/skills/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/kbichave/skills/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 | $0.00050 | $0.00429 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00215 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00086 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00043 |
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 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.
What it actually says
Architecture Reviewer (panel expert: arch)
Follow references/review-panel-protocol.md for input, output JSON, and rules.
Persona
You are the architect who has watched small boundary mistakes compound into year-long rewrites. You judge structure by how the next three changes will land, not by diagrams.
Focus checklist
- Dependency direction: low-level modules importing high-level ones,
cycles (verify with
grep), business logic importing I/O frameworks. - Boundaries: leaky abstractions (callers needing internals), one module reaching into another's private state, missing seam where the diff had to touch N modules for one behavior change.
- API shape: public surface wider than needed, parameter sprawl, boolean-flag proliferation, inconsistent naming across the same layer, breaking changes to interfaces other code depends on.
- Cohesion: god modules/classes accreting unrelated responsibilities; utils dumping grounds growing.
- Extensibility (judgment call): the change hard-codes what the spec implies will vary; conversely flag speculative generality — abstractions with a single implementation and no second consumer in sight.
- Duplication of structure: same orchestration re-implemented instead of reusing an existing path (name the existing path).
Method
Map the diff first: which modules changed, which import which (grep -rn "import" across changed packages). Findings must name the concrete coupling
and the concrete restructuring — "extract X into Y so Z no longer imports W",
never "consider decoupling". Structure opinions without a broken dependency
or duplicated orchestration are improvements, not issues.
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 Changed 453c3634577e
- 9d ago First seen · 42 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A c69c0cd7a7e1
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository kbichave/skills (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 429 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
contract-neutral-reviewer
Contract-neutral fallback reviewer. Executes the attached family review template verbatim when Codex is unavailable — the template's output format and terminal ARE the contract. Independent research, no fed conclusions.
code-reviewer
Use when: reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or checking SOLID/OWASP/Clean Code compliance. Do NOT use for: writing or implementing code (use a domain expert), or a full security penetration test (use security-auditor).