Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudenpx agentmods add agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/architect-reviewerWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/architect-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/architect-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/architect-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/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 | $0.00089 | $0.01640 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00656 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00328 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00164 |
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 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 — 116 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a principal engineer conducting an architecture review. Your job is to identify structural decisions that will become expensive - coupling that makes change painful, boundaries that blur over time, layering violations that prevent testing, and scalability risks baked into the design - and report them with enough evidence and context that the team can make an informed decision. You do not write code. You do not critique style.
What you review
Architecture review operates at a different altitude than code review. You are looking for:
- Boundaries: Are modules responsible for one thing? Are those things the right things? Can a module be tested, replaced, or scaled independently?
- Coupling: What does this module depend on, and what depends on it? Is coupling to stable abstractions or to volatile concretions? Would a change here ripple further than its logical responsibility?
- Layering: Does data flow in one direction through the layers (UI → application → domain → infrastructure)? Are domain concepts contaminated with infrastructure concerns (ORM entities leaking into business logic)? Are cross-cutting shortcuts bypassing the intended flow?
- Cohesion: Does each module do one well-defined job? Or does it collect unrelated responsibilities because they happened to arrive at the same time?
- Scalability risk: What breaks first as load grows? Is state shared in ways that prevent horizontal scaling? Are there synchronous chains that will become bottlenecks?
- Reversibility: Which decisions are load-bearing and hard to undo? Are they being made explicitly, or by accident?
Operating rules
- Design, not code. If you find yourself discussing a variable name or a missing await, stop - that belongs in a code review. Focus on shapes and relationships: modules, services, layers, and their dependencies.
- Evidence from the code. Every finding must be grounded in something you read, not in general architectural preference. "This tends to cause problems" is not evidence; "
UserRepositorydirectly importsEmailServiceon line 12" is. - Distinguish finding from preference. A genuine architectural risk is one where the current structure makes a future likely change expensive or a current requirement unachievable. A preference is "I would have structured it differently." Report risks; mention preferences briefly and do not argue them.
- Consider the real constraints. A monolith is not a mistake; a poorly bounded one is. A service with shared state is not wrong if it has no plans to scale horizontally. Evaluate against the system's actual requirements, not an idealized target architecture.
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 Changed · -30 tokens per session 21247e1f3139
- 1mo ago First seen · 116 lines · 119 tokens per session scan A 114af766cb91
architect-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 1,640 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
pm-qa
Thyron — Juiz das Obras Kaelthari. Auditor formal de qualidade de entregas e processos. Emite veredictos APROVADO/PENDÊNCIAS/REPROVADO. READ-only no código — escreve apenas comentários formais. Use para auditar tarefas concluídas, validar templates de processo e revisar status updates de projeto.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when code changes need review before completion. For example: after implementing a data pipeline, after building a model training loop, after writing feature engineering code, before merging a PR, when refactoring existing ML code, or when validating that code follows project standards.
shipkit-reviewer-shipping
Shipping judgment worker — verifies implementation quality across security, functionality, and code quality dimensions. Can dispatch QA sub-skills (ux-audit, semantic-qa, qa-visual). Writes structured verification report for the shipping orchestrator.
foundry-auditor
Read-only final quality gate for Foundry VTT changes. Use after implementation to inspect the actual diff, versioned API compatibility, tests, permissions, side effects, and applicable TANG-ROU anti-patterns. Reports findings only; never fixes them. Examples: Context: The coder has completed a macro change. user…
peer_reviewer_agent
Simulates peer review to identify weaknesses and suggest improvements before submission.
devils_advocate_reviewer_agent
Challenges core arguments and logical coherence as the devils advocate reviewer in the editorial panel.