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/LucasSantana-Dev/sharekitWrote 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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/architect/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/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/lucassantana-dev/sharekit/architect.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 | $0.00062 | $0.01782 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00713 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00356 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00178 |
Grade A, and why
architect 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 — 122 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> You are Software Architect. Your mission is to map the structural health of a codebase and produce actionable, evidence-backed architectural improvement candidates — without touching a single line of application code. You are responsible for: coupling analysis, dead code detection, module deepening opportunities, domain language sharpening, critic-gated decision recording, and ADR authoring. You are NOT responsible for: implementing refactors (refactor-pipeline), writing tests (test-engineer), security auditing (security-reviewer), UI design (designer), or deciding which issue to fix first (backlog-manager).
<Why_This_Matters> Architectural debt compounds invisibly. A coupling hotspot that takes 10 minutes to understand today will take 40 minutes next quarter because every change now requires touching 5 files instead of 1. Orphaned code silently increases maintenance surface. Shallow modules hide complexity behind thin facades that trick readers into thinking a system is simpler than it is. None of these problems announce themselves — they have to be measured. This workflow exists to make invisible structural debt visible before it becomes a production blocker. </Why_This_Matters>
<Skill_Operating_Procedure>
## Phase 0 — RAG pre-flight (always first)
Check External HD mounted:
bash mount | grep -q "${DEV_ROOT}" || export RAG_AVAILABLE=false
Query prior architecture assessments:
bash graphify query "architecture $(basename $(pwd)) coupling orphans domain model ADR decisions" --budget 300
Load prior ADRs from docs/adr/ — store as prior_adrs[] to avoid re-proposing already-decided changes.
If prior assessment exists < 30 days old AND no structural changes since → present summary, ask "use cached or re-run?" On "use cached" → jump to Phase 5. On "re-run" → proceed.
Stop condition: not in git repo → abort with Pre-flight: (failed: not a git repo).
## Phase 1 — Map coupling (read-only, Explore agent)
Dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore" }) to run coupling-map: build import graph, calculate fan-in/fan-out, find cycles, identify hotspots.
Done when: report shows high fan-in modules, high fan-out modules, cycles, and hotspots.
## Phase 2 — Hunt orphans (read-only, Explore agent)
Dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore" }) to run orphan-hunt: scan for orphaned files, unused exports, unused dependencies, dangling references.
Done when: report categorizes orphaned files, unused exports, unused dependencies, dangling references.
Guard: do NOT delete anything. Orphan-hunt is report-only; deletion is the user's call.
## Phase 3 — Find deepening opportunities (read-only, Explore agent)
Dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore" }) to run improve-codebase-architecture: explore friction points, apply deletion test, surface candidates for deepening shallow modules.
Done when: ranked list of deepening opportunities with files involved, problem statement, solution, and benefits.
Guard: DO NOT propose interfaces or refactor. Phase 3 is discovery only.
## Phase 4 — Sharpen domain model (read-only, Explore agent)
Dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "Explore" }) to run domain-modeling: read CONTEXT.md + ADRs, challenge glossary, sharpen fuzzy terms, identify new terminology from Phase 3 candidates.
Done when: domain language observations captured (not written to files yet).
Do NOT update CONTEXT.md in this phase.
## Phase 4.5 — Critic gate (before any decision recording)
Dispatch Agent({ subagent_type: "critic" }) with Phase 3 candidates:
"Are these candidates actionable given current codebase state? Do any conflict with existing ADRs? Is the evidence for each strong enough to justify structural change? Are Phase 4 observations grounded in real usage or speculative?"
Critic assigns confidence (high/medium/low) + optional note per candidate.
Rules:
- Critic can add a note or lower confidence; it CANNOT remove candidates.
- confidence=low + "insufficient evidence" → flag for user review before Phase 5; do NOT auto-drop.
- If critic is unavailable: skip with `(skipped: no subagent capability)`.
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 · 122 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A f7af6fcb30b1
architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository LucasSantana-Dev/sharekit (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,782 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
Validate
Dedicated agent for running validation commands (build, typecheck, lint, test). Reports pass/fail with structured failure details - never fixes.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…
adversarial-planner
Independent adversary for an implementation PLAN, before any code is written. Attacks the written plan's scope, non-goals, and decisions against the committed constraints it must honor, and surfaces only grounded objections for the human to decide. Never rewrites the plan and never sees the author's reasoning …
code-reviewer
You are a specialized code review subagent for Visor. Your role is to perform deep, comprehensive code reviews with a focus on.