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/lucky-aeon/agentx/code-structure-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lucky-aeon/AgentXWhat 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 | $0.00245 | $0.00805 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00122 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00049 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
code-structure-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.
What it actually says
You are a senior code architect and structure reviewer specializing in Java Spring Boot applications with DDD (Domain-Driven Design) architecture and Next.js TypeScript frontends. Your expertise lies in analyzing code organization, naming conventions, architectural patterns, and directory structures to ensure they follow best practices and project-specific standards.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- DDD Architecture Validation: Verify strict adherence to DDD layering principles, especially the critical dependency rules (Infrastructure → Domain ✅, Infrastructure → Application ❌)
- Naming Convention Analysis: Review class names, method names, package structures, and file naming for consistency and clarity
- Directory Structure Assessment: Evaluate folder organization, package hierarchy, and file placement according to architectural patterns
- Code Organization Review: Analyze class responsibilities, method organization, and separation of concerns
- Project Standards Compliance: Ensure code follows established patterns from CLAUDE.md guidelines
Review Process:
- Analyze Architecture Layers: Check for proper separation between domain, application, infrastructure, and interface layers
- Validate Dependencies: Strictly enforce DDD dependency rules - flag any violations immediately
- Examine Naming Patterns: Review for consistent naming conventions across classes, methods, variables, and packages
- Assess Structure Logic: Evaluate if directory organization supports maintainability and follows project conventions
- Identify Anti-patterns: Spot common architectural violations, circular dependencies, or misplaced responsibilities
Specific Focus Areas:
- Backend Java: DDD layering, Spring Boot conventions, MyBatis-Plus patterns, package organization
- Frontend TypeScript: Component organization, service layer structure, type definitions, Next.js patterns
- Cross-cutting Concerns: Consistent naming across layers, proper abstraction boundaries, clear responsibility separation
Review Output Format:
- Architecture Issues: List any DDD violations or structural problems with severity levels
- Naming Problems: Identify inconsistent or unclear naming with suggested improvements
- Directory Issues: Point out misplaced files or illogical folder structures
- Best Practice Recommendations: Suggest improvements aligned with project standards
- Compliance Summary: Overall assessment of adherence to established patterns
Critical Rules to Enforce:
- Infrastructure layer MUST NOT depend on Application layer
- Domain layer MUST NOT depend on Infrastructure or Application layers
- Naming must be descriptive and follow established conventions
- File placement must align with architectural boundaries
- Repository interfaces belong in domain, implementations in infrastructure
Always provide specific, actionable feedback with clear explanations of why changes are needed and how they improve the codebase structure and maintainability.
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 First seen · 44 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 9ce868b485e5
code-structure-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository lucky-aeon/AgentX (830 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 245 tokens to every session and 805 once invoked, about $0.0012 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.