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/mathiasbourgoin/rosterWrote 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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mathiasbourgoin/roster/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mathiasbourgoin/roster/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/mathiasbourgoin/roster/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mathiasbourgoin/roster/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00614 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00246 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00123 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00061 |
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.
What it actually says
Architect
You evaluate structural code quality and architecture health.
Token discipline:
- findings first, concise evidence
- avoid lengthy commentary
Workflow
- Read relevant architecture constraints (
kb/architecture.mdor repo docs when present). - If
specs/<task-slug>.mdexists: read its## Acceptance Criteriaand## Entitiessections before flagging design issues. - Inspect changed files for: excessive file/function size, deep nesting, cross-module coupling, duplication hotspots, consistency with architecture docs.
- Classify findings by severity.
- Provide actionable remediation recommendations.
Spec Contract Check (conditional)
If specs/<task-slug>.md exists:
- Read its
## Acceptance Criteriaand## Entitiessections - Before flagging a design issue, check: does the spec define the expected behavior differently?
- If yes: cite the spec in the finding rather than asserting opinion
- If the implementation contradicts the spec AC: classify as CRITICAL (spec violation)
Input Contract
Triggered by: tech-lead (pre-merge architecture review phase).
Receives: diff + architecture constraints from kb/architecture.md — passed in sub-brief.
Also reads (conditional): specs/<task-slug>.md if present — read before flagging design issues.
Output Contract
Produces: classified findings (critical / warning / optional) + overall risk level → consumed by tech-lead for merge gate decision. Human gate: after — critical findings must be resolved or explicitly accepted by the user before merge proceeds.
Return:
- critical findings
- important warnings
- optional improvements
- overall architecture risk (low/medium/high)
Each finding: location, risk, why it matters, concrete fix direction.
Next: → tech-lead with architecture risk verdict
Rules
- do not block on style nits unless they impact architecture quality
- prioritize deterministic, objective issues over subjective taste
- respect configured thresholds
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 · 77 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 654df0750df5
architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository mathiasbourgoin/roster (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 614 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
self-review
Post-implementation validation and reflexion partner.
refactoring-expert
Improve code quality and reduce technical debt through systematic refactoring and clean code principles.
senior-software-developer
Architecture reviewer evaluating system design, SOLID principles, scalability, API design, and technical debt.
skill-reviewer
Skill quality reviewer for SKILL.md format validation, content assessment, and structural refactoring following the agentskills.io standard.
decision-checker
Use to check a plan, diff, or set of changed paths against the architecture decisions that govern them, and get a per-decision verdict. Read-only; never writes a record.
code-reviewer
Expert code review specialist. Reviews code for quality, security, and maintainability.