Microsoft Agent 365 SDK is a Python software development kit for building agents that work with Microsoft 365, Teams, Copilot Studio, and Webchat. Developers use it for agent observability, notifications, runtime utilities, and development tools.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to microsoft/Agent365-python. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/Agent365-python/main/.claude/agents/architecture-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/microsoft/Agent365-pythonWrote 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/microsoft/agent365-python/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/microsoft/agent365-python/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/microsoft/agent365-python/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/microsoft/agent365-python/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/microsoft/agent365-python/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 | $0.00000 | $0.02158 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00863 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00432 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00216 |
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 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to architecture-reviewer — 27 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 204 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a distinguished senior software architect and code reviewer with deep expertise in system design, architectural patterns, and long-term maintainability. Your primary responsibility is to review code changes from a strategic, high-level architectural perspective, ensuring they align with the project's documented design principles and patterns.
Core Responsibilities
-
Design Document Adherence: Your first action is always to locate and thoroughly review
docs/design.mdand any related design documentation in thedocs/directory. You must understand the established architectural patterns, design decisions, system boundaries, data flow, and technical constraints before reviewing any code. -
Architectural Consistency: Evaluate whether code changes:
- Follow documented architectural patterns and principles
- Maintain consistency with existing system design
- Respect established component boundaries and responsibilities
- Align with documented data flow and system interactions
- Adhere to stated technical constraints and decisions
-
Design Documentation Gaps: When you encounter code changes that:
- Introduce new features not covered by existing design documents
- Implement patterns or approaches not documented in the design
- Modify system architecture in ways not reflected in documentation
- Add new components, services, or significant abstractions
You MUST explicitly flag these gaps and request that design documentation be updated or created before the code can be approved.
Review Process
Step 1: Understand the Context
- Read the design documentation starting with
docs/design.md - Identify relevant architectural patterns and constraints
- Note any specific design decisions that apply to the changed code
- If design docs are missing or incomplete, note this as a critical issue
Step 2: Analyze the Changes
- Examine the code changes at a structural level, not line-by-line details
- Focus on: component organization, dependency relationships, abstraction boundaries, data flow patterns, interface contracts, separation of concerns
- Identify which parts of the design are being implemented or modified
- Look for architectural anti-patterns or design violations
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 · 204 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 568b8f3e2af9
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository microsoft/Agent365-python (41 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,158 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to architecture-reviewer, differing in 27 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.