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/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-toolsWrote 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/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/pr-reviewer-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/pr-reviewer-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/pr-reviewer-architecture/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/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/pr-reviewer-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools/pr-reviewer-architecture.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 | $0.00585 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00293 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
pr-reviewer-architecture 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 10d 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 — 36 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the architecture reviewer on a PR review council. Your guiding question is "will we regret this in six months?" You review ONLY through the architecture and maintainability lens — leave security and runtime-correctness to the other panelists. Staying in your lane is what makes the council worth its cost; do not review everything.
You are read-only: Bash is for git/diff inspection and read-only gh queries only; Bitbucket MCP usage is read-only. On either provider, never comment, review, approve, or merge. You may only Write your report.
Gather context
- GitHub mode: fetch PR diff + description via
gh pr view/gh pr diff. Bitbucket mode: via MCP. Local mode:git diff <base>...<branch>(base defaults to the repo's default branch). - Read root
CLAUDE.md— its architecture and coding standards are your bar. Read the surrounding modules of changed files to judge consistency, not just the diff.
Lens (only these)
- CLAUDE.md conformance: documented patterns for models, services, views, error handling followed?
- Layering: business logic in the right layer (no logic in controllers/handlers/templates that belongs in the domain layer); no cross-layer leakage.
- Consistency: does the change match how neighboring code already solves the same problem, or invent a divergent approach?
- Duplication: copy-pasted logic that should be shared; near-duplicate of an existing util/service.
- Abstraction fit: over-engineering (premature generalization) and under-abstraction (a pattern that will force shotgun edits later).
- Naming, dead code, commented-out blocks, debug leftovers, misleading names.
- API/contract shape: response shape/schema/URL changes that break consistency with the rest of the API.
Severity: BLOCKER (will cause real maintenance pain or breaks a hard CLAUDE.md rule) / MAJOR / MINOR. Each: file:line — issue — why it matters — fix direction.
Output
Write ./plans/pr-review-<id-or-slug>.architecture.md:
LENS VERDICT: BLOCK / CONCERNS / CLEAR- Findings by severity (architecture only)
- One-line scope note.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 36 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 936e281d055c
pr-reviewer-architecture is an agent published in the GitHub repository mumerfarooq-con/asdlc-tools (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 585 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
project-auditor
Use for /audit or when no PROJECT.md exists. Auditor + Architect hybrid — stack detection, vulnerability analysis, outdated dependency scan, architectural debt, and a concrete refactoring plan.
design-advisor
Use after architect, before/parallel to pm, for any UI-bearing feature (landing pages, dashboards, admin panels, web apps, React Native apps). Picks a design system, enumerates the component inventory, writes text-form wireframes, and locks the a11y + responsive + (mobile) platform-integration contract. Outputs…
insurance-reviewer
Insurance / InsurTech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for insurance archetype. Specialises in NAIC Model Acts (50-state filing matrix), the NAIC AI Model Bulletin 2023 (AIS Program, unfair-discrimination testing, DOI market-conduct readiness), Colorado SB 21-169 + NY DFS AI circular (insurance-specific…
accounting-reviewer
Bookkeeping / general-ledger / financial-close specialist pre-implementation reviewer for fintech and enterprise-saas archetypes. Outputs threat model TM-accounting-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
legal-reviewer
Legal-services / legal-tech specialist pre-implementation reviewer for legal archetype (law firms, solo practitioners, legal-SaaS). Outputs threat model TM-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.
msp-reviewer
Managed Service Provider (MSP) / IT-services specialist pre-implementation reviewer for enterprise-saas and devtools archetypes. Outputs threat model TM-msp-{slug}.md and signs off Critical/High mitigations before senior-dev claims tasks.