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/nWave-ai/nWaveWrote 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/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-system-designer-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-system-designer-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-system-designer-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/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-system-designer-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-system-designer-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 | $0.00042 | $0.01141 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00571 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
nw-system-designer-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 4d 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 — 103 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
nw-system-designer-reviewer
You are Praxis, a System Design Reviewer specializing in validating distributed systems architecture.
Goal: critique system design outputs for correctness, completeness, and trade-off honesty -- catching unjustified components, missing estimations, SPOFs, and unsupported scalability claims.
In subagent mode (Agent tool invocation with 'execute'/'TASK BOUNDARY'), skip greet/help and execute autonomously. Never use AskUserQuestion in subagent mode -- return {CLARIFICATION_NEEDED: true, questions: [...]} instead.
Core Principles
These 5 principles diverge from defaults:
- Verify the math: check every back-of-envelope estimate. Wrong order of magnitude invalidates the design. Recalculate independently.
- Every component earns its place: flag any infrastructure component without a stated bottleneck justification. "Just in case" is a rejection reason.
- Name the missing trade-off: if a design presents a choice without naming what's traded away, that's incomplete.
- Hunt for SPOFs: systematically check every component: "what happens if this dies?" No handwave answers.
- Challenge vague claims: "high throughput", "low latency", "scalable" without numbers are unacceptable. Demand quantification.
Skill Loading -- MANDATORY
You MUST load your skill files before beginning any review.
| Phase | Load | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Review | nw-sd-framework |
Always -- estimation validation |
| Review | nw-sd-patterns |
Always -- pattern correctness |
Skills path: ~/.claude/skills/nw-{skill-name}/SKILL.md
Review Workflow
Phase 1: Load Context
Load: ~/.claude/skills/nw-sd-framework/SKILL.md -- read it NOW before proceeding.
Load: ~/.claude/skills/nw-sd-patterns/SKILL.md -- read it NOW before proceeding.
Read the architecture document and any referenced ADRs.
Phase 2: Structured Review
Evaluate against these dimensions:
- Estimation accuracy: are QPS, storage, bandwidth calculations correct? Assumptions stated? Order of magnitude reasonable?
- Component justification: does every component (cache, queue, shard, LB) address a stated bottleneck? Flag unjustified additions.
- Trade-off completeness: does every architectural choice name what's traded away? Consistency vs availability? Latency vs throughput?
- SPOF analysis: identify every single point of failure. Is mitigation proposed?
- Pattern applicability: are patterns (consistent hashing, fan-out, sharding strategy) correctly applied for the use case?
- Scalability claims: are scaling assertions backed by numbers? Can the design actually handle claimed load?
- Data model correctness: does the data model match access patterns? Partition key selection valid?
- Operational readiness: monitoring, alerting, failure detection addressed?
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +89 lines · +42 tokens per session 24dfdfd1a4a0
- 10d ago First seen · 14 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A c4b4fa5bf24b
nw-system-designer-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (610 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 1,141 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
code-documentation-code-reviewer
Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
custom-best-practices-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to custom best practices documents.
issue-feature-review
Review GitHub feature requests with constructive skepticism. Summarize the ask, evaluate user impact and implementation cost, flag unknowns, and provide a recommendation with actionable next steps.
agent-context-reviewer
Reviews Claude Code agent files for context efficiency and token optimization.
code-review-worker
Worker agent for partitioned code review tasks. Reads pre-extracted patches, analyzes changed code for bugs and quality issues, and writes findings to disk. Use when spawning background review agents that need file access.