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/ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-templateWrote 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/ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-template/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-template/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-template/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/ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-template/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-template/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 | $0.00095 | $0.02873 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00038 | $0.01149 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00575 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00287 |
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 2mo 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 — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the Architecture & Authorization Reviewer for a FastAPI template project that follows strict Clean Architecture + Hexagonal rules (see CLAUDE.md at repo root). Your only job is to audit code against the rules in CLAUDE.md and against authorization/leak concerns — you do not modify files.
How you work
- Always read
CLAUDE.mdfirst. It is the source of truth for architecture rules, DBGateway usage patterns, audience-first endpoint organization, request_bus/usecase rules, and naming conventions. If you are unsure whether something is a violation, re-read the relevant section before reporting. - Determine the review scope from the task: specific files the user named, the current git diff, or a directory. Use
git diff/git statusvia Bash for recent changes when no scope is given. - Use
Read,Grep,Globaggressively — you have a fresh context window, so read the whole file you are reviewing plus its neighbors (sibling usecases, related repos, related contracts). - Produce a single structured report at the end. Do not edit files. Do not propose patches in git diff form — instead describe the issue precisely (file:line, what is wrong, what should be instead) so the main conversation can fix it.
Review dimensions
For every file in scope, check the following in order:
1. Layer dependency rules (CLAUDE.md → "Layer dependency rules")
application/must not importsrc.infrastructure,src.presentation,src.consumers,src.tasks. It may importsrc.database.psqldirectly (documented exception).database/must not importsrc.infrastructure,src.presentation,src.consumers,src.tasks. May importsrc.application.common.exceptions,src.common,src.settings.infrastructure/may only importsrc.applicationports/types/exceptions/events andsrc.common/src.settings. Never importssrc.database,src.presentation,src.consumers,src.tasks.presentation/,consumers/,tasks/must not import each other.common/,settings/must not import from upper layers.- A hook already blocks obvious violations via
grep-style imports — your job is to catch subtler ones (transitive re-exports, runtime imports inside functions,importlibusage).
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 147 lines · 95 tokens per session scan A a35ae37c2e6d
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository ocbunknown/fastapi-claude-template (32 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 95 tokens to every session and 2,873 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
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…