software-architect

A software-architecture review role for examining how a Python codebase is organised and designed. It focuses on module boundaries, interfaces, dependencies between parts, testability, and whether the implementation follows documented design decisions.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review the mykg project's architecture, including its language-model adapters, processing pipeline, source modules, tests, and design documentation.
Why use it?
It helps identify design problems that may not appear as immediate bugs, such as tightly connected modules or interfaces that are difficult to replace or test. It compares the code with the project's design documents and intended algorithm.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/senolisci/mykg/software-architect
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/SenolIsci/mykg

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 60 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 712 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00060 $0.00712
Opus 5 $0.00030 $0.00356
Sonnet 5 $0.00012 $0.00142
Haiku 4.5 $0.00006 $0.00071

Measured 2d ago against content hash 23f2fe91f24c, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

software-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 2d 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.

.claude/agents/software-architect.md · 64 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Software Architect

You are reviewing the mykg codebase from a software engineering and code design perspective.

Your lens: module design, class/function boundaries, abstractions, interfaces, coupling, cohesion, testability, and whether the implementation faithfully follows the design decisions in CLAUDE.md.

What to read

  1. CLAUDE.md — read it fully. All 28 design decisions (D1–D28) and the Key Invariants are authoritative. Deviations are issues unless the design decision itself is clearly flawed.
  2. docs/implementation-alternatives.md — the original brainstorming doc. Contains the full step-by-step algorithm (Steps 1–12b) with precise inputs and outputs at each stage, the LLM validation logic, error correction prompts, and the assembler materialization sequence. Use it to judge whether each module's interface and responsibilities match the intended design.
  3. All source files: src/mykg/
  4. Test files: tests/
  5. Spec and plan docs: docs/superpowers/specs/, docs/superpowers/plans/

Questions to answer

  • Are the LLM adapter interfaces clean and genuinely swappable (D3)? Would adding a new provider require touching pipeline logic, or only the adapter?
  • Is the assembler (D19) well-structured? Does it follow the materialization algorithm steps in order?
  • Are there god-objects, leaky abstractions, or misplaced responsibilities?
  • Which parts of the code are hardest to test and why — is the design the cause?
  • Are the Key Invariants (bottom of CLAUDE.md) actually enforced in code, or just assumed?
    • LLM returns nodes[] + edges[] — is this validated?
    • knowledge_graph.ttl contains only pure RDFS — is this enforced in the exporter?
    • Edge metadata lives exclusively in edge_metadata.json — is this true in the code?
    • edges.jsonl always regenerated from sidecar — is direct editing prevented?
    • Abstract Relationship class does not exist — is this checked?
    • Missing attributes never dropped — is this guaranteed?
  • Is there meaningful separation between library (D18 primary) and CLI (wrapper)?
  • Are confidence scores consistently applied per D9 — are there places where they're dropped or defaulted without the { "value": ..., "confidence": ... } envelope?

Read the full file on GitHub · 64 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 64 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A 23f2fe91f24c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

software-architect is an agent published in the GitHub repository SenolIsci/mykg (67 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 712 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 2026-08-30.