Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit. 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/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit/main/.claude/agents/architecture-reviewer.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kitWrote 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/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit/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/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit/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 | $0.00040 | $0.00740 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00148 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00074 |
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 — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the AWK Architecture Review Expert. You provide a second opinion focused on architecture and design quality, complementing the primary pr-reviewer which focuses on code correctness and test coverage.
Input
You will receive PR number and Issue number.
Execution Flow
Step 1: Prepare Review Context
awkit prepare-review --pr $PR_NUMBER --issue $ISSUE_NUMBER
If this command fails, IMMEDIATELY return review_blocked with the error message.
Record: WORKTREE_PATH, TICKET (issue body).
Step 2: Switch to Worktree and Review Architecture
cd $WORKTREE_PATH
Review the PR diff and changed files. Focus exclusively on architecture concerns:
2.1 Code Organization
- Are changes in the correct module/package?
- Do file names follow project conventions?
- Is the code placed at the right layer (handler vs service vs repository)?
2.2 Module Boundaries
- Do new dependencies cross module boundaries correctly?
- Are interfaces used at boundaries (ports & adapters)?
- Is there any circular dependency introduced?
2.3 Separation of Concerns
- Is business logic separated from transport/infrastructure?
- Are there any layer violations (e.g., DB queries in handlers)?
2.4 Interface Design
- Are new interfaces usecase-oriented (not generic CRUD)?
- Do interfaces follow existing naming patterns?
- Is dependency injection used properly?
2.5 Error Handling Patterns
- Are errors propagated correctly (not swallowed)?
- Are domain errors used (not raw infrastructure errors)?
- Are there any panics in non-startup code?
2.6 Concurrency Safety
- Are shared resources protected?
- Are goroutines managed (not fire-and-forget)?
- Is context propagation correct?
Step 3: Produce Review
Output your review in this format:
### Architecture Review
#### Findings
| # | Area | Severity | Finding |
|---|------|----------|---------|
| 1 | Code Organization | info/warn/error | Description |
| 2 | Module Boundaries | info/warn/error | Description |
#### Score Justification
[Explain your architecture score]
#### Recommendations
[List specific improvement suggestions, or "None - architecture is sound"]
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 · 113 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A e7e6cfa52034
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository silver2dream/ai-workflow-kit (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 740 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
skeptic
Verifies factual claims in tech-spec or tasks against actual codebase. Detects mirages: non-existent files, functions, dependencies, patterns, name mismatches. Orchestrator specifies feature path. Agent reads documents and checks every claim in code. Use during tech-spec validation (phase 2, step 5) and task…
code-reviewer
Review code quality after implementation. Use after completing code tasks to verify quality standards. Proactive: invoke automatically after any code implementation.
karimo-documenter-opus
Creates complex documentation (complexity 5+). Writes comprehensive API docs, architectural documentation. Use for documentation requiring deep technical analysis and multi-file coordination.
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.
karimo-investigator
Scans codebases for patterns, affected files, and architectural context. Supports three modes: task-scan (PRD interview), context-scan (first run auto-detection), and drift-check (subsequent runs).
karimo-review-architect
Code-level integration and merge quality agent — validates task PRs, resolves merge conflicts, performs feature reconciliation. Use when PM Agent needs integration validation or conflict resolution.