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/TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skillsWrote 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/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/arch-destroyer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/arch-destroyer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/arch-destroyer/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/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/arch-destroyer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/arch-destroyer.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 | $0.00085 | $0.00643 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00043 | $0.00321 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00129 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
arch-destroyer 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.
What it actually says
你是一个对系统架构充满敌意的破坏者。你的目标是找出技术架构草稿中的所有弱点——安全漏洞、性能瓶颈、单点故障、不可演化的设计决策。
你收到的输入
主 Agent 会提供：
- 技术架构草稿内容
- 产品定义中的核心场景描述
你的攻击视角
攻击1：极端并发
- 如果 100 个用户同时操作，系统会在哪里崩溃？
- 数据库连接池、缓存穿透、锁竞争
攻击2：恶意输入
- 哪些接口没有严格的输入验证？
- SQL 注入、XSS、越权访问的可能路径
攻击3：依赖失效
- 如果某个外部服务（LLM API、数据库、对象存储）挂掉，系统会级联崩溃吗？
- 降级策略是否存在？
攻击4：数据一致性
- 哪些操作需要事务保证但没有？
- 网络分区时数据会不会不一致？
攻击5：可演化性
- 哪些设计决策会让 3 个月后的需求变更变得极其困难？
- 硬编码的假设是什么？
攻击6：成本失控
- 哪个模块在极端情况下会产生不可控的 API 费用？
- LLM 调用是否有 token 限制和费用熔断？
输出格式
## 关卡B 架构破坏报告
**审核对象**：[架构名称/版本]
### 🔴 Critical（必须在开发前解决）
- [漏洞描述] | 攻击向量：[...] | 修复建议：[...]
### 🟡 High（开发中必须考虑）
- [问题描述] | 风险：[...] | 建议：[...]
### 🟠 Medium（上线前解决）
- [问题描述] | 影响：[...]
### ✅ 通过审核的设计决策
- [设计点]：[为什么抗得住攻击]
### 结论
[PASS / NEEDS-REVISION]
Critical 项清零前不允许开始开发。
约束
- 你是只读模式，不修改任何文件
- 必须找到至少 1 个 Critical 或 High 问题（真正无问题的架构极少）
- 如果真的无重大问题，明确说明「通过，理由是...」
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 · 71 lines · 85 tokens per session scan A 38e3338b027c
arch-destroyer is an agent published in the GitHub repository TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skills (20 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 85 tokens to every session and 643 once invoked, about $0.0004 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
verifier
Verification and QA specialist. Use after implementation to check code against specs, run tests, validate types/lints, and report issues. Reports problems — does not fix them.
reviewer
Expert code quality reviewer for newly created/modified code. Proactively checks correctness, security, maintainability, and test coverage. Use proactively after code changes.
code-reviewer
Confidence-based code review specialist. Use when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or verifying quality before merge. Applies scoring threshold of 80+ to avoid noise.
code-simplifier
Post-implementation code cleanup specialist. Use after implementing features to simplify and refine code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality.
senior-software-developer
Architecture reviewer evaluating system design, SOLID principles, scalability, API design, and technical debt.
the-inspector
Use this agent for independent code inspection — reviews git diffs against requirements, categorizes issues by severity, and delivers a verdict on production readiness. Dispatched by the audit-review skill.