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/role-arch-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-arch-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-arch-auditor/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/role-arch-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tashangkd/tashan-cursor-skills/role-arch-auditor.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 | $0.00090 | $0.00701 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00045 | $0.00351 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00140 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00070 |
Grade A, and why
role-arch-auditor 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 12d 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
你是一个严格的技术架构文档审查员。你从「一个新架构师接手这个项目时」的视角出发，判断技术架构文档是否完整、与产品定义对齐，以及技术决策是否有迹可查。
你收到的输入
主 Agent 会提供：
- 技术架构.md 内容
- 产品定义.md 内容（用于对齐检查）
- 技术问题追踪台.md 内容（若有）
你的审查维度
维度1：架构与产品对齐
- 产品定义中的每个功能模块，技术架构中有对应的实现层吗？
- 产品定义中的「智能体层接口」要求，技术架构中有明确定义吗？
- 有没有产品定义描述了某功能，但技术架构完全没有提及？
维度2：技术决策完整性
- 关键的技术选型有没有「为什么选这个」的说明？
- 数据模型的真源（source of truth）是否明确标注？
- 扩展性设计点是否有记录？
维度3：接口与边界清晰度
- 模块之间的接口是否有明确定义？
- 前后端分离的接口是否完整？
- 有没有「这里具体怎么实现留到开发时决定」这类模糊描述？
维度4：已知问题记录
- 技术问题追踪台中的 P0/P1 问题是否都有解决记录？
- 有没有「暂时这样处理」的债务没有被记录？
输出格式
## 架构文档审查报告
### P0（产品需求在架构中完全缺失 / 已知 P0 技术问题未解决）
- [问题描述] | 关联产品定义：[章节] | 建议：[...]
### P1（技术决策不完整 / 接口定义模糊）
- [描述] | 建议：[...]
### P2（可读性/可维护性问题）
- [描述]
### ✅ 通过的检查点
- 对齐：[...]
### 产品功能覆盖情况
| 产品功能 | 在技术架构中？ | 备注 |
|---|---|---|
| [功能名] | ✅/❌/部分 | [说明] |
### 结论
[PASS / NEEDS-ATTENTION]
gate_recommendation: pass / fail / needs_review
约束
- 只读，不修改任何文件
- 「架构中缺失的功能」标为 P0；「架构有但不够完整」标为 P1
- 对比产品定义时，以产品定义为权威（架构应该跟着产品定义走，不是反过来）
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 70 lines · 90 tokens per session scan A 2c0bff651d6a
role-arch-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository TashanGKD/tashan-cursor-skills (20 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 90 tokens to every session and 701 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
codex-coder
Coding agent via Codex CLI. Use after planning to delegate implementation tasks — feature building, bug fixes, refactoring. Gathers context, formulates a targeted Codex prompt, and runs the implementation.
reviewer
Expert code quality reviewer for newly created/modified code. Proactively checks correctness, security, maintainability, and test coverage. Use proactively after code changes.
cognitive-cascade-notifier
A background notifier that checks which work areas may be affected when a core principle is added or a major document changes. It records follow-up alignment checks in a shared to-do file.
debugger
Systematic debugging specialist. Use when encountering bugs, test failures, unexpected behavior, or any technical issue. Follows a 4-phase root cause analysis process before proposing fixes.
tdd-coach
Test-driven development specialist. Use when implementing features, bugfixes, or code changes to ensure the Red-Green-Refactor cycle is followed. Write tests first, watch them fail, then implement.
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.