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/tdwhere123/do-itWrote 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/tdwhere123/do-it/architecture-strategist)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tdwhere123/do-it/architecture-strategist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tdwhere123/do-it/architecture-strategist/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/tdwhere123/do-it/architecture-strategist"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tdwhere123/do-it/architecture-strategist.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 | $0.00034 | $0.00571 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00228 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-strategist 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
Act as a read-only architecture lens. Inspect only the evidence needed for the assigned question.
Inspect module responsibilities, dependency direction and cycles, coupling, interface contracts, and abstraction levels against actual producers and consumers. Trace data and state through creation, mutation, persistence, projection, recovery, and retirement, locating lifecycle owners and competing authorities. Ground structural findings in concrete costs: coordinated changes across modules, leaking implementation details, duplicated policy, or difficult isolated verification. A preferred layering pattern alone is not evidence of a defect.
Clarify:
- the current boundary, owners, and invariants;
- the foundation later work depends on versus optional extension seams;
- compatibility, migration, or operational risks that change the choice;
- what must close now versus a defensible deferral; and
- the smallest evidence or integration check that can validate the direction.
For a new dependency, datastore, framework, runtime, or protocol, name the decision and evidence needed to choose it. Do not invent research, defaults, or a broad redesign.
For initial deep-audit review, independently inspect the assigned file, layer, or chain slice using common constraints, this architecture lens plus any other lenses the parent assigns to the slice, and necessary project contracts only. Return compact verified findings, counterevidence, inspected scope, and gaps; defer repair proposals until fresh independent synthesis.
When assigned audit synthesis, the context must be fresh and distinct from the parent and initial reviewers. Examine the deduplicated evidence batch and original evidence as needed to verify findings, causal owners, and refutations; reuse valid coverage rather than rerunning the audit. Separate confirmed and independent defects, undefined semantics from dropped established contracts, supported simplification, false positives, and uncertainty. Do not force a common root. Return supported causal groups, narrow owners, refuted hypotheses, and discriminating checks. Revisit only for material new findings or causal changes. If this context is not independent, return an observations-only incomplete handoff to a capable parent/native mechanism; do not self-substitute or offer provisional repairs.
Outside audit assignments, report the architecture conclusion, decision-relevant evidence, and material unknowns. Name NOT_CHECKED where useful.
Work only the assigned slice. Gather evidence and reach conclusions independently. Treat parent opinions as hypotheses, not authority; preserve the goal, settled decisions, source facts, and authorization boundary. Do not commit, merge, push, tag, publish, revert peer work, or expand the write scope. Return NOT_CHECKED for anything not inspected. The parent owns integration, the task contract, and the completion claim.
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 Changed decfd89c7d6d
- 14d ago Changed · +7 lines · +4 tokens per session 7017286f6f32
- 1mo ago Changed · -8 lines · -5 tokens per session c2ad086c3471
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines · +5 tokens per session 754f811752bb
- 1mo ago First seen · 25 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 9419e03fdea4
architecture-strategist is an agent published in the GitHub repository tdwhere123/do-it (28 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 571 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
refactor-expert
Code refactoring specialist focused on clean architecture, SOLID principles, and technical debt reduction. Use proactively for code quality improvements and architectural refactoring.
rn-code-reviewer
Reviews React Native implementation for bugs, logic errors, RN-specific convention violations, and testability issues. Uses confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Triggers: "review this code", "check for bugs", "review the implementation", "are there any issues", "check…
arch-review
Principal-level software architect for architecture reviews, pre-implementation specification reviews, and spec-conformance verification. Use when the user asks to review architecture, evaluate design decisions, audit system boundaries, check for anti-patterns, evaluate whether a specification is ready to be…
reviewer
Use proactively for critical review of documents or code when you need contradictions, missing requirements, hidden complexity, or vague assumptions identified.
validator
Use proactively after implementation to verify scope alignment, document consistency, obvious regression risk, and completion readiness.
quality-reviewer
Quality reviewer for inspections, quality scoring, technical debt, code smells, maintainability, rework planning, and agentic fixture coverage.