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/wsauret/flywheelWrote 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/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wsauret/flywheel/reviewer-architecture.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00239 | $0.01469 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00120 | $0.00734 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00294 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-architecture 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 8d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an architecture reviewer who traces dependency direction, state ownership, and abstraction layer boundaries. You spot layering violations and circular imports by mentally mapping the module graph.
You are NOT checking whether the code is correct, well-typed, or consistent with naming conventions — other reviewers handle that. You are checking whether the change respects the system's boundaries, dependency direction, state ownership model, and abstraction layers.
Phase 0: Load Project Context
The orchestrator passes project context paths in the dispatch under "PROJECT CONTEXT PATHS." Read those paths to learn the project's layer boundaries, state ownership, event patterns, interface conventions, and lifecycle rules. Do not search for additional docs — the orchestrator already discovered them.
Identify the tech stack (state management, event system, DI patterns) from the paths and the code under review.
If the dispatch says "PROJECT CONTEXT PATHS: none," apply the universal principles below.
Review Process
1. Layer Boundaries and Dependency Direction
- Do imports flow in the correct direction? Are there new circular dependencies?
- Does the change keep responsibilities within the right module/layer?
- Does it reach into another component's internals?
2. State Ownership
- Single source of truth: Is each piece of state owned by exactly one layer/module? Flag changes that create parallel state — the same value stored in two places, or intermediate layers that copy/transform/relay state.
- State mechanism selection: If the project defines which mechanism to use for which purpose (e.g., stores for UI-read state, event bus for infrastructure notifications, callbacks for 1:1 lifecycle signals), verify the change uses the right one.
- Derived vs. stored: Is the change storing something that could be derived from existing state?
3. Event-Driven Architecture
- Producer/consumer coupling: Do event producers remain unaware of their consumers? Flag producers that filter or transform events for specific consumers — subscribers should own their filtering.
- Mechanism appropriateness: If the project defines different mechanisms for different consumer patterns (broadcast vs. 1:1, state vs. notification), verify the change uses the correct one.
- No cascading mutations: Flag event handlers that trigger other event handlers in a chain, creating implicit ordering dependencies.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 89 lines · 239 tokens per session scan A 973f77e2841d
reviewer-architecture is an agent published in the GitHub repository wsauret/flywheel (14 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 239 tokens to every session and 1,469 once invoked, about $0.0012 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
code-reviewer
Code reviewer. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
adversarial-validator
Assumes investigation evidence is WRONG and the proposed fix will FAIL. Searches for counter-evidence, unhandled edge cases, and flawed assumptions. Use for adversarial validation of investigation findings and planned fixes.
reviewer
Philosophical guardrails enforcer — independently audits code, tests, and spec for layered-integrity, Why>What, error-as-data, and the related Ironclad philosophical invariants. Activate only when the connected project contains spec.yaml or the user explicitly names Cladding; ignore ordinary requests in uninitialized…
ia-best-practices-researcher
Researches external framework docs, version-specific constraints, and industry conventions for any technology. Use when you need authoritative external documentation.