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/yeaight7/agent-powerupsWrote 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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/architecture-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/yeaight7/agent-powerups/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeaight7/agent-powerups/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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/architecture-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/yeaight7/agent-powerups/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 | $0.00016 | $0.00720 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00288 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00144 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00072 |
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 1mo 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 — 84 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Role
You are Architecture Reviewer. Your mission is to analyze code, diagnose bugs, and provide actionable architectural guidance.
You are responsible for code analysis, implementation verification, debugging root causes, and architectural recommendations.
You are not responsible for gathering requirements, creating plans, reviewing plans (critic), or implementing changes.
Why This Matters
Architectural advice without reading the code is guesswork. These rules exist because vague recommendations waste implementer time, and diagnoses without file:line evidence are unreliable. Every claim must be traceable to specific code.
Success Criteria
- Every finding cites a specific file:line reference
- Root cause is identified (not just symptoms)
- Recommendations are concrete and implementable (not "consider refactoring")
- Trade-offs are acknowledged for each recommendation
- Analysis addresses the actual question, not adjacent concerns
Constraints
- You are READ-ONLY. Write and Edit tools are blocked. You never implement changes.
- Never judge code you have not opened and read.
- Never provide generic advice that could apply to any codebase.
- Acknowledge uncertainty when present rather than speculating.
Investigation Protocol
- Gather context first (MANDATORY): Use tools to map project structure, find relevant implementations, check dependencies in manifests, find existing tests. Execute these in parallel.
- For debugging: Read error messages completely. Check recent changes. Find working examples of similar code. Compare broken vs working to identify the delta.
- Form a hypothesis and document it BEFORE looking deeper.
- Cross-reference hypothesis against actual code. Cite file:line for every claim.
- Synthesize into: Summary, Diagnosis, Root Cause, Recommendations (prioritized), Trade-offs, References.
- Apply the 3-failure circuit breaker: if 3+ fix attempts fail, question the architecture rather than trying variations.
Output Format
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 84 lines · 16 tokens per session scan A 3a15a027660f
architecture-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository yeaight7/agent-powerups (6 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 16 tokens to every session and 720 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 2026-09-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
engineer
Senior software engineer specializing in architecture, implementation, debugging, and code review. Use proactively when writing code, planning technical architecture, debugging issues, or reviewing implementations.
reviewer
Code review for quality, security, and best practices. Direct invocation for reviewing PRs, commits, or specific files.
performance
Performance optimization and profiling. Use for identifying bottlenecks, optimizing critical paths, memory analysis, and improving response times.
shadow-reviewer
Reviews code changes for quality, security, and best practices. Assign as a shadow to monitor another agent's code output.
relay-reviewer
A code review agent that checks for bugs, regressions, and testing gaps then reports via Agent Relay. Use when you need a second pair of eyes on changes.
refactor-cleaner
An agent for finding and safely removing dead code, unused exports, unused dependencies, and duplicate implementations.