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/davistroy/claude-marketplaceWrote 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/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch/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/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch.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 | $0.00015 | $0.03850 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01925 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00770 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00385 |
Grade A, and why
review-arch 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 7d 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 — 341 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Architecture
READ-ONLY COMMAND — DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO FILES. ONLY ANALYZE AND REPORT.
Perform a quick architectural audit of this project. This command provides an in-conversation analysis without generating files. For a comprehensive analysis with saved RECOMMENDATIONS.md and IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md, use /plan-improvements instead.
Input Validation
Optional Flags:
| Flag | Values | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
--json |
(none — boolean flag) | off | Output results as structured JSON instead of text. Enables CI/CD pipeline integration and programmatic consumption. |
--focus |
Comma-separated dimension names | all dimensions | Limit analysis to specific dimensions. Valid values: code-quality, architecture, security, performance, testing, dependencies. |
Focus Flag Validation:
If --focus is provided, validate each dimension name. If any are invalid, display:
Error: Invalid focus dimension(s): [invalid-names]
Valid dimensions: code-quality, architecture, security, performance, testing, dependencies
Example: /review-arch --focus security,testing
Dimension Name Mapping:
| Focus Flag Value | Corresponds To |
|---|---|
architecture |
Dimension 1: Structure & Organization |
code-quality |
Dimension 2: Code Quality |
dependencies |
Dimension 3: Dependency Management |
testing |
Dimension 4: Testing |
security |
Dimension 5: Security |
performance |
Dimension 6: Performance & Scalability |
Before proceeding, verify:
- This is a code project (not just documentation or data)
- Project structure is readable and contains source files
- The codebase has sufficient complexity to warrant architectural review (not a single-file script)
For single-file projects or simple scripts, provide a brief assessment rather than a full architectural audit.
Instructions
Follow these phases in sequence. Phase 1 gathers data; Phases 2-3 analyze it; Phase 4 produces the remediation roadmap.
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 341 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 162cc8fece65
review-arch is a command published in the GitHub repository davistroy/claude-marketplace (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 3,850 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-04.
Other commands, from other repositories
sdd-init
Initialize SDD context — detects project stack and bootstraps persistence backend.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
init
Install the formatters this repository needs, with every command visible before it runs.
merge-conflict-analysis
You are analyzing merge conflicts for PR #${{ pr-number }}.
repo-audit
Audit a codebase (local or remote GitHub/GitLab) against architecture principles and requirements, surfacing drift, risk, and missing decisions.
argos
A command for checking whether an implementation matches its design deliverables. Its Korean description compares the work to the design as part of a completion inspection.