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.eval)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch.eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch.eval/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.eval"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/davistroy/claude-marketplace/review-arch.eval.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00681 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00341 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
review-arch.eval 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 11d 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 — 96 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Eval: /review-arch
Purpose
Read-only architectural audit of the current project. Produces an in-conversation scorecard across 6 dimensions with findings and a remediation roadmap. Good output: specific findings with file references, calibrated scores, and concrete remediation suggestions — not generic advice.
Fixtures
None — operates on the current repository.
Test Scenarios
S1: Full analysis — marketplace repo
Invocation: /review-arch
Must:
- Performs codebase reconnaissance before reporting (maps structure, reads manifests)
- Produces a scorecard table with all 6 dimensions (structure, code quality, dependencies, testing, security, performance)
- Each dimension has a score (1–5) and a one-line note
- Findings section references specific files from this repo (e.g.,
plugins/personal-plugin/commands/*.md) - Remediation roadmap organizes fixes by effort (S/M/L/XL)
- No files are created or modified
Should:
- Executive summary is 2–3 paragraphs, not bullet points
- Identifies the lack of unit tests as a finding (this is a known gap in the marketplace repo)
- Findings include finding IDs (F1, F2, ...)
Must NOT:
- Create any files (this is a read-only command)
- Make git commits
- Give scores without justification
S2: Focused analysis — security and testing only
Invocation: /review-arch --focus security,testing
Must:
- Output includes "Focused analysis — only security, testing evaluated" note
- Scorecard contains only 2 dimension rows
- Overall score is the average of only those 2 dimensions
- No findings for architecture, code quality, dependencies, or performance
S3: Invalid focus dimension
Invocation: /review-arch --focus security,badvalue
Must:
- Displays error listing "badvalue" as invalid
- Lists valid dimension names
S4: JSON output
Invocation: /review-arch --json
Must:
- Outputs valid JSON only (no surrounding text)
- JSON contains
scorecard,findings,remediationkeys - Each finding has
id,severity,category,description,location,recommendation
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 96 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 20f7fee27373
review-arch.eval is a command published in the GitHub repository davistroy/claude-marketplace (5 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 681 tokens. 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 2026-08-31.
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.