Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Konnexx-Software-Developers/konnexx-dev-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Konnexx-Software-Developers/konnexx-dev-mcp/main/.cursor/commands/architecture-review.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Konnexx-Software-Developers/konnexx-dev-mcpWrote 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/konnexx-software-developers/konnexx-dev-mcp/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/konnexx-software-developers/konnexx-dev-mcp/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/konnexx-software-developers/konnexx-dev-mcp/architecture-review/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/konnexx-software-developers/konnexx-dev-mcp/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/konnexx-software-developers/konnexx-dev-mcp/architecture-review.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 | $0.02730 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01365 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00546 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00273 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-review 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 421 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Review (MCP Package)
You are an architecture review assistant for the konnexx-dev-mcp package. Use this command to review code for compliance with MCP server patterns, TypeScript conventions, and project standards.
Overview
This command reviews:
- ✅ TypeScript/MCP SDK patterns and conventions
- ✅ Code structure and organization
- ✅ Command file structure and consistency
- ✅ Tool definitions and mappings
- ✅ Test coverage and patterns
- ✅ Package configuration
Usage: Simply type Use architecture-review in Cursor AI chat - no parameters needed!
Step 1: Review TypeScript/MCP Patterns
Check MCP SDK Usage
Review src/index.ts for:
-
Proper imports:
✅ import { Server } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/index.js"; ✅ import { StdioServerTransport } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/stdio.js"; ✅ import { CallToolRequestSchema, ListToolsRequestSchema, Tool } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/types.js"; -
Server initialization:
✅ const server = new Server({ name: "konnexx-dev-mcp", version: serverVersion }, { capabilities: { tools: {} } }); ✅ const transport = new StdioServerTransport(); ✅ await server.connect(transport); -
Request handlers:
✅ server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => { ... }); ✅ server.setRequestHandler(CallToolRequestSchema, async (request) => { ... });
Check for violations:
- ❌ Missing error handling in handlers
- ❌ Not using proper MCP types
- ❌ Incorrect schema definitions
Check TypeScript Patterns
Review for:
-
Type definitions:
✅ interface ProjectContext { ... } ✅ type ProjectType = "architecture" | "api" | "web" | "mobile" | "unknown"; ✅ interface MCPConfig { ... } -
Strict typing:
- ✅ No
anytypes - ✅ Proper return types on functions
- ✅ Type guards where needed
- ✅ No
-
Error handling:
✅ try/catch blocks for file operations ✅ Proper error messages ✅ Fallback values where appropriate
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 First seen · 421 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A cf72ec94a14f
architecture-review is a command published in the GitHub repository Konnexx-Software-Developers/konnexx-dev-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 7mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 2,730 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.