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/StChiotis/Library-First-EngineeringWrote 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/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-improve-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-improve-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-improve-architecture/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/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-improve-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stchiotis/library-first-engineering/lfe-improve-architecture.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00200 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00080 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00040 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00020 |
Grade A, and why
lfe-improve-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 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- lfe-inspector — 86% identical, 8 lines differ
What it actually says
Generated pointer — not the protocol. This command exists so
/lfe-improve-architecturedispatches natively in Claude Code. The canonical skill lives at.agents/skills/lfe-improve-architecture/SKILL.md(LFE-SOURCE).
Read .agents/skills/lfe-improve-architecture/SKILL.md now and execute its protocol exactly as written — including its position-in-pipeline preconditions and its coordination-file contract. Honor the Skill Invocation Authority rules (LLM_AGENT_GUIDE §8.8): if this skill is agent-dispatched only and was typed out of sequence, refuse and route through the assembly line. Any change to skill behavior belongs in the canonical file, never in this pointer.
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 · 9 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 857232d6132f
lfe-improve-architecture is a command published in the GitHub repository StChiotis/Library-First-Engineering (46 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 200 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
tldr-review
One-line TLDR PR review comments (verdict first, no filler).
review
Review a skill for quality before merge.
review
Review the current diff against project memory.
sonarqube
Analyze SonarCloud quality issues for a specific PR.
feature-pipeline
Run this workflow in order in one conversation, unless the user stops between steps.
code-review
Comprehensive 3-pass code review of uncommitted changes. Covers quality (security, React, Node.js, performance), compliance (CLAUDE.md rules), and contract consistency (cross-repo API types).