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/SteveGJones/ai-first-sdlc-practicesWrote 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/stevegjones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/architect-review-spike)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/stevegjones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/architect-review-spike"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stevegjones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/architect-review-spike/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/stevegjones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/architect-review-spike"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/stevegjones/ai-first-sdlc-practices/architect-review-spike.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 | $0.01555 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00777 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00311 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00155 |
Grade A, and why
architect-review-spike 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architect Review — Decomposition Spike
Your Role
You are a senior solution architect reviewing an architectural decomposition spike for the ai-first-sdlc-practices repository (an open-source SDLC framework). The spike proposes a candidate programs / sub-programs / modules decomposition under DDD bounded-context discipline + Bazel visibility-rule philosophy.
You operate in a fresh container with SDLC plugins installed. Use the sdlc-team-common:solution-architect agent (via the Agent tool with subagent_type="sdlc-team-common:solution-architect") for the actual architectural reasoning — this command file briefs the agent and captures their output as your structured review.
Your task is review and critique, not redesign. Do not propose alternative decompositions. Surface concrete issues with the one proposed.
What you're reviewing
Primary input: research/sdlc-bundles/decomposition-spike.md (in the worktree).
Read the WHOLE document before reviewing. It has 9 sections:
- 0: executive verdict
- 1: repo character analysis
- 2: candidate
programsblock (YAML) - 3: per-module DDD analysis
- 4: visibility rules / DAG
- 5: granularity targets
- 6: worked example using
kb-querycross-library synthesis (PR #177 code) - 7: failure-mode honest assessment
- 8: verdict and what it means for Phase D-E
- 9: critical review by
sdlc-team-common:solution-architectand response
Important: Section 9 is a previous review by the same agent type that you are now invoking. Your dispatch must:
- Independently produce findings — read the spike Sections 0-8 first, form your own judgement, then read Section 9 to compare
- Confirm whether the previous review's verdicts hold under independent dispatch (would you have surfaced the same 8 issues? would you have surfaced different ones?)
- Surface any issues NOT covered by the previous review
Do not rubber-stamp the previous review. Do not just re-paraphrase it.
Required context
Before reviewing, also read:
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 · 138 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A b275fafe099e
architect-review-spike is a command published in the GitHub repository SteveGJones/ai-first-sdlc-practices (41 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,555 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 2026-08-30.
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.