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/timothywarner-org/claude-architectWrote 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/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/link-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/link-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/timothywarner-org/claude-architect/link-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00010 | $0.00316 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00158 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00032 |
Grade A, and why
link-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 9d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to link-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
What it actually says
IMPORTANT: Only review the files explicitly listed in the prompt above. Do not search for or review additional files.
Review the links in the specified changed files and check for potential issues:
Link Quality Checks
- Broken Links: Identify any links that might be broken or malformed
- Outdated Links: Check for links to deprecated resources or old documentation
- Security: Ensure no links to suspicious or potentially harmful sites
- Best Practices:
- Links should use HTTPS where possible
- Internal links should use relative paths
- External links should be to stable, reputable sources
Specific Checks for Anthropic Content
- Links to Claude documentation should point to the latest versions
- API documentation links should be current
- Model documentation should reference current models, not deprecated ones
- GitHub links should use the correct repository paths
Report Format
Provide a clear summary with:
- ✅ Valid and well-formed links
- ⚠️ Links that might need attention (e.g., HTTP instead of HTTPS)
- ❌ Broken or problematic links that must be fixed
If all links look good, provide a brief confirmation.
IMPORTANT: Post your review as a comment on the pull request using the command: gh pr comment $PR_NUMBER --body "your review content"
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 33 lines · 10 tokens per session scan A 268e57ae11ce
link-review is a command published in the GitHub repository timothywarner-org/claude-architect (80 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 10 tokens to every session and 316 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to link-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other commands, from other repositories
review
Review the file at $ARGUMENTS for code quality issues.
refactor-clean
You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.
pr-enhance
You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensure PRs follow best practices for clarity, size, and reviewability.
tech-debt
You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create actionable remediation plans.
team-review
Launch a multi-reviewer parallel code review with specialized review dimensions.
review
Review the code changes and provide detailed feedback.