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.
npx skills add alexei-led/architect --skill architecture-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alexei-led/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/skills/alexei-led/architect/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/alexei-led/architect/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexei-led/architect/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/skills/alexei-led/architect/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/alexei-led/architect/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 | $0.00147 | $0.03426 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.01713 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00685 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00343 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 284 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture review
The review loop, in order. Do not skip ahead — each step gates the next.
When to use
Use when a user wants their architecture reviewed, audited, or scored; wants to
understand where modularity, coupling, dependency, blast-radius, or fragility
risk lives; or wants to compare intended and observed architecture. For comparing
two existing reports use architect-compare-reports. For a combined "review and
refactor" request, finish the read-only review first, then recommend exactly one
primary next skill: architecture-design when remediation needs a target state,
or architecture-plan only when an approved target design already exists. A
mutator or engineer applies changes after approval. For target architecture or
requirements-to-design work without review, use architecture-design instead.
Skill navigation
- User asks to define target architecture or work from requirements: use
architecture-designinstead of reviewing implementation quality. - Current skill: use
architecture-reviewto compare intended architecture with observed implementation. Treat design docs as intent only; actual code, runtime config, and tests may have drifted. - Next skill after a report: choose one primary next step:
- stop when the user asked for audit/scoring only;
architecture-designwhen findings need target boundaries, contracts, tests, or fitness checks;architecture-planonly when the target design is already approved and the user asks for implementation sequencing.
- After implementation, run
architecture-reviewagain with comparable scope to check whether the code now matches intent.
Task list discipline
Maintain a visible task list for the review flow. Track at least:
- Context and scope confirmed.
- Working model validated.
- System map built.
- Module volatility/change-rate judgments captured.
- Evidence gathered by dimension.
- Deterministic tool facts calibrated when available.
- Findings triaged.
- Scores assigned.
- Report written and checked.
- Next skill recommendation made.
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 284 lines · 147 tokens per session scan A fbc4ca0cf94f
architecture-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository alexei-led/architect (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 3,426 once invoked, about $0.0007 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
code-review-excellence
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code review.
new-skill
Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes npm run validate and npm run evals on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends…
release
Cut a brooks-lint release: set the version in package.json, propagate it across all four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file (README badges, docs site metadata), write the CHANGELOG entry, validate, then commit, push, tag, and publish the GitHub release. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "release"…
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
software-design-review
Critically review a software design specification and suggest concrete improvements. Use when the user wants to review, critique, audit, evaluate, or strengthen a design spec, technical specification, feature design, architecture proposal, or implementation plan. Focus on clarity, completeness, correctness…