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 agentmods add skills/alonf/mcppythondemo/architectural-proposalsnpx skills add alonf/MCPPythonDemo --skill architectural-proposalsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/alonf/MCPPythonDemoWhat 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 | $0.00018 | $0.01436 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00718 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00144 |
Grade A, and why
architectural-proposals 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 2d 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 architectural-proposals — 302 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Context
Proposals create alignment before code is written. Cheaper to change a doc than refactor code. Use this pattern when:
- Architecture shifts invalidate existing assumptions
- Product direction changes require new foundation
- Multiple waves/milestones will be affected by a decision
- External dependencies (Copilot CLI, SDK APIs) change
Patterns
Proposal Structure (docs/proposals/)
Required sections:
- Problem Statement — Why current state is broken (specific, measurable evidence)
- Proposed Architecture — Solution with technical specifics (not hand-waving)
- What Changes — Impact on existing work (waves, milestones, modules)
- What Stays the Same — Preserve existing functionality (no regression)
- Key Decisions Needed — Explicit choices with recommendations
- Risks and Mitigations — Likelihood + impact + mitigation strategy
- Scope — What's in v1, what's deferred (timeline clarity)
Optional sections:
- Implementation Plan (high-level milestones)
- Success Criteria (measurable outcomes)
- Open Questions (unresolved items)
- Appendix (prior art, alternatives considered)
Tone Ceiling Enforcement
Always:
- Cite specific evidence (user reports, performance data, failure modes)
- Justify recommendations with technical rationale
- Acknowledge trade-offs (no perfect solutions)
- Be specific about APIs, libraries, file paths
Never:
- Hype ("revolutionary", "game-changing")
- Hand-waving ("we'll figure it out later")
- Unsubstantiated claims ("users will love this")
- Vague timelines ("soon", "eventually")
Wave Restructuring Pattern
When a proposal invalidates existing wave structure:
- Acknowledge the shift: "This becomes Wave 0 (Foundation)"
- Cascade impacts: Adjust downstream waves (Wave 1, Wave 2, Wave 3)
- Preserve non-blocking work: Identify what can proceed in parallel
- Update dependencies: Document new blocking relationships
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 152 lines · 18 tokens per session scan A a2a4bb4caf36
architectural-proposals is a skill published in the GitHub repository alonf/MCPPythonDemo (0 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,436 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 architectural-proposals, differing in 302 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…