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 babyworm/rtl-agent-team --skill arch-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/babyworm/rtl-agent-teamWrote 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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/arch-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/arch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/arch-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/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/arch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/arch-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00035 | $0.01900 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00760 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00380 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00190 |
Grade A, and why
arch-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 149 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Note: This skill intentionally saves to reviews/phase-2-architecture/ because it
re-validates the Phase 2 architecture after RTL implementation. It updates (not replaces)
the existing Phase 2 review artifacts with post-RTL findings per Hierarchical Spec Compliance.
<Use_When>
- RTL implementation is complete and needs architecture sign-off
- Microarchitecture spec (docs/phase-3-uarch/*.md) exists for comparison
- Pre-tapeout architecture review gate
- Suspecting architectural mismatch after late RTL changes </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- RTL is not yet lint-clean (fix lint first with rtl-lint-check)
- Only functional bugs need diagnosis (use rtl-bug-repro instead)
- Architecture changes are also requested (arch-review is READ-ONLY) </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Why_This_Exists> Architecture review catches structural mismatches between spec and implementation that functional tests cannot detect. Three independent reviewers with different focus areas (structure, timing, quality) provide broader coverage than a single pass. </Why_This_Exists>
<Execution_Policy>
- All three agents run in parallel, READ-ONLY
- rtl-architect checks spec-to-RTL consistency
- timing-advisor checks pipeline depth, clock domain structure, timing feasibility
- rtl-critic checks code quality, maintainability, synthesis-friendliness
- Findings aggregated into single report — no RTL changes </Execution_Policy>
## Feature Coverage Checklist
| REQ ID | RTL Module | Status |
|--------|-----------|--------|
## Findings
### [severity] Finding-N: ...
## Verdict
PASS | FAIL: [reason]
```
7. Categorize issues: BLOCKER / WARN / SUGGESTION
- Any MISSING requirement is automatically a BLOCKER
- Any PARTIAL requirement is at minimum a WARN
<Tool_Usage>
Bash("mkdir -p reviews/phase-2-architecture")
Task(subagent_type="rtl-agent-team:rtl-architect",
prompt="READ-ONLY review. (1) Read docs/phase-1-research/iron-requirements.json and check every REQ-NNN item for implementation in rtl/. Produce a Feature Coverage Checklist with per-REQ status: COVERED, PARTIAL, or MISSING. (2) Compare docs/phase-3-uarch/*.md against rtl/. List any spec-RTL mismatches, missing modules, or unspecified additions. Verify port naming follows project convention: i_ prefix for inputs, o_ prefix for outputs, io_ prefix for bidirectional. Save the review result to reviews/phase-2-architecture/architecture-review.md in standard review Markdown format with Date, Reviewer (rtl-architect, timing-advisor, rtl-critic), Upper Spec (docs/phase-1-research/iron-requirements.json, docs/phase-3-uarch/*.md), Verdict, Feature Coverage Checklist table, Findings, and Verdict sections. If the file already exists, update it with the latest review results. Output final verdict: VERDICT: PASS or VERDICT: FAIL — [N] spec violations found.")
Task(subagent_type="rtl-agent-team:timing-advisor",
prompt="READ-ONLY review. Analyze rtl/ pipeline depth, clock domains ({domain}_clk naming, e.g. sys_clk), and reset strategy ({domain}_rst_n naming, e.g. sys_rst_n). Flag timing feasibility concerns and any clock/reset naming violations.")
Task(subagent_type="rtl-agent-team:rtl-critic",
prompt="READ-ONLY review. Assess rtl/ code quality: synthesizability, coding style (lowRISC base with project overrides: i_/o_/io_ port prefixes, {domain}_clk/{domain}_rst_n naming, logic only, u_ instance prefix, gen_ generate prefix), maintainability. List issues with severity.")
</Tool_Usage>
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 · 149 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 230658d2e24d
arch-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (61 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,900 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
aster-review-ci
Run aster code reviews non-interactively in CI, GitHub Actions, or from another agent. Covers aster review --pr, --json, --stream, --comment, diff-from-stdin, token handling, and filtering findings. Use when wiring aster into a pipeline, posting PR comments, or parsing review output programmatically.
qa-review
QA review for code changes — test coverage analysis, edge case identification, test plan generation, regression detection, test health tracking over time.
kicad-pcb-review
Use this skill when reviewing, fixing, validating, or preparing KiCad PCB projects with the kicad MCP server.
module-no-new-exports-all
Populate no-new-exports entries in module descriptors so their module surface area cannot be increased.
refactor-safely
Renaming, moving, and restructuring code without breaking behavior. Use when the task is a rename, a file move, an extract, or any restructuring the user expects to be behavior-neutral.
apex-review
Reviews a technical proposal from the perspective of organizational decision-makers (CTO, technical lead, QA lead, conference reviewers, etc.) and generates an HTML presentation deck. Outputs approval gate results per persona and connects to sim-conductor for improvement suggestions.