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 | $0.00017 | $0.00950 |
| Sonnet 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 7d 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.
- 7d 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 (51 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,900 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
qa-review
QA review for code changes — test coverage analysis, edge case identification, test plan generation, regression detection, test health tracking over time.
readable-verilog-generator
Use when creating, writing, reviewing, annotating, repairing, refactoring, or validating readable Verilog RTL, including synthesizable Verilog-2001 .v files, existing-RTL analysis, semantic comment annotation, testbench scaffold planning, ASIC-quality review, local or remote Vivado/xsim validation, evidence-backed…
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.
fresh-eyes-loop
A repeatable quality-review process using two independent agents: one reviews and verifies, while the other fixes issues. P0 and P1 mean the highest-severity problem levels.
kicad-pcb-review
Use this skill when reviewing, fixing, validating, or preparing KiCad PCB projects with the kicad MCP server.
rtl-review
Audit RTL code for lint violations, synthesis hazards, coding-style compliance, and readability. Use when the user says "review this Verilog", "check my RTL", "lint this module", "is this code synthesizable", or shares an HDL file and asks for feedback before simulation or tape-in.