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 p2-arch-design-policygit 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/p2-arch-design-policy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/p2-arch-design-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/p2-arch-design-policy/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/p2-arch-design-policy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/babyworm/rtl-agent-team/p2-arch-design-policy.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium analysis-evasion · line 1 Suspicious Unicode normalization or mixed-script contentFix: Review the flagged content for security risks. Ensure no credentials, secrets, or sensitive data are exposed.
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 | $0.00023 | $0.02584 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01034 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00517 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00258 |
Grade A, and why
p2-arch-design-policy 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 — 213 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Phase 2 Architecture Design Policy
P1 Algorithm Candidate HW Review Criteria
For each functional area's candidates from P1's domain-analysis.md, evaluate:
- Gate count estimate (from literature or analytical estimation)
- Critical path depth (combinational logic levels)
- SRAM requirements (capacity, banking, port count)
- External memory bandwidth (bytes/pixel, access patterns)
- Achievable throughput at target frequency (pixels/cycle, blocks/cycle)
- Implementation risk (tool support, verification complexity, proven vs novel)
Architecture Review Criteria (Dynamic Convergence Protocol)
Dynamic convergence review (min 2, max 5 rounds), coordinated by rtl-architect:
- 3 mandatory parallel reviewers each round: (a) rtl-architect: spec compliance (Feature Coverage Checklist) + structural review (b) vcodec-architecture-expert: memory access patterns, performance analysis (c) ref-model-dev: architecture ↔ C model consistency (block mapping, data flow, interfaces)
- +1 conditional reviewer: (d) ref-model-reviewer: independent C model quality gate (algorithm fidelity, numerical precision, undefined behavior/build warning risk) when ref model is newly created or substantially revised
- ref-model-reviewer activation threshold: Invoke when ref model is newly created OR
30% of source lines changed from prior version. Both sequential and team orchestrators use this same threshold. Skip review tasks when ref model is unchanged.
- Each round: review → rebuttal (designer accepts/rejects each finding with rationale) → tree exploration for issues → targeted revision (rejections recorded in per-round artifact)
- Last round (converged or max reached): cross-block interface audit + memory conflict analysis
- Convergence check after round >= min_rounds: finding_delta < 0.1, all critical resolved, wonder stable
- After max_rounds if not converged → escalate to user via AskUserQuestion
Architecture Naming Conventions
- Block names:
snake_case(become RTL module names in Phase 4) - Interface descriptions: data width, protocol type, direction — NOT RTL port naming
- RTL naming conventions (i_/o_ prefix, clock/reset naming) applied in Phase 4, not here
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 · 213 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 3613e2c8341c
p2-arch-design-policy is a skill published in the GitHub repository babyworm/rtl-agent-team (61 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,584 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.