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 berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude --skill improve-codebase-architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/berekvolgyipeter/dotclaudeWrote 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/berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude/improve-codebase-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude/improve-codebase-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude/improve-codebase-architecture/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/berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude/improve-codebase-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude/improve-codebase-architecture.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 | $0.00068 | $0.01464 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00586 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00293 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00146 |
Grade A, and why
improve-codebase-architecture 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.
This is a copy
77% identical to improve-codebase-architecture — 74 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Improve Codebase Architecture
Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
Glossary
Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Full definitions in language.md.
- Module — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, package, slice).
- Interface — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, invariants, error modes, ordering, config. Not just the type signature.
- Implementation — the code inside.
- Depth — leverage at the interface: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface. Deep = high leverage. Shallow = interface nearly as complex as the implementation.
- Seam — where an interface lives; a place behaviour can be altered without editing in place. (Use this, not "boundary.")
- Adapter — a concrete thing satisfying an interface at a seam.
- Leverage — what callers get from depth.
- Locality — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.
Key principles (see language.md for the full list):
- Deletion test: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
- The interface is the test surface.
- One adapter = hypothetical seam. Two adapters = real seam.
This skill is informed by the project's domain model. The domain language gives names to good seams; ADRs record decisions the skill should not re-litigate.
Process
1. Explore
Read the project's domain glossary and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
Then use the Agent tool with subagent_type=Explore to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
What ships with it
4 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 82 lines · 68 tokens per session scan A 55db547eea20
improve-codebase-architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository berekvolgyipeter/dotclaude (2 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 68 tokens to every session and 1,464 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 77% identical to improve-codebase-architecture, differing in 74 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
reviewing
Claude-on-Claude code review protocol — reviews implementation against spec requirements and code quality standards.
code
Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt…
code-review-excellence
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
make-pr-easy-to-review
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.
blast-radius
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code…