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 bullish0x/GameStudio --skill architecture-decisiongit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bullish0x/GameStudioWrote 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/bullish0x/gamestudio/architecture-decision)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bullish0x/gamestudio/architecture-decision"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bullish0x/gamestudio/architecture-decision/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/bullish0x/gamestudio/architecture-decision"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bullish0x/gamestudio/architecture-decision.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 | $0.00036 | $0.04505 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.02253 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00901 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00451 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-decision 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 10d 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
91% identical to architecture-decision — 9 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 — 456 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When this skill is invoked:
0. Parse Arguments — Detect Retrofit Mode
Resolve the review mode (once, store for all gate spawns this run):
- If
--review [full|lean|solo]was passed → use that - Else read
production/review-mode.txt→ use that value - Else → default to
lean
See .agents/docs/director-gates.md for the full check pattern.
If the argument starts with retrofit followed by a file path
(e.g., /architecture-decision retrofit docs/architecture/adr-0001-event-system.md):
Enter retrofit mode:
- Read the existing ADR file completely.
- Identify which template sections are present by scanning headings:
## Status— BLOCKING if missing:/story-readinesscannot check ADR acceptance## ADR Dependencies— HIGH if missing: dependency ordering breaks## Engine Compatibility— HIGH if missing: post-cutoff risk unknown## GDD Requirements Addressed— MEDIUM if missing: traceability lost
- Present to the user:
## Retrofit: [ADR title] File: [path] Sections already present (will not be touched): ✓ Status: [current value, or "MISSING — will add"] ✓ [section] Missing sections to add: ✗ Status — BLOCKING (stories cannot validate ADR acceptance without this) ✗ ADR Dependencies — HIGH ✗ Engine Compatibility — HIGH - Ask: "Shall I add the [N] missing sections? I will not modify any existing content."
- If yes:
- For Status: ask the user — "What is the current status of this decision?" Options: "Proposed", "Accepted", "Deprecated", "Superseded by ADR-XXXX"
- For ADR Dependencies: ask — "Does this decision depend on any other ADR? Does it enable or block any other ADR or epic?" Accept "None" for each field.
- For Engine Compatibility: read the engine reference docs (same as Step 1 below) and ask the user to confirm the domain. Then generate the table with verified data.
- For GDD Requirements Addressed: ask — "Which GDD systems motivated this decision? What specific requirement in each GDD does this ADR address?"
- Append each missing section to the ADR file using the Edit tool.
- Never modify any existing section. Only append or fill absent sections.
- After adding all missing sections, update the ADR's
## Datefield if it is absent. - Suggest: "Run
/architecture-reviewto re-validate coverage now that this ADR has its Status and Dependencies fields."
If NOT in retrofit mode, proceed to Step 1 below (normal ADR authoring).
No-argument guard: If no argument was provided (title is empty), ask before running Phase 0:
"What technical decision are you documenting? Please provide a short title (e.g.,
event-system-architecture,physics-engine-choice)."
Use the user's response as the title, then proceed to Step 1.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 456 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 0182f575015c
architecture-decision is a skill published in the GitHub repository bullish0x/GameStudio (12 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 4,505 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to architecture-decision, differing in 9 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
building-agents
Use when building or restructuring an LLM agent — provider adapter, tool calling, structured output, RAG, agent loop, eval gate, cost routing, tracing, MCP server — model-agnostic across OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini/OSS so a model swap is a config change. NOT vector-store SQL alone (that is postgresdb) or service…
ai-ml-development
AI and machine learning development with PyTorch, TensorFlow, and LLM integration. Use when building ML models, training pipelines, fine-tuning LLMs, or implementing AI features.
android-development
Android development with Kotlin, Jetpack Compose, and modern Android architecture. Use when building Android apps, implementing Material Design, or following Android best practices.
authentication-patterns
OAuth 2.0, JWT, SSO, MFA, NextAuth/Clerk/Supabase Auth implementation patterns.
case-interview-practice
Interactive consulting case interview practice with structured frameworks, feedback mechanisms, and progressive difficulty. Use when preparing for management consulting interviews, case competitions, or business problem-solving exercises.
email-systems
Transactional email (Resend, SendGrid, SES), templates (React Email, MJML), deliverability (SPF/DKIM/DMARC), and inboxing best practices. Use when building email infrastructure, designing templates, or troubleshooting deliverability.