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 camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit --skill architecture-review-boardgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkitWrote 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/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-review-board)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-review-board"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-review-board/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/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-review-board"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit/architecture-review-board.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 | $0.00017 | $0.00949 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00475 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00190 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00095 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-review-board 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 11d 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 — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Review Board (ARB)
When to Use
- Establishing a technical decision governance process
- Reviewing proposed architecture changes before implementation
- Maintaining consistency across teams and services
- Building organizational knowledge through decision logs
ARB Process
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ Proposal │───►│ Review │───►│ Decision │───►│ Record │
│ (RFC) │ │ (Meeting) │ │ (Vote) │ │ (ADR) │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘
Author ARB Board Approve/ Decision
writes reviews Reject/ logged
Defer
RFC Template
# RFC: [Title]
**Author**: [name]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Status**: Draft / In Review / Approved / Rejected
## Problem Statement
[What problem are we solving and why now?]
## Proposed Solution
[Technical approach with diagrams]
## Alternatives Considered
| Option | Pros | Cons |
|--------|------|------|
| Option A | ... | ... |
| Option B | ... | ... |
## Impact Analysis
- Services affected: [list]
- Database changes: [yes/no, describe]
- API changes: [breaking/non-breaking]
- Performance impact: [estimate]
- Security implications: [describe]
## Migration Plan
[How to get from current state to proposed state]
## Risks
1. [Risk with mitigation]
## Open Questions
1. [Question that needs ARB input]
Review Criteria
- Aligns with existing architecture and tech stack
- Considers security implications
- Has a migration/rollback plan
- Performance impact assessed
- Cost implications understood
- Team has expertise to implement and maintain
- Doesn't introduce unnecessary technology
When ARB Review is Required
| Change Type | Review Required? |
|---|---|
| New external dependency | ✅ Yes |
| New database | ✅ Yes |
| New programming language | ✅ Yes |
| New microservice | ✅ Yes |
| Architecture pattern change | ✅ Yes |
| API breaking change | ✅ Yes |
| Internal refactoring | ❌ No (team decision) |
| Library update | ❌ No (unless major version) |
| Bug fixes | ❌ No |
| New feature (existing patterns) | ❌ No |
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 125 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 6ec797531b1c
architecture-review-board is a skill published in the GitHub repository camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit (7 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 949 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
anti-monolith-guard
Prevent mixed-responsibility modules and uncontrolled file growth.
review-thread
Record review verdicts and run the StateNote review thread on an agent-operation instance — every ReviewRequest verdict is one atomic batch-direct-write that advances status and co-writes a reviewnote explaining why, and findings are corrected by appending notes rather than editing them.
code-hygiene-refactor
Select a bounded, behavior-preserving code-hygiene batch.
dpf-architecture-review
Use when reviewing or updating a DPF spec, design doc, or implementation plan for architectural alignment.
agent-aegis
Security and privacy review for scoped changes.
skill-scope-control
Analisa se alterações, diffs e PRs continuam alinhados ao objetivo declarado, identificando escopo extra e propondo manter, separar ou justificar.