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 duthaho/claudekit --skill plan-review-architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duthaho/claudekitWrote 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/duthaho/claudekit/plan-review-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duthaho/claudekit/plan-review-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/claudekit/plan-review-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/duthaho/claudekit/plan-review-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/claudekit/plan-review-architecture.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 | $0.00087 | $0.02492 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.01246 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00498 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00249 |
Grade A, and why
plan-review-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 12d 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 — 199 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Plan Review — Architecture Dimension
Overview
The architecture-dimension reviewer for plan-review. Reads a plan and scores
five concrete sub-dimensions on 0-10: data flow, failure modes, edge cases, test
matrix, and rollback safety. Every score must be paired with a finding citing the
plan task number or section that caused the score. The skill produces a ranked
fix list aligned with plan-review's consolidation step. Used by plan-review's
orchestrator, but invocable directly when only an architectural review is needed.
When to Use
- Invoked by
plan-reviewas one of its two parallel reviewers - The user wants an architectural pass on a plan without the experience review
- A plan has been edited substantially in architectural areas and needs re-scoring
When NOT to Use
- The plan is single-task or single-file (architecture review is overkill)
- You haven't read the underlying spec; architecture findings without spec context produce noise
Process
Step 1: Pre-read
Goal: Build context before scoring.
Inputs: The plan file. Optionally: the spec it's derived from, the relevant codebase area.
Actions:
- Read the spec (if available) for goals, non-goals, constraints, acceptance criteria.
- Read the plan end to end.
- Run
map-codebasementally on the affected area: which files, which entry points, which downstream services or queues.
Output: A short pre-read note: Plan touches <areas>; primary risks I'll watch for: <list>.
Step 2: Score the five sub-dimensions
Goal: Produce 5 scores with cited findings.
Inputs: The plan file plus pre-read notes.
Actions: For each sub-dimension below, score 0-10 and write at least one finding. Findings must cite the plan task number or section.
- Data flow (0-10)
- Is the plan explicit about who owns the data at each step?
- Are reads and writes ordered correctly across services?
- Are eventual-consistency boundaries marked?
- Score 10 = data flow is unambiguous from the plan alone.
- Score 5 = a reader has to guess at one or more transitions.
- Score 0 = data flow contradicts itself or the spec.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 199 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A 90c7197199a0
plan-review-architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository duthaho/claudekit (97 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 2,492 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
generic-react-code-reviewer
Review React/TypeScript code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, GPU-accelerated animations, WCAG AA accessibility, bundle size limits, and surgical simplicity. Use when completing features, before commits, or…
generic-fullstack-code-reviewer
Review full-stack code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces TypeScript strict mode, input validation, GPU-accelerated animations, and design system consistency. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
generic-static-code-reviewer
Review static site code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md compliance. Enforces pure HTML/CSS/JS standards, minimal page weight, mobile-first design. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing changes.
generic-code-reviewer
Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, accessibility gaps, and CLAUDE.md workflow compliance. Supports any tech stack - HTML/CSS/JS, React, TypeScript, Node.js, Python, NestJS, Next.js, and more. Use when completing features, before commits, or reviewing pull requests.
code-review
Analyze diffs, suggest improvements, and review pull requests with actionable feedback.
verify-implementation
A workflow that runs a project’s verification skills to produce a report on coding patterns, architecture rules, and project conventions. It is intended for work after implementation, before a pull request, or during code review.