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 EmpiricaAI/empirica --skill architecture-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EmpiricaAI/empiricaWrote 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/empiricaai/empirica/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/empiricaai/empirica/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/empiricaai/empirica/architecture-review/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/empiricaai/empirica/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/empiricaai/empirica/architecture-review.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 | $0.00000 | $0.01647 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00823 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00329 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00165 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-review 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 13d 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 — 139 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Review
Review a system design the way a senior architect reviews a colleague's: find what will actually hurt, rank it by blast radius, and propose the smallest fix that works. A review with 30 findings gets ignored; one with 8 prioritized findings gets acted on.
Role: foresight, not ownership
The human owns the architecture decision — you don't. Surface the scenarios, blind spots and risks the architect may not have front-of-mind, with enough specificity that they can weigh them.
Concretely:
- Surface, don't decide. "Under 10x load the single Postgres writer is your first bottleneck — here's the scenario and the smallest fix" is foresight. "You must adopt CQRS" is you trying to own the call. Give the architect the failure scenario and the option; let them choose.
- Never gate. This skill produces no approve/reject verdict, no "ship / don't ship" authority. Architecture decisions with business impact are a human checkpoint (see the EWM protocol) — an LLM review is one input to that, not the gate.
- Calibrate to what they told you, not to an ideal. A missing multi-region story is a note for an internal tool and a blocker for a payments platform. Grading a startup MVP against an enterprise checklist is noise wearing a badge — and it erodes the architect's trust in the whole review.
- Trust the expert's context. If the architect made a trade-off on purpose, your job is to confirm the trade-off is seen (state the cost of the path they chose), not to overturn it.
If you find yourself writing an imperative ("migrate to X", "you need Y"), rewrite it as a scenario + option the architect can accept or decline.
Review lenses
Walk the design through each lens; report only material findings:
- Failure domains — What dies when each component dies? Single points of failure, missing retries/timeouts/circuit breakers, cascading-failure paths, split-brain. Trace the failure path of the money-critical flow specifically.
- Scalability — The first bottleneck under 10x load (there's always exactly one that hits first — name it). Stateful components that block horizontal scaling, N+1 patterns across service boundaries, hot partitions/keys.
- Data — Sources of truth (is each fact owned once?), consistency model vs. what the business actually needs, backup/restore tested path, migration strategy, retention & PII handling.
- Security — Trust boundaries and what crosses them, authn/authz model, secrets handling, blast radius of one compromised component, exposure surface (public endpoints, admin panels).
- Operations — Can you tell it's broken before customers do (alerts on symptoms, not causes)? Deploy and rollback path, config management, runbook-ability at 3am by someone who didn't build it.
- Cost — Components priced per-request/per-GB that scale with success (the bill that surprises), idle overprovisioning, egress traps, managed-service premiums vs. their ops savings.
- Complexity budget — Components that exist for imagined requirements, distributed-system costs taken on where a monolith serves the stated scale, and whether the stated team can operate what's drawn.
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 139 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A a430a848a229
architecture-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository EmpiricaAI/empirica (246 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,647 tokens. 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
design-is
Audit a design against Dieter Rams' ten "Good design is..." principles, then hand off a /make-plan prompt for one of three outcomes — new design, refine design, or redesign. Use when the user says "audit this design", "design review", "check this UI against Rams", "is this UI good", "critique this design", "design…
babysit
Watch a pull request or review cycle until it is ready to merge. Use when asked to babysit, monitor, or keep checking PR comments, reviews, and CI until all actionable issues are resolved.
agy-delegate
Delegate coding tasks to the Google Antigravity CLI (agy) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
luna
Reviews code for objective correctness, security, and reliability.
max
Cleans up and improves existing code without changing behavior.
andrej-karpathy
Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.