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 evist0/okf-matt-skills --skill improve-archgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/evist0/okf-matt-skillsWrote 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/evist0/okf-matt-skills/improve-arch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/evist0/okf-matt-skills/improve-arch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evist0/okf-matt-skills/improve-arch/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/evist0/okf-matt-skills/improve-arch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evist0/okf-matt-skills/improve-arch.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 | $0.00030 | $0.01215 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00607 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00243 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
improve-arch 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.
This is a copy
81% identical to improve-codebase-architecture — 51 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 — 67 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.
This command is informed by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
- Run the
/codebase-designskill for the architecture vocabulary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." - The domain language in
knowledge/glossary/gives names to good seams; ADRs inknowledge/adr/record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
Process
1. Explore
Read the project's domain glossary (knowledge/glossary/) and any ADRs (knowledge/adr/) 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:
- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
- Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no locality)?
- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
Apply the deletion test to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
2. Present candidates as an HTML report
Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from $TMPDIR, falling back to /tmp (or %TEMP% on Windows), and write to <tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — xdg-open <path> on Linux, open <path> on macOS, start <path> on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 67 lines · 30 tokens per session scan A 78cacad95cdb
improve-arch is a skill published in the GitHub repository evist0/okf-matt-skills (13 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 30 tokens to every session and 1,215 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 81% identical to improve-codebase-architecture, differing in 51 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
openlore-execute-refactor
Apply a confirmed .openlore/refactor-plan.md with a test gate after each change. Use when asked to execute or continue an OpenLore refactoring plan.
openlore-review-changes
Review code changes using OpenLore risk, call, coverage, and cluster evidence without editing code. Use when asked for a change review, pre-PR safety check, or merge recommendation.
architect-init
Reverse-engineer architecture from an existing codebase to create ADRs documenting discovered decisions. Use when bootstrapping architecture documentation for brownfield projects.
architect-analyze
Analyze architecture for consistency between ADRs and AD, completeness, and quality issues. Use when validating generated or refined architecture artifacts, before feature development, during architecture review, or periodically to detect drift.
evidence-anchors
Ground documents in verifiable citations. Use whenever writing or editing ANY document a human will approve or review that asserts something about the EXISTING codebase — a design doc, proposal, RFC, ADR, risk assessment, a PLAN (including plan mode), or a PR DESCRIPTION. Load-bearing claims must carry Evidence…
audit
Audit a documentation-led repo against its own conventions — contiguous ADR numbering, INDEX sync, plan/ coverage, required sections, status validity, cross-reference resolution, language mandate, ADR-privacy leaks into user-visible code, cross-worktree collisions (duplicate numbers, duplicate plan ownership, same ADR…