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 helderberto/agent-skills --skill architecture-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/helderberto/agent-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/helderberto/agent-skills/architecture-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/architecture-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/architecture-audit/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/helderberto/agent-skills/architecture-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/helderberto/agent-skills/architecture-audit.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00892 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00357 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00178 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00089 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-audit 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 3d 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 — 63 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Audit
Audit a codebase for architectural friction and propose refactors toward deep modules (simple interface, large implementation). Deep modules are more testable, more AI-navigable, and let you test at the seam instead of inside.
Uses the deep-module vocabulary and principles — call the Skill tool with codebase-design for the canonical glossary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) and core principles (deletion test, interface-as-test-surface, one-adapter-is-hypothetical). Use those terms exactly in every suggestion. For audit-specific examples and anti-patterns (pass-through, temporal decomposition, classitis, signs a module is too shallow), see references/deep-modules.md.
Workflow
1. Explore
Scope first (YAGNI). Deepening pays off where code keeps changing. A direction in $ARGUMENTS (module, subsystem, pain point) → take it. Otherwise read a good stretch of git log --oneline for hot spots, the files and areas that keep coming up, and start there; no clear hot spot → widen the net. Read the ADRs in the area: a candidate an ADR already rejected comes back only when the friction is worth reopening it.
Use a read-only explore subagent to navigate the codebase organically. Note where you experience friction:
- Understanding one concept requires bouncing between many small modules
- A module's interface is nearly as complex as its implementation (shallow module)
- Pure functions extracted just for testability, but real bugs hide in how they're called
- Tightly-coupled modules create integration risk at the seams between them
- A module fails the deletion test — deleting it makes complexity vanish (pass-through), or its complexity is duplicated across N callers (earning its keep but in the wrong place)
- Areas that are untested or hard to test
The friction you encounter IS the signal.
2. Present candidates
Show a numbered list. For each candidate:
What ships with it
3 files 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.
- 3d ago Changed e69958f6a848
- 15d ago Changed · +3 lines · -37 tokens per session 2f5a6899da53
- 18d ago Changed · +6 lines c071471ce42a
- 1mo ago Changed · -9 tokens per session df0823624439
- 1mo ago Changed · -33 lines · -16 tokens per session 20ddbd777309
- 1mo ago First seen · 87 lines · 83 tokens per session scan A 26858d580e7e
architecture-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository helderberto/agent-skills (19 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 892 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
code-review-and-quality
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted…
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
code-review
Structured code review focusing on correctness, security, and maintainability. Correctness before style. Every reviewer comment must be actionable.
code-review-and-quality
A code-review guide for checking changes across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance before they are merged.
doubt-driven-development
A development practice that puts an independent, fresh-context challenge in front of important coding decisions.