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 igmarin/rails-agent-skills --skill review-architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/igmarin/rails-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/igmarin/rails-agent-skills/review-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/igmarin/rails-agent-skills/review-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/igmarin/rails-agent-skills/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/igmarin/rails-agent-skills/review-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/igmarin/rails-agent-skills/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 | $0.00035 | $0.01050 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00525 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00210 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00105 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Architecture
Quick Reference
| Area | What to check |
|---|---|
| Controllers | Coordinate only — no domain logic |
| Models | Own persistence + cohesive domain rules, not orchestration |
| Services | Create real boundaries, not just moved code |
| Callbacks | Small and unsurprising — no hidden business logic |
| Concerns | One coherent capability per concern |
| External integrations | Behind dedicated collaborators |
HARD-GATE (Authoritative Verification Rule)
DO NOT list findings that do not survive code-level confirmation.
Verify each High-severity finding by reading the actual code to confirm it is a real structural problem.
If verification reveals it is not genuine, downgrade it or remove it entirely.
If no source files were provided or read, do not invent High findings. Return an
architecture review checklist or assumptions block instead, and say code-level
confirmation is required before reporting findings.
SECRET SAFETY: code-level evidence must never reproduce secrets, tokens, API
keys, passwords, private keys, session cookies, or credential values. If a file
contains a hard-coded secret, report only the file/path, symbol name, credential
type, and a redacted fingerprint such as `[REDACTED_API_KEY]`; do not quote the
literal value.
Core Process
Use this skill when the task is to review or improve the structure of a Rails application or library.
Core principle: Prioritize boundary problems over style. Prefer simple objects and explicit flow over hidden behavior.
Review Order
- Identify the main entry points: controllers, jobs, models, services.
- Check where domain logic lives.
- Inspect model responsibilities, callbacks, and associations.
- Inspect controller size and orchestration.
- Read every concern, helper, and presenter: does it do one coherent thing, or does it mix auditing + notifications + emails + external API calls? Mixed concerns are High or Medium severity depending on blast radius. Treat any concern used by only one class as a candidate for deletion — inline it instead.
- Check whether abstractions clarify the design or only move code around.
- Verify each High-severity finding per the HARD-GATE above — confirm real structural problem, redact any credential-like values found.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 105 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 2256f5eaa5a5
review-architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository igmarin/rails-agent-skills (25 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 1,050 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
platform-apex-generate
Primary Apex authoring skill for class generation, refactoring, and review. ALWAYS ACTIVATE when the user mentions Apex, .cls, triggers, or asks to create/refactor a class (service, selector, domain, batch, queueable, schedulable, invocable, DTO, utility, interface, abstract, exception, REST resource). Use this skill…
flow-next-impl-review
Carmack-level implementation review of changes via the configured backend. Use when asked to review code or a diff in a flow-next repo.
flow-next-resolve-pr
Resolve PR review feedback. Fetches unresolved threads, triages, fixes, replies and resolves via GraphQL. Use when asked to address review comments.
api-contract-review
Use when auditing CloudBase cloud API wrappers, MCP tools, generated action metadata, or related docs for outdated or incorrect action names, parameters, casing, request shapes, or missing contract tests, especially during periodic quality review or before preparing corrective PRs.
principle-model-the-domain
Apply when writing stateful logic, or when code branches a lot or repeats a shape assumption across files. Encode the domain in a structure instead of scattered conditionals.
api-reviewer
A review of an API contract, the agreed description of how software systems exchange requests, responses, events, or files.