Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add int2t05/engineering-skills/plugin install engineering-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/int2t05/engineering-skills/architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/int2t05/engineering-skills/architecture.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00064 | $0.01370 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00685 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00274 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00137 |
Grade A, and why
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 6d 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 — 102 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture
Design system-level architecture: pick patterns, size components, choose datastores, and record decisions as ADRs. Pragmatic trade-offs over theoretical purity — document what you chose, what you rejected, and why.
When to use
- Designing new system architecture or reviewing an existing one
- Choosing between architectural patterns (monolith vs microservices, event-driven, serverless)
- Making technology choices that carry lock-in (database, message bus, auth provider)
- Planning for scalability or evaluating NFR trade-offs (performance, availability, cost)
- Writing Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
- Triggers on "system design", "architecture review", "scalability", "ADR", "架构设计"
Not for: Code-level design patterns (use simplify or codebase-design), database-only design without system context, or feature-level API contracts (use api-design). Requirements/product-spec writing without system design (use spec — architecture takes the spec as input).
Steps
1. Gather requirements (functional + non-functional)
Collect functional requirements, constraints (budget, timeline, team), and NFRs. Use the NFR checklist to make scalability, performance, availability, security, reliability, and cost targets explicit — never assume "it should be fast." Verify: every NFR category has a concrete target or an explicit "not applicable" decision recorded.
- Load
references/nfr-checklist.mdwhen gathering NFRs - Load
references/system-design.mdfor the full design template
2. Evaluate architectural patterns
Match requirements to patterns. Don't pick microservices because they sound modern — pick the pattern whose trade-offs match your team size, domain complexity, and scaling needs.
- Load
references/architecture-patterns.mdfor the pattern comparison (monolith, modular monolith, microservices, serverless, event-driven, CQRS) with when-to-use criteria - For each candidate: write down what it makes easy and what it makes hard
What ships with it
7 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 102 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 1c089e2cfbe7
architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository int2t05/engineering-skills (3 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,370 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
pr-workflow
Crear pull requests completas con descripcion, labels y reviewers.
sonarqube
Levantar SonarQube con Docker, analizar el código y proponer mejoras. También: análisis estático, deuda técnica, code smells, cobertura, calidad automatizada.
skill-audit
Audit codebases for quality, consistency, and broken patterns — use for pre-release or tech debt review.
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
second-pass-review
Independent audit of sanitized specs in workspace/output/. Three parallel LLM-based reviewer roles check structural leakage, content contamination, and behavioral completeness. Run AFTER Layer 5 sanitization, BEFORE implementation handoff.