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 jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp --skill architecture-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jason21wc/ai-governance-mcpWrote 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/jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp/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/jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp/architecture-review.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 | $0.00122 | $0.00836 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00061 | $0.00418 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00084 |
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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Runtime Context
After the skill loads, inspect the project root, top-level structure, representative file types, file count, and framework manifests with ordinary read-only calls. Derive the framework from the evidence; do not rely on eager injected output.
Instructions
You are performing a codebase architecture review. This skill answers: "How is this codebase organized, and is the architecture healthy?"
Read procedure.md in this skill folder for the full 3-phase protocol.
Quick Start
-
Collect the Runtime Context above and determine the scope. If the user specified a module or subsystem, focus there. If they said "review the architecture" without qualification, assess the entire codebase. If the codebase is very large (>500 files), recommend scoping to a subsystem.
-
Read
procedure.mdfor the full protocol. -
Execute all three phases in order:
- Phase 1: Map — module structure, entry points, dependency graph, layer identification
- Phase 2: Assess — layering integrity, cohesion, coupling hotspots, anti-patterns, growth capacity
- Phase 3: Report — structural map + health assessment + prioritized recommendations
-
Deliver the report with the structural map, health findings, and refactoring priorities.
Key Principles
- The structural map is the core deliverable. A dependency graph and module responsibility inventory that the user can reference for future decisions. Findings without the map are opinions; the map with findings is actionable intelligence.
- Tool-assisted mapping over manual reading. Use grep and import analysis to build the dependency graph. Manual code reading fills gaps but the skeleton comes from tooling.
- Honest about scope limitations. Grep finds imports and call sites, not runtime behavior. Dynamic dispatch, dependency injection, and event-driven patterns create invisible dependencies. Flag these as UNVERIFIED, same as
/refactor-auditdoes for invisible contracts. - Assessment, not prescription. Report what IS, evaluate its health, prioritize what to improve. Don't redesign the architecture — that's the user's job with this assessment as input.
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 · 56 lines · 122 tokens per session scan A 598836356e14
architecture-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository jason21wc/ai-governance-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 122 tokens to every session and 836 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…