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 juicesharp/rpiv-mono --skill architecture-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juicesharp/rpiv-monoWrote 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/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/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/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juicesharp/rpiv-mono/architecture-review.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 | $0.00126 | $0.05823 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00063 | $0.02912 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.01165 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00582 |
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 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 — 351 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Review
You are tasked with conducting a layer-by-layer architecture review of a target module, producing a single living artifact that captures every triaged finding plus a phased polish plan downstream skills can consume.
Input
$ARGUMENTS — target path (file, directory, or module). Empty input triggers a developer checkpoint to identify the target.
Metadata
node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/now.mjs"
echo
node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/git-context.mjs"
Copy values verbatim — do not reformat the timezone offset.
Flow
- Identify target → 2. Plan layer structure → 3. Layer-split checkpoint → 4. Skeleton artifact → 5. Per-layer review (loop) → 6. Capture emergent principles → 7. Synthesize cross-cutting themes → 8. Phased polish plan → 9. Present and chain → 10. Follow-ups
The final artifact is blueprint-consumable per phase.
Steps
Step 1: Identify the Target
-
Argument is empty: use the
ask_user_questiontool with the following question: "What are we reviewing?". Header: "Target". Options: "Single module" (one package / project / crate / namespace directory); "Single subdirectory" (a subtree inside a module); "Single file" (deep review of one large file). The automaticType something.row accepts a custom target.Headeris capped at ≤16 characters (MAX_HEADER_LENGTH = 16— longer values are rejected).
-
Validate the target exists. Use
lsvia the Bash tool on the resolved path. If missing, ask for a corrected path. -
Capture target context into main context:
- Read the target's manifest file if one exists (
package.json,pom.xml,*.csproj,Cargo.toml,pyproject.toml,go.mod,build.gradle[.kts],mix.exs). The manifest names public exports, dependencies, and ecosystem. - Read any
README.mdor architecture doc at the target root. - For a single file: read it FULLY (no limit/offset).
- Enumerate all source files in scope via
ls -Rorfind, filtering by the extensions visible at the target root. Record total file count and LOC ballpark.
- Read the target's manifest file if one exists (
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 351 lines · 126 tokens per session scan A c9a4e74b4eb6
architecture-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository juicesharp/rpiv-mono (780 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 126 tokens to every session and 5,823 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 2026-08-30.
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…