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 khasky/awesome-agent-skills --skill awesome-architecture-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/khasky/awesome-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/khasky/awesome-agent-skills/awesome-architecture-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khasky/awesome-agent-skills/awesome-architecture-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khasky/awesome-agent-skills/awesome-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/khasky/awesome-agent-skills/awesome-architecture-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khasky/awesome-agent-skills/awesome-architecture-audit.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 | $0.00139 | $0.03774 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00069 | $0.01887 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00755 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00377 |
Grade A, and why
awesome-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 today.
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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Audit
Read an entire project — code, documentation, and the other files that make it buildable — and report how sound its design is, whether the docs still describe the code, whether it holds to YAGNI/KISS/SOLID, and how easily a newcomer could build it and extend it. Read-only: it produces a prioritized, scannable recommendations report and a verdict; it never edits code. Hand the report to a dev workflow to act on. Framework- and language-agnostic: it reasons about layers, contracts, and seams, not any one stack.
Read the real flow, don't guess. Every finding cites its evidence — a file:line, a command whose output you read, a grep with zero hits, a missing drift-guard. Trace the flow end to end before judging it. A file that "looks like a god-module" is a lead; confirm it by counting the distinct concerns it fuses, not its line count.
Bundled file (load on demand):
references/design-vocabulary.md— the shared words for a module's shape (module, interface, implementation, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality), the tests that use them (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", one adapter means a hypothetical seam and two mean a real one), the dependency categories that decide how a deepened module is tested, and the design-it-twice pass. Read it before writing any Track A or Track C finding, and use these words rather than inventing synonyms — sibling skills report against the same vocabulary.
Five audit tracks — run the ones in scope:
- A. Architecture & boundaries — layering, dependency direction, cohesion.
- B. Documentation fidelity — do the docs still match the code, scripts, and config?
- C. Design principles — YAGNI / KISS / SOLID, with concrete violations and concrete good.
- D. Extensibility & buildability — can a newcomer build from source and add a new provider/plugin/module by the docs?
- E. Tests & guardrails — are checks at the right layer, and do they fail loudly on drift?
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.
- today Changed 97c706f9668c
- 5d ago Changed · +15 lines · -91 tokens per session 1a9a7202973e
- 11d ago First seen · 117 lines · 230 tokens per session scan A c66388458b72
awesome-architecture-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository khasky/awesome-agent-skills (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 139 tokens to every session and 3,774 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
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.
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.
chinese-code-review
A Chinese-language code-review communication guide with templates and severity levels for review comments.
receiving-code-review
A guide for handling code-review feedback carefully. Code review is the process of checking proposed changes before they are accepted into a project.
requesting-code-review
A code-review procedure for checking completed work against its requirements before it spreads or is merged. A code reviewer is a person or agent who looks for defects and missing parts.