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 nicograef/handbook --skill architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nicograef/handbookWrote 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/nicograef/handbook/architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nicograef/handbook/architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicograef/handbook/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/nicograef/handbook/architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nicograef/handbook/architecture.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 | $0.00040 | $0.00510 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00204 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00102 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00051 |
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 yesterday.
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.
What it actually says
Architecture
- Enable ultracode and use workflows.
- Sweep the codebase and separate it into areas/modules to work at in parallel.
- Run a multi-expert review on code architecture considering clean code, modularity, readability
- Clean Architecture: layer boundaries, domain code free of framework and infrastructure types
- Cross-layer consistency: shapes, nullability, validation and enums agree from frontend to database
- Clean Code
- Modularity, Cohesion and Coupling
- KISS, YAGNI, Overengineering and Simplifications
- Testability and test cost: suite time per module, duplicate and fan-out tests, own-module mocks, tests above the cheapest failing level
- Readability and Understandability
- SOLID Principles
- Outdated, unused or deprecated fields, interfaces, functions, ...
- Unification, best practices and consistency
- Reviewers apply these decision tests:
- Deletion test: delete the module. Complexity that reappears in its callers means it earns its place.
- One adapter is a hypothetical seam; two make it real.
- The interface is the test surface.
- Thresholds come from the project's own gates: its linter config (ruff
max-complexity,max-statements) and its structure tests. Structure tests hold the module line cap, the name length and thin__init__files. Where a project sets none: complexity ≤ 15, ≤ 50 statements per function, module ≤ 600 lines. Names have ≥ 3 characters; internals sit behind a package's__init__. Reviewers report each violation as a finding. - Run as many Opus reviewers on as many areas of the codebase you think is suitable.
- Run Sonnet verifiers and refuters on the findings.
- Run Opus fixers and implementers.
- Keep the workflows lean and efficient.
- Bundle reviews, tests and gates on the main branch or a common base branch.
- You may even use just one branch or one worktree for all of this.
- Choose the codebase split accordingly.
If you find any bugs or issues along the way, fix them directly as part of the workflow.
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.
- yesterday Changed · +35 tokens per session d975001735d0
- 12d ago Changed · +2 lines 927a8fbe462c
- 16d ago Changed · +6 lines 54ccd6a5345d
- 18d ago First seen · 30 lines · 5 tokens per session scan A 14fa06813d86
architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository nicograef/handbook (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 510 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-20.
architecture compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| architecturenicograef/handbook | Skill | 2 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 40 | Claude Code |
| sync-bridgechromium/chromium | Skill | 25k | yesterday | BSD-3-Clause | A | 109 | Claude Code, Codex |
| sync-model-processorchromium/chromium | Skill | 25k | yesterday | BSD-3-Clause | A | 98 | Claude Code, Codex |
| adversarial-revieweremdash-cms/emdash | Skill | 14k | yesterday | MIT | A | 72 | Claude Code, Codex |
| gsd-ns-reviewopen-gsd/gsd-core | Skill | 11k | yesterday | MIT | A | 16 | Claude Code |
| gitnexushashgraph-online/awesome-codex-plugins | Skill | 1.5k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 58 | Codex |
| issuejeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace | Skill | 2.9k | yesterday | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code |