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 ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit --skill architecture-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkitWrote 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/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/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/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit/architecture-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 38 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 257 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00103 | $0.02493 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00997 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.00499 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00249 |
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 2mo 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 — 261 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Review
Deep, evidence-based architectural review that produces a decision-grade document. Not a checklist pass — a systematic investigation that cross-references every claim against actual code, maps failure modes through the full lifecycle, and evaluates whether the architecture can support its intended scale.
Boundaries
This skill MAY: read code, analyze architecture, research platforms, write review documents, ask architectural decision questions via AskUserQuestion. This skill MAY NOT: modify application code, deploy changes, or make architectural changes. It produces a review document — the team decides what to act on.
Common Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Why It Fails | The Cost |
|---|---|---|
| "Just summarize the issue/checklist" | Restating what the team already knows adds no value | CTO handoff that tells the team nothing new |
| "The README says X, so X is true" | Code drifts from docs constantly | False claims in the review become false decisions |
| "Recommend best practices without checking constraints" | A 3-person vibe-coding team can't run Kubernetes | Recommendations that are technically correct but impossible to execute |
| "Skip the edge cases — focus on happy path" | Production failures happen on the unhappy path | Architecture that works in demos but breaks under real load |
| "Trust the security audit's line numbers" | Code changes daily; audits are snapshots | Wrong file:line references destroy reviewer credibility |
Phase 1: Scope and Context
Entry: User invokes /architecture-review with a target (repo path, issue URL, or description).
1.1 Identify the target
| Input | Action |
|---|---|
| GitHub issue URL | Fetch issue body via gh issue view |
| Repo path | Explore codebase structure |
| Description | Clarify scope via AskUserQuestion |
1.2 Gather context (parallel subagents)
Launch these concurrently:
- Codebase explorer (subagent, sonnet): Map the tech stack, directory structure, API routes, database schema, external dependencies, deployment config. Read
package.json/requirements.txt,Dockerfile, CI configs,README.md,CLAUDE.md.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 261 lines · 103 tokens per session scan A 44931832ec01
architecture-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 103 tokens to every session and 2,493 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
architecture-review compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| architecture-reviewondrej-svec/heart-of-gold-toolkit | Skill | 19 | 1mo ago | MIT | A | 103 | Claude Code |
| autoreviewopenclaw/clawhub | Skill | 9.5k | today | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| agent-teams-simplify-and-hardenLeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills | Skill | 2.2k | 6d ago | MIT | A | 115 | Claude Code, Codex |
| omh-code-reviewrlaope/oh-my-hermes | Skill | 5.2k | yesterday | MIT | A | 48 | Claude Code, Codex |
| revdiff-planumputun/revdiff | Skill | 945 | 2d ago | MIT | A | 84 | Claude Code |
| explore-unknownsdzhng/skills | Skill | 1.4k | 2d ago | MIT | A | 162 | Claude Code, Codex |
| re0-mergeLilMGenius/paperthin | Skill | 1.4k | 4d ago | MIT | A | 70 | Claude Code |