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 PriNova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows --skill arch-code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PriNova/pi-agent-codebase-workflowsWrote 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/prinova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows/arch-code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/prinova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows/arch-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prinova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows/arch-code-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/prinova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows/arch-code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/prinova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows/arch-code-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 | $0.00022 | $0.02441 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00976 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00488 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00244 |
Grade A, and why
arch-code-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 1mo 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 — 203 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Code Review — Structured API Only
Goal: review diffs for correctness, drift, data consistency, side-effect boundaries, contract compatibility, and tests using YAML artifacts from the resolved structured docs root.
Structured Artifact API Contract
Legacy prose artifacts are deprecated. Do not create, update, or rely on docs/agent/*.md, scoped prose docs, or generated human-readable Markdown views. Use structured YAML for canonical artifacts. Root AGENTS.md remains a harness interoperability file and may be generated/updated only by workflows that explicitly say so.
Resolved structured docs root:
Treat docs/agent/api as a logical layout rooted at a resolved structured docs root, not a fixed repo path.
Resolution rules:
- Resolve
workspace_rootwithgit rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/nullor fallback topwd. - Canonicalize
workspace_rootbefore fingerprinting when possible (realpath,pwd -P,Path(...).resolve(), or equivalent). safe-startalways creates and uses the initial repo-local root:<workspace_root>/docs/agent/api.- Review reads repo-local only when
<workspace_root>/docs/agent/apialready exists. - Otherwise read the global overlay root:
~/.pi/agent/workspaces/<workspace-fingerprint>/docs/agent/api. - Compute
<workspace-fingerprint>exactly from canonicalworkspace_root: strip one leading slash/backslash, replace every slash, backslash, and colon with-, then wrap with--. This keeps the same workspace stable. - Example:
/data/data/com.termux/files/home/CodeProjects/pi-mono->--data-data-com.termux-files-home-CodeProjects-pi-mono--. - Do not create new repo-local structured docs in unadopted repos unless the user explicitly asks for repo-local adoption there.
Logical structured layout under the resolved docs root:
repo/
scopes.yaml
repo-inventory.yaml
project-intent.yaml
architecture.yaml
data-flow.yaml
data-model.yaml
invariants.yaml
dependency-rules.yaml
design-issues.yaml
risk-register.yaml
change-guide.yaml
testing-strategy.yaml
validation-baseline.yaml
contracts.yaml
adr.yaml
agent-operating-guide.yaml
scopes/
by-path/<repo-relative-path>/...
by-domain/<slug>/...
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 203 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 28d9e224477e
arch-code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository PriNova/pi-agent-codebase-workflows (82 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 2,441 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…