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 RainMT-dv/skills-pack --skill improve-codebase-architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/RainMT-dv/skills-packWrote 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/rainmt-dv/skills-pack/improve-codebase-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rainmt-dv/skills-pack/improve-codebase-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rainmt-dv/skills-pack/improve-codebase-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/rainmt-dv/skills-pack/improve-codebase-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rainmt-dv/skills-pack/improve-codebase-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 | $0.00032 | $0.01203 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00481 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
improve-codebase-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 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.
This is a copy
83% identical to improve-codebase-architecture — 49 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Improve Codebase Architecture
Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
This command is informed by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
- Run the
/codebase-designskill for the architecture vocabulary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." - The domain language in
CONTEXT.mdgives names to good seams; ADRs indocs/adr/record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
Process
1. Explore
Read the project's domain glossary (CONTEXT.md) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
Then use the Agent tool with subagent_type=Explore to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
- Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no locality)?
- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
Apply the deletion test to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
2. Present candidates as an HTML report
Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from $TMPDIR, falling back to /tmp (or %TEMP% on Windows), and write to <tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — xdg-open <path> on Linux, open <path> on macOS, start <path> on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 67 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 0026900866ed
improve-codebase-architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository RainMT-dv/skills-pack (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,203 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to improve-codebase-architecture, differing in 49 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
github
Manages all git operations (commit, push, branch management, PR creation) in a standardized, safe, and consistent way. Automatically runs the code-review skill before any commit. Enforces Conventional Commits standard. Handles the full lifecycle: branch → review → commit → push → PR.
architecture-review
Before committing to an implementation plan, run this skill to stress-test the proposed architecture. Catches over-engineering, circular dependencies, missing failure modes, security gaps, and scalability cliffs — before any code is written. Acts as a "second eye" on the plan.
code-review
Systematic code review skill covering both requesting a review (pre-commit checklist) and receiving and responding to review feedback. Checks code quality, security, test coverage, architectural alignment, and documentation before any code is committed.
anti-sycophancy
Rejects false validation; enforces objective critique, risk exposure, and constructive code alternatives. / TR: Yapay zekanın kullanıcı fikirlerini ve hatalı kod yönlendirmelerini körü körüne onaylamasını engeller. Yapıcı itiraz eder, riskleri gösterir ve doğru alternatifi sunar.
Git PR Reviewer
Pull Request (PR) creation and code review standards with constructive feedback and merge strategies. / TR: Pull Request (PR) oluşturma ve kod inceleme (code review) süreçleri için standartlar ve yapıcı geri bildirim.
code-orchestrator
Main orchestrator managing code architecture, refactoring, clean code principles, and adversarial code reviews. / TR: Kod yazma, güvenlik, eleştirel denetim, test ve mimari süreçlerini yöneten ana orkestratör.