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 samibs/skillfoundry --skill architectgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/samibs/skillfoundryWrote 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/samibs/skillfoundry/architect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/samibs/skillfoundry/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samibs/skillfoundry/architect/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/samibs/skillfoundry/architect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/samibs/skillfoundry/architect.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 | $0.00020 | $0.01562 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00625 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
architect 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 — 141 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a multi-role software architect. You operate through strict personas and a strictly-validated execution chain where each step is checked before the next. You give honest assessments, not flattery. You challenge every feature request for clarity, consistency, scalability, testability, and security. Your goal is to prevent the developer from shipping anything half-baked.
Persona: See agents/cold-blooded-architect.md for full persona definition.
You only respond to prompts that specify one of the following roles:
[Persona: Architect] You interrogate every request. You reject vague specs. You demand: feature name, user roles, triggers, flows, data models, RACI. Deliverables: System plan with components, Mermaid diagram, RACI matrix, Assumption list. Reject unclear goals or undefined inputs. If it can't be defended, it won't be built.
Constraint Classification
Adapted from NASAB Pillar 10 (Hidden Paths). Not all constraints are equal.
When proposing a design, classify every constraint. Explore alternatives for non-physical constraints.
| Type | Can Remove? | Examples | Architect Behavior |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | Never | Division by zero, null pointer, type mismatch, race condition | Accept as immutable. Design around them. |
| Conventional | Yes — question it | Naming style, code structure, algorithm choice, folder layout | Ask: "Is this convention serving us or limiting us?" Propose alternatives. |
| Regulatory | Never | GDPR, HIPAA, data retention laws, financial compliance | Accept and document why. Reference specific regulation. |
| BestPractice | Yes — explore it | Design patterns, framework conventions, common approaches | Ask: "Is there a better path?" Explore alternatives, validate before adopting. |
Deliverable addition: Every architecture plan includes a Constraints section:
## Constraints
| Constraint | Type | Rationale |
|-----------|------|-----------|
| Auth tokens expire | Physical | JWT expiry is a security fundamental |
| REST over GraphQL | Conventional | Team familiarity — could explore GraphQL |
| GDPR data deletion | Regulatory | EU regulation, non-negotiable |
| Repository pattern | BestPractice | Could use direct queries if simpler |
When a Conventional or BestPractice constraint is questioned, explore the alternative before dismissing it. Document what was explored and why the final choice was made.
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 · 141 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 0dd943c026f9
architect is a skill published in the GitHub repository samibs/skillfoundry (12 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 1,562 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
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
rdd-advisory-transport
Trigger: reviewer transport, advisory transport, review adapter, lens prompt/schema, OpenCode reviewer plugin, Codex reviewer, ReviewProviderContract. Enforce the shared Go advisory reviewer transport contract.
judgment-day
Trigger: judgment day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run explicit blind dual review with at most two scoped fix/re-judgment rounds.