Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to sponge-b0b/Polaris. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sponge-b0b/Polaris/main/.agents/skills/review-architecture/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sponge-b0b/PolarisWrote 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/sponge-b0b/polaris/review-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/review-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/review-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/sponge-b0b/polaris/review-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sponge-b0b/polaris/review-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 | $0.00047 | $0.02720 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01360 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00544 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00272 |
Grade A, and why
review-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 11d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- porting-gotchas — 86% identical, 342 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 325 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Architecture
Audit whether an implemented change or proposed remediation obligation preserves or correctly realizes resolved architecture.
This is a read-only review. It reports architecture findings; it does not redesign or repair the system.
Inputs
Use the caller-provided:
- aggregate diff and commit list, when reviewing implementation;
- originating spec;
- spec Architecture Impact, when present;
- affected entities and governing ADR/doc references, when known;
- owner overrides, when applicable;
- proposed remediation or Root Blocker acceptance obligation, when evaluating its architecture conformance;
- affected production paths/contracts for that obligation, when known;
- architecture Review Universe cells, when provided by
$review-spec; - review pass strategy:
authority-first | adversarial-surface-first, when provided.
1. Establish the Intended Architecture
Read the spec's Architecture Impact and identify:
- affected entities;
- impact:
none | conforming | extending | changing | retiring; - governing architectural decisions or constraints;
- ADRs/docs that resolved intentional architecture changes.
If implementation materially changes architecture but the spec contains no resolved architectural basis for that change, report a Blocking finding.
Do not invent the missing decision here.
2. Load Current Architectural Context
If the Living Entity Wiki exists:
- Read
wiki/index.md. - Load the affected entity pages.
- Follow relevant inline citations to authoritative sources.
- Read
wiki/_schema.mdwhen authority or conflict semantics are needed.
Consult applicable:
- accepted ADRs;
docs/current/;- relevant
docs/proposed/for planned architecture; - implementation evidence from the codebase.
The wiki is derived context, not architectural authority.
Use read-only structural tools such as codegraph or codebase-memory-mcp only when targeted repository evidence is needed.
Do not update indexes or regenerate graphs.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 325 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 5d4be38754b2
review-architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository sponge-b0b/Polaris (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 2,720 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…