Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to tam159/next-role. 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/tam159/next-role/main/.agents/skills/archify-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tam159/next-roleWrote 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/tam159/next-role/archify-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tam159/next-role/archify-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tam159/next-role/archify-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/tam159/next-role/archify-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tam159/next-role/archify-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 | $0.00042 | $0.00302 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00121 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00060 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00030 |
Grade A, and why
archify-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 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to archify-review — 2 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.
What it actually says
Archify Review
Judge whether a problem is worth addressing and an approach is worth maintaining over time.
- Value: Identify the real problem, who benefits, how often it occurs, its consequences, and whether it is worth addressing now.
- Cost: Consider implementation and verification effort, along with the future cost of understanding, changing, and maintaining the code. Prefer existing capabilities and keep the solution proportional to the problem.
- Impact: Identify affected behavior and modules, consequences for users and future development, and whether the change improves maintainability or adds coupling and constraints.
Consider maintainability, complexity, compatibility, performance, and other relevant concerns within these three dimensions, according to the specific problem.
Ground judgments in evidence: verify the target revision and relevant facts, distinguish direct verification from existing evidence and assumptions, and choose checks that resolve the key uncertainties.
Explain whether the work is worthwhile, the approach's cost and impact, any better alternatives, and unresolved questions that matter to the decision. Give reasons and scale the detail to the importance of each concern.
For repository-specific review and contribution requirements, consult REVIEWING.md and CONTRIBUTING.md as needed.
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 · 21 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 83791ccbe789
archify-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository tam159/next-role (62 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 302 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to archify-review, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
remember
Review the current conversation and capture valuable knowledge — best practices, coding conventions, architecture decisions, workflows, and user feedback — into persistent memory (AGENTS.md) or reusable skills. Use when the user says: (1) remember this, (2) save what we learned, (3) update memory, (4) capture…
green-prs
Inspect and prepare the selected PR queue against its exact current base, repair authorized defects with contributor credit, and report full versus partial validation. Use for maintainer pre-greening; merging requires separate owner authorization and the shared merge gates.
code-review
Perform a structured code review of changes, checking for correctness, style, tests, and potential issues.
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
gsd-ns-review
quality gates | code review debug audit security eval ui.
best-practices
Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".