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 agentmods add skills/tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops/improve-codebase-architecturenpx skills add Tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops --skill improve-codebase-architecturegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devopsWrote 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/tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops/improve-codebase-architecture)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops/improve-codebase-architecture"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops/improve-codebase-architecture.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00032 | $0.01203 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00602 |
| Sonnet 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 4d 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 — 41 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 67 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 0026900866ed
improve-codebase-architecture is a skill published in the GitHub repository Tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops (385 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,203 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 83% identical to improve-codebase-architecture, differing in 41 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
requirements-authoring
To author, update, and validate functional/non-functional requirements as atomic units with user approval.
update-change-log
To synchronize CHANGELOG.md with changes made last week (mon - sun).
post-mortem
Diagnose instruction defects and optionally submit Rosetta GitHub issue.
init-workspace-documentation
Skill "init-workspace-documentation" from griddynamics/rosetta, covering agent memory.md, agent memory, preventive rules, what worked and what failed.
requirements-use
To consume approved requirements for planning, implementation, and validation, with traceability and HITL.
coding-agents-hooks-authoring
To author, register, and test Rosetta hooks, add a SemanticKind, or debug a hook that won't fire.