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 vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills --skill arch-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skillsWrote 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/vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills/arch-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills/arch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills/arch-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/vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills/arch-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills/arch-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 | $0.00112 | $0.00928 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00056 | $0.00464 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
arch-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 113 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Review
Provide structured, evidence-based architecture review feedback. Reviews should be honest, specific, and actionable — not just validating what the team already decided.
Step 1 — Understand What's Being Reviewed
Identify:
- What: system, service, pattern, ADR, or full solution design
- Stage: early concept · detailed design · pre-ARB · post-implementation
- Audience: peer review · ARB · CTO · external audit
- Constraints: regulatory, legacy, budget, timeline (affect what's realistic to recommend)
Step 2 — Score Across Seven Dimensions
Rate each dimension: ✅ Strong · ⚠️ Needs attention · ❌ Significant issue
| Dimension | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Fitness for purpose | Does the design actually solve the stated problem? Is it over- or under-engineered? |
| Simplicity | Is this the simplest design that would work? Are there unnecessary abstractions? |
| Security | Are controls proportionate to data sensitivity and threat model? Any obvious gaps? |
| Resilience | Single points of failure, retry/circuit-breaker patterns, failover strategy, data durability |
| Operability | Can it be deployed, monitored, scaled, and debugged in production? |
| Standards alignment | Does it follow enterprise technology standards and approved patterns? |
| Decision quality | Are key choices documented? Are trade-offs acknowledged? |
Step 3 — Produce Findings
For each issue found, use this format:
[SEVERITY] {Dimension}: {concise issue title}
Finding: {what specifically is wrong or missing}
Impact: {what happens if this isn't addressed}
Recommendation: {specific action, not just "improve this"}
Effort: S (<1 day) | M (1 week) | L (1 sprint) | XL (>1 sprint)
Severity levels:
- Critical — blocks approval; must be resolved before proceeding
- High — should be resolved before implementation
- Medium — should be addressed in the next iteration
- Low — improvement opportunity, not blocking
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 · 113 lines · 112 tokens per session scan A 8702c56fb3df
arch-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository vijayjoshi24/ea-agent-skills (5 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 112 tokens to every session and 928 once invoked, about $0.0006 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…