Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/VoidTechnology/voidtech-claude-pluginsnpx agentmods add skills/voidtechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins/architecture-reviewWrote 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/voidtechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins/architecture-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/voidtechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/voidtechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins/architecture-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/voidtechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins/architecture-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/voidtechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins/architecture-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 | $0.00039 | $0.01559 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00624 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00312 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00156 |
Grade A, and why
architecture-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 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 — 68 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Vendored from mattpocock/skills · MIT © 2026 Matt Pocock · upstream 6eeb81b · 已汉化并完成 VoidTech 插件内自包含适配。LICENSE 见 ../_vendor-licenses/mattpocock-LICENSE
改进代码库架构
找出理解、修改和测试代码时遇到的架构阻力，并提出模块深化方案（deepening）：把职责零散的浅模块整合成接口简单、内部能力完整的深模块。目标是提升可测试性，让开发者和 AI 更容易理解代码。
审查时使用项目现有的功能上下文和统一的架构术语：
- 运行
voidtech-engineering:codebase-design技能，了解架构词汇（module、interface、depth、seam、adapter、leverage、locality）及其原则（移除模块检验、“接口就是测试面”、“一个 adapter 通常不足以证明需要 seam，两个 adapter 才能证明替换需求真实存在”）。每条建议都使用这些术语，不要换成含义不完全相同的 "component"、"service"、"API" 或 "boundary"。 CONTEXT.md中的业务词汇为好的 seam 命名；docs/adr/中的 ADR 记录了本命令不应重新争论的决策。
流程
1. 探查
先阅读项目的业务词汇表（CONTEXT.md）以及你所触及区域内的任何 ADR。
然后用 Agent 工具配 subagent_type=Explore 走查代码库。若当前环境没有 Agent 工具，直接使用文件搜索、符号搜索和测试入口完成同样的探查，不得因此要求安装上游工具。根据实际代码寻找以下问题：
- 在哪里理解一个概念需要在许多小模块之间来回跳？
- 哪里的模块是shallow（浅的）——接口几乎和实现一样复杂？
- 哪里的纯函数仅仅为了可测试性而被抽出，但真正的 bug 藏在它们如何被调用之中（缺乏 locality）？
- 哪些紧耦合模块把内部细节泄漏到了 seam 之外？
- 代码库的哪些部分未被测试，或者通过当前接口难以测试？
对任何疑似浅模块应用移除模块检验：假设删掉它，复杂度是消失了，还是被迫散落到调用方？如果复杂度会散落，说明这个模块可能值得保留并进一步深化。
2. 把候选项呈现为 HTML 报告
把一个自包含的 HTML 文件写到操作系统的临时目录，这样不会有任何东西落进仓库。从 $TMPDIR 解析临时目录，回退到 /tmp（Windows 上为 %TEMP%），并写到 <tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html，让每次运行都得到一个新文件。为用户打开它——Linux 上用 xdg-open <path>，macOS 上用 open <path>，Windows 上用 start <path>——并告诉他们绝对路径。
报告必须离线可读：把全部样式写进 <style>，图表使用语义化 HTML、CSS Grid/Flex 与内联 SVG，不加载 CDN、字体、脚本或其他远程资源。把仓库名、路径、符号名、注释和其他动态文本按 HTML 文本或属性上下文正确转义，绝不把仓库内容拼成标签或 SVG 标记。每个候选项都配一张 before/after 可视化；当关系是图状时用内联 SVG 的方框、连线和箭头表达。
为每个候选项渲染一张卡片，包含：
- Files（文件） — 涉及哪些文件或模块
- Problem（问题） — 当前架构为什么难以理解、修改或测试
- Solution（方案） — 用简单英语描述具体改动
- Benefits（收益） — 使用 locality 和 leverage 解释收益，并说明测试如何改善
- Before / After diagram（改动前后图） — 并排展示模块深化前后的结构
- Recommendation strength（推荐程度） —
Strong、Worth exploring、Speculative之一，以徽标显示
报告以 Top recommendation（首选建议） 段落收尾：说明应优先处理哪个候选项以及原因。
业务命名用 CONTEXT.md 词汇，架构说明用 voidtech-engineering:codebase-design 词汇。 如果 CONTEXT.md 定义了 "Order"，就谈 "the Order intake module"——而不是 "the FooBarHandler"，也不是 "the Order service"。
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 863cdd31decc
architecture-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository VoidTechnology/voidtech-claude-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,559 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…