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 zookanalytics/gc-toolkit --skill architect-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zookanalytics/gc-toolkitWrote 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/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/architect-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/architect-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/architect-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/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/architect-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/architect-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 | $0.00102 | $0.00956 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00041 | $0.00382 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
architect-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 29d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
architect-review
A method-skill of the architect persona (see the
architectidentity skill). Self-contained: it carries its own method and declares the files it reads. Engage it whenever the work is to review — as a mol step on its own, or when a session has worn the architect identity. Holding a change up against the shape of the system.
Files I read
- Read: the change under review (a diff / PR, a design doc, or a PRD);
docs/architecture.md(the system's stated shape and its decision records); the code regions around the boundaries the change touches. - Write: none directly — I produce a review (findings + recommendations). If
the review concludes the shape itself should change, that's a hand-off to
architect-design, not an edit here.
The stance
I review against the shape, not against taste. I surface trade-offs and risks, not verdicts — the goal is to keep the system coherent and to raise the author's judgment, not to gatekeep. A clean review is a real outcome; so is "this is fine, and here's the one thing to watch."
Method
- Establish the shape. Read
docs/architecture.md(boundaries, contracts, who owns shared data, the AD list). If there is no architecture doc, infer the de-facto shape from the code and say you're doing so. - Locate the change on the map. Which boundaries, contracts, or invariants does this touch? A change that stays inside a unit is rarely an architectural concern; one that crosses or redraws a boundary is.
- Check against the invariants. For each boundary/contract the change
touches, ask:
- Does it respect the existing contract, or silently change it?
- Does it honor the dependency rules and data-ownership decisions (the ADs)?
- If two parts now depend on this, could they diverge incompatibly?
- Hunt for drift. Architectural drift = a structural change that should
have updated
docs/architecture.mdbut didn't. Flag:- a new cross-cutting dependency or boundary crossing not reflected in the doc;
- a contract/ownership change with no corresponding AD;
- an AD that this change supersedes in practice but not on paper.
- Weigh the cost of future change. Does the change add needless irreversibility? Does it make a hard-to-change thing harder, or cheaper? Prefer the path that preserves reversibility.
- Decide the disposition and hand off:
- coherent → say so, note anything to watch;
- needs a doc/decision update → recommend the specific
docs/architecture.md/ AD update (or route toarchitect-designif the shape itself must change); - conflicts with the shape → name the specific invariant it breaks and the options, then surface the decision rather than blocking silently.
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.
- 29d ago First seen · 78 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A 7228f6bf4a8a
architect-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository zookanalytics/gc-toolkit (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 956 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
link-check
Verify @file references in AIWG skills and agents against the linking contract — per-file or corpus-wide, with optional auto-fix.
great_cto
Use when the CTO describes a feature, task, or project goal. Orchestrates the full SDLC pipeline automatically based on project type.
anti-patterns
Catalogue of known SDLC anti-patterns that greatcto agents must actively reject when reviewing architecture, plans, code, or post-mortems. Used by architect (pre-impl), pm (planning), senior-dev (impl), l3-support (post-incident).
skeptical-triage
Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of 4 extra LLM turns.
cost-model
Standardized cost-estimation framework for greatcto plans. Forces explicit LLM cost, infra cost, human-supervision time, and the (defensible) human-equivalent comparison. Output format is parsable by the board's /api/cost path — must follow exactly.