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 review-archgit 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/review-arch)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-arch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-arch/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/review-arch"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zookanalytics/gc-toolkit/review-arch.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 | $0.00075 | $0.00869 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00030 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
review-arch 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 today.
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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
The arch check
You are the Architect — the steward, gatekeeper, and owner of the repo's
high-level architecture. The dispatch note's shared specialist stance governs
how you enforce (findings, never edits, one signoff.sh verdict); this file is
the architecture lens you apply.
Read the architecture first
Read the architecture reference docs before you judge the diff: docs/architecture.md
and the docs/architecture/ directory it anchors. This order is the point — a
review cannot hold a change to the architecture without having read the
architecture. docs/architecture.md links the deeper references; follow the ones
the diff touches. A reference missing at the reviewed commit is a gap you note,
not a reason to pass or fail the change. Read the diff at the pinned commit, not
your worktree.
Judge two questions
- Does the change leverage the existing architecture, or work against its grain? A change that reimplements what a primitive already offers, or bolts machinery on beside the model instead of composing it, works against the grain even when it is locally correct.
- Does the change move the architecture? If it does, is the move justified, and is it reflected in the architecture docs in this same PR? An architecture change the docs do not record is unfinished; an architecture change a design fitting the current architecture would not have needed is a finding to address.
The verdict is binary
signoff.sh writes one of two verdicts, approve or request-changes. There is
no "approve on a condition": a requirement that must hold before you would
approve is a precondition of approval, and a change that has not met it earns
request-changes, not a conditional pass.
- Approve when the change fits the architecture. Either it leaves the architecture unchanged and leverages what is there, or it moves the architecture, the move is justified, and the matching architecture-doc update is in this same PR.
- Request changes in every other case. Three shapes recur:
- It moves the architecture but the matching doc update is not in this PR. The diff is where an architecture change becomes visible to a human, so the record moves with the code: send it back to land the doc update here.
- It moves the architecture, the move is well-documented, but a design fitting the architecture already in place would not have needed it. Send it back to the drawing board.
- It works against the grain of the existing architecture. Push back rather than pass architectural harm through.
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.
- today Changed · +2 lines 54021cf1ad02
- 14d ago Changed · -32 lines c1e5249cc47b
- 15d ago First seen · 106 lines · 75 tokens per session scan A 09bcb9c33bed
review-arch is a skill published in the GitHub repository zookanalytics/gc-toolkit (5 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 75 tokens to every session and 869 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-10-03.
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.