architecture-review

Files (8)

• LICENSE
• SKILL.md
• openai.yaml · agents/
• DEEPENING.md · references/
• DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md · references/
• HTML-REPORT.md · references/
• codebase-design.md · references/
• design-interview.md · references/

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Architecture Review

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:

- Read the bundled [design vocabulary](references/codebase-design.md) and [deepening guide](references/DEEPENING.md) 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, and don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."
- The domain language in `GLOSSARY.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.

## Process

### 1. Explore

**Scope before you scan: YAGNI.** Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so put extra weight on the parts of the codebase that have recently changed. Decide *where* to look before you look:

- If the user named a direction (a module, a subsystem, a pain point), take it, and skip the inference below.
- Otherwise, walk back a good stretch of the commit history (`git log --oneline`) to find the codebase's hot spots, the files and areas that keep coming up, and let those paths pull your attention first. If the changes are scattered with no clear hot spot, widen the net.

Read the project's existing domain glossary (`GLOSSARY.md` or its equivalent) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first. Their absence is not a setup requirement; do not create them during the audit.

Then explore the codebase, using an independent explorer when delegation is available and authorized or investigating locally otherwise. 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**, with an 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. Tell the user the absolute path and open it when the harness supports doing so. If files are prohibited or a visual artifact cannot be delivered, provide the same candidate evidence and before/after comparisons in chat and state that limitation.

The report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals: use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.

For each candidate, render a card with:

- **Files**: which files/modules are involved
- **Problem**: why the current architecture is causing friction
- **Solution**: plain English description of what would change
- **Benefits**: explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
- **Before / After diagram**: side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
- **Recommendation strength**: one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge

End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.

**Use GLOSSARY.md vocabulary for the domain, and the bundled design vocabulary for the architecture.** If `GLOSSARY.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module," not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."

**ADR conflicts**: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _"contradicts ADR-0007, but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.

See [HTML-REPORT.md](references/HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.

Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"

### 3. Explore the selected candidate

After the user selects a candidate and asks to explore it, follow the bundled [design interview](references/design-interview.md): constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, and what tests survive. Its subagent fact-finding uses the available, authorized harness tools; when delegation is unavailable, find those facts locally and keep dependent decisions open until the facts are known.

If the user asks for alternative interfaces, follow [Design It Twice](references/DESIGN-IT-TWICE.md). Do not design interfaces before candidate selection.

Keep domain terms consistent with the existing glossary and identify conflicts with existing ADRs. Report newly clarified terms and consequential decisions in the conversation. Do not automatically create or update a glossary, ADR, or application code. Implementation or documentation changes require the corresponding user request.

From grugh/skills, MIT.

More from grugh/skills