architecture-decision
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
For the Architect (04). Evaluate the stack from the problem (not from familiarity) with 2-3 options per layer, viability criteria, and the ARCHITECTURE.md structure. Use it at the architecture gate.
32 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Khaymah/sabry-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Azure/agent-app-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudiostheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- Azure/gpt-rag-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- Azure/agent-app-ingestiontheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
- Azure/gpt-rag-ingestiontheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use team-level, team-narrative and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
CoralGameSkillteam-level
Orchestrate level design team: level-designer + narrative-director + world-builder + art-director + systems-designer + qa-tester for complete area/level creation.
Also in 10 projects that use this
CoralGameSkillteam-narrative
Orchestrate the narrative team: coordinates narrative-director, writer, world-builder, and level-designer to create cohesive story content, world lore, and narrative-driven level design.
Also in 10 projects that use this
lilangMaxSkillcreate-stories
Break a single epic into implementable story files. Reads the epic, its GDD, governing ADRs, and control manifest. Each story embeds its GDD requirement TR-ID, ADR guidance, acceptance criteria, story type, and test evidence path. Run after /create-epics for each epic.
Also in 9 projects that use this
lilangMaxSkillstory-done
End-of-story completion review. Reads the story file, verifies each acceptance criterion against the implementation, checks for GDD/ADR deviations, prompts code review, updates story status to Complete, and surfaces the next ready story from the sprint.
Also in 9 projects that use this
Microsoft AzureSkillcomponent-release
Prepares a verifiable Agent Landing Zone UI release. Use for release branches, VERSION, changelog entries, tags, release notes, and compatibility evidence; never publish without explicit human approval.
Also in 4 projects that use this
- +7 more from lilangMax
Other versions32 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 32
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27ksame name
- Azure/agent-landing-zone★ 1.2ksame name
- Azure/GPT-RAG★ 1.2ksame name
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 324same name
- Azure/agent-app-ingestion★ 188same name
- Azure/gpt-rag-ingestion★ 188same name
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 118same name
- Azure/agent-app-orchestrator★ 107same name
- Azure/gpt-rag-orchestrator★ 107same name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
22 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository20 other files it gives its agents.
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adopt-groundSkill
- agent-authoringSkill
- asset-sourcingSkill
- brand-evaluation-rubricSkill
- criticSkill
- data-integritySkill
- diagrams-gateSkill
- drift-protocolSkill
- env-reproducibleSkill
- orchestrator-bridgeSkill
- project-cleanupSkill
- qa-eyesSkill
- qa-visual-criteriaSkill
- research-methodologySkill
- security-auditSkill
- setupSkill
- smoke-testSkill
- technical-documentationSkill
- visualizerSkill
The file
Files
SKILL: architecture-decision
For: Agent 04 — ARCHITECT
Version: 1.0.0
Core principle
The stack follows the problem. Every technical decision is justified in terms of the problem it solves, not familiarity or preference.
Process
STEP 1 — Understand the problem: product type, user profile, data volume, offline/sync requirements, OS/hardware constraints, available tools (Codex, Claude Code). Do not evaluate technologies until this is complete. STEP 2 — Evaluate 2-3 options per layer with pros/cons in context, not in the abstract. STEP 3 — Check viability: can Codex/Claude Code implement it well? Enough documentation? Manageable dependencies? If not → document it explicitly. STEP 4 — Separate decisions you can make from decisions that need PO approval. STEP 5 — Document what was discarded and why — as important as what was chosen.
Criteria to evaluate a technology
✓ Solves the problem better than the alternatives ✓ Actively maintained, with enough community and documentation ✓ Implementable with the available tools ✓ Scales with expected growth
Warnings: last update over a year ago, sparse docs, dependencies with vulnerabilities, inactive community.
Architectural maintainability
✓ Each module with a clear responsibility ✓ Explicit, minimal dependencies between modules ✓ No critical logic in monolithic files ✓ An AI can modify a module understanding only that module
Tooling context
Claude Chat: does not run code, produces decisions and documentation. Claude Code/Codex: best with modular, well-documented files, struggles with long files (+2000 lines), needs explicit context in AGENTS.md.
ARCHITECTURE.md structure
Stack evaluation → System structure → Folder structure → Technical decisions → Decisions pending approval → Risks → Environment limits
Mistakes to avoid
× Choosing the known stack without evaluating it against the problem × Mixing responsibilities in one module × Not documenting what was discarded × Ignoring expected growth
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

