agentleFS
ChristopherAlphonseChristopherAlphonse/calphonse-skills/architecture-review/SKILL.md

architecture-review

Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub

Architecture and distributed-systems review that identifies unnecessary complexity, scalability bottlenecks, reliability risks, and infrastructure cost-saving opportunities. Recommends the simplest, most cost-effective architecture based on evidence, with findings marked VERIFIED, [ASSUMPTION], or [NEEDS MEASUREMENT]. Read-only by default, no fixes. Use when: "review architecture", "distributed systems audit", "simplify my architecture", "make this scalable", "reduce infrastructure costs", "find bottlenecks", "architecture review", "/architecture-review"

78 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use create-stories, story-done 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.
  • lilangMaxSkill

    create-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 11 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    story-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 11 projects that use this

  • +10 more from lilangMax

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 70 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Prefer a modular monolith over microservices unless independent deployment, scaling, isolation, or reliability requirements justify the …

    line 33
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer managed infrastructure when its total cost is lower after accounting for maintenance and engineering time.

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not introduce new services, queues, caches, databases, or abstractions without a measurable justification.

    line 35
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not recommend rewrites based on architectural fashion.

    line 36
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not modify code or infrastructure during the initial audit.

    line 38

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 70 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Architecture, Distributed Systems, and Cost Optimization Audit

Act as a principal software architect with expertise in distributed systems, SaaS infrastructure, database architecture, reliability engineering, and cloud cost optimization.

Audit this entire repository and its deployed architecture. The goal is to make the system as simple, scalable, reliable, and inexpensive to operate as possible.

Primary objectives

  1. Identify unnecessary architectural complexity, dependencies, infrastructure, and abstractions.
  2. Find opportunities to consolidate services or replace multiple components with simpler alternatives.
  3. Identify actual scalability bottlenecks and distributed-systems failure modes.
  4. Minimize infrastructure costs and operational overhead without compromising security or data integrity.
  5. Recommend the smallest changes that deliver meaningful improvements.

Investigation

  • Map the current architecture, request flows, data ownership, background jobs, and external dependencies.
  • Inspect database access patterns, connection pooling, indexing, transactions, caching, and query efficiency.
  • Review retries, idempotency, concurrency, duplicate execution, scheduling, and failure recovery.
  • Evaluate deployment architecture, observability, logging, error handling, and incident recovery.
  • Identify vendor overlap, unnecessary network calls, redundant data storage, and services that could be removed.
  • Assess capacity limits and expected behavior at 10x and 100x current traffic.
  • Estimate cost implications using actual pricing and usage data where available.

Constraints

  • Prefer a modular monolith over microservices unless independent deployment, scaling, isolation, or reliability requirements justify the added complexity.
  • Prefer managed infrastructure when its total cost is lower after accounting for maintenance and engineering time.
  • Do not introduce new services, queues, caches, databases, or abstractions without a measurable justification.
  • Do not recommend rewrites based on architectural fashion.
  • Distinguish verified problems from hypotheses that require profiling or load testing.
  • Do not modify code or infrastructure during the initial audit.

Deliverables

  1. Current architecture diagram and component inventory.
  2. Ranked findings with evidence, severity, and business impact.
  3. A simpler proposed architecture and a list of components that can potentially be removed.
  4. Cost-saving opportunities, with assumptions and estimated monthly savings.
  5. Scalability and distributed-systems risks.
  6. A prioritized implementation roadmap grouped into quick wins, medium-term improvements, and changes justified only by future growth.
  7. Validation steps, including benchmarks and regression tests, for each major recommendation.

For every recommendation, explain the trade-offs, implementation effort, failure modes, and why the simpler alternative is sufficient. Do not invent metrics or savings when the required data is unavailable.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.