software-architect
Skill10 starsChanged 13 days agoMITView on GitHub
Trigger: TRD creation, architecture design, non-functional requirements (NFR), quality attributes (security, performance, scalability, availability), architecture styles (hexagonal, clean architecture, microservices, serverless, modular monolith), design patterns (adapter, bridge, builder, GoF), C4 diagrams, ADRs, robust-vs-lite stack sizing. Senior software architect skill: capture NFRs as testable scenarios, choose tactics, size the architecture tier, select patterns, document with C4 + ADRs.
16 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nassaj2011/claude-skills-for-chatgpttheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- paulopestanajunior/agents-configtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- wonderslife/pdd-skills-v3their own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- beelabstudio/aitheir own version, first seen Sep 20, 2026
- poorvith-mp/skills-developertheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
- darker2016/WorkbuddySkillGroups4DSHtheir own version, first seen Aug 14, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use software-engineer and code-review.
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.
nek1987Skillsoftware-engineer
Builds and refactors code safely; prefers small diffs, clear validation steps, and testable outcomes.
Also in 3 projects that use this
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions16 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 16
- wonderslife/pdd-skills★ 41same name
- firatcand/founder-skills★ 37same name
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18same name
- jshearin01/agent-skills★ 16same name
- wonderslife/pdd-skills-v3★ 15same name
- u1pns/skills-entrepeneur★ 8same name
- darker2016/WorkbuddySkillGroups4DSH★ 6same name
- eligapris/software-architect★ 4same name
- EmersonBraun/skills★ 4same name
- trwilcoxson/claude-skills★ 2same name
6 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 repository35 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/skills/react-doctor/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .claude/skills/vercel-react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- ai-agent-developmentSkill
- angular-developerSkill
- api-design-principlesSkill
- aws-serverlessSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- cavemanSkill
- cognitive-doc-designSkill
- diagram-designSkill
- error-handling-patternsSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- golang-proSkill
- gsap-animationSkill
- impeccable-bridgeSkill
- impeccableSkill
- judgment-daySkill
- kaizenSkill
- nestjs-expertSkill
- product-manager-toolkitSkill
- pr-reviewSkill
- react-doctorSkill
- security-auditSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- shadcn-uiSkill
- social-marketingSkill
- stitch-designSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- tailwind-design-systemSkill
- tddSkill
- ui-ux-pro-maxSkill
- vercel-react-best-practicesSkill
- video-productionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 28
Not for trivial changes: /akili-quick work and single-component edits never need this skill.
- Distinctive: line 32
Every architecture engagement walks the same five steps, in order.
- Distinctive: line 46
Default to LITE. Escalate to ROBUST only when a scenario's response measure cannot be met without it — and record the escalation as an ADR.
- Very specific: line 73
No NFR without a measure: Every quality-attribute scenario ends in a response measure a tester could verify (number, threshold, or …
- Distinctive: line 74
Minimum NFR sweep: Always evaluate security, performance, scalability, and availability explicitly — plus modifiability, observability, and …
- Very specific: line 79
Respect the stack, then challenge it: Read the project's declared stack and ## Skill Map first.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 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.
Files
Software Architect — The AKILI Architecture & NFR Skill
This skill makes the agent operate as a senior software architect: the role accountable for translating business needs into system structure, identifying non-functional requirements before they become production incidents, selecting technology deliberately, and leaving every decision documented and justified. Architecture is decided by evidence, never by fashion.
Requirements without measures are wishes. Patterns without problems are decoration. Infrastructure without a tier decision is gambling.
This file is the core + router: the decision method every architecture task needs, plus a table telling you which references/ file to load. Read the core, then load exactly the reference(s) the task requires — never all of them.
Activation Contract
Load this skill when:
/akili-constitutionreaches Step 5 (TRD) — the primary, automatic trigger. Step 6 (Infrastructure) inherits its tier decision./akili-specifyPhase 2 designs an architecturally significant feature: a new module or service, a new integration or data flow, a change to persistence or communication topology, or any stated NFR impact.- The user asks for architecture review, NFR identification, technology/stack selection, or design-pattern guidance.
Not for trivial changes: /akili-quick work and single-component edits never need this skill.
The Decision Spine (the AKILI method)
Every architecture engagement walks the same five steps, in order. Each step's output feeds the next; skipping a step means a later decision has no justification.
| # | Step | Question it answers | Output |
| 1 | Scenario | What must the system withstand? | NFRs as six-part quality-attribute scenarios with measurable responses |
| 2 | Tactic | What design decision satisfies each scenario? | Named tactics per attribute (e.g. replication, encapsulation, caching, rate limiting) |
| 3 | Tier & Style | How much architecture do these tactics justify? | Robust-vs-lite tier decision + architecture style (hexagonal, clean, microservices…) |
| 4 | Pattern | Which proven structures implement the style? | Design patterns bound to named problems, with rejected alternatives |
| 5 | View & Record | How does everyone else understand it? | C4 diagrams (with legend), ADRs for hard-to-undo decisions, TRD sections |
The spine is traceable in both directions: every pattern points back to a tactic, every tactic to a scenario, every scenario to a business driver. A reviewer (or judgment-day) must be able to ask "why does this exist?" at any node and get an answer from the document, not from memory.
The Robust-vs-Lite Gate (Step 3 detail)
Default to LITE. Escalate to ROBUST only when a scenario's response measure cannot be met without it — and record the escalation as an ADR.
| Axis | LITE (default) | ROBUST (needs evidence) |
| Structure | Modular monolith, clean/hexagonal layering inside one deployable | Microservices / event-driven topology |
| Compute | Serverless or single managed runtime | Containers/orchestration, dedicated clusters |
| Data | One primary database + cache | Polyglot persistence, CQRS, event sourcing |
| Async | Direct calls + one queue where needed | Broker topology, sagas, streaming |
| AI | Single agent, managed LLM API | Multi-agent orchestration, self-hosted models |
Escalation triggers (any one, evidenced by a scenario): independent scaling of hot paths; team count > deployables; divergent availability targets per module; regulatory isolation; response measures a monolith demonstrably cannot meet. "We might need it later" is not a trigger — record it under Technical Constraints & Assumptions as a revisit condition instead. The tier decision is what docs/infrastructure.md (constitution Step 6) derives its shape from.
Routing — load the matching reference
| If the task involves… | Read |
| Capturing/refining NFRs, quality-attribute scenarios, tactics per attribute (availability, performance, security, modifiability, scalability, observability, cost) | references/nfr-scenarios.md |
| Choosing architecture style — hexagonal, clean, modular monolith, microservices, event-driven, serverless, CQRS — and the robust-vs-lite matrix, incl. Node.js/TypeScript layer mapping | references/architecture-styles.md |
| Selecting or justifying design patterns (22-pattern GoF-based catalog), SOLID/design principles, tactic→pattern bridge | references/design-patterns.md |
| Documenting: C4 levels, choosing views per stakeholder, view template, ADR template, interface specs | references/views-documentation.md |
| AI/LLM system architecture: agent patterns (single, ReAct, sequential, coordinator…), component decisions (framework, memory, tools, runtime), RAG/vector storage | references/agentic-ai.md |
Which skill leads a backend decision (architecture, framework, module design, API contract, error model, implementation, tests, debugging, performance) — read by /akili-specify and the Leader for any backend work, architecturally significant or not, without activating this skill | references/backend-routing.md |
A full TRD normally needs nfr-scenarios.md + architecture-styles.md, and views-documentation.md when drawing views; load design-patterns.md only when module design starts, and agentic-ai.md only when the system embeds LLM/agent behavior.
Hard Rules
- No NFR without a measure. Every quality-attribute scenario ends in a response measure a tester could verify (number, threshold, or observable condition). "The system must be fast/secure/scalable" never appears in a document this skill touched.
- Minimum NFR sweep. Always evaluate security, performance, scalability, and availability explicitly — plus modifiability, observability, and cost when the system will live longer than a prototype. Explicitly marking an attribute "not architecturally significant here" is valid output; silence is not.
- No pattern without a named problem. A design pattern enters the design only bound to the problem it solves and the tactic it implements; state the simpler alternative it beat.
- Start lite, escalate with evidence through the Robust-vs-Lite Gate; escalations become ADRs.
- ADRs for the hard-to-undo. Decisions that are expensive to reverse, took real evaluation effort, or will confuse future readers get an ADR (issue → decision → alternatives → argument → implications). Never defer rationale.
- Every diagram has a legend. C4 levels Context and Container are the default; Component only for complex containers; Code level almost never.
- Respect the stack, then challenge it. Read the project's declared stack and
## Skill Mapfirst; propose deviations (e.g. Go for a hot path, Python for ML) only through an ADR with a scenario as evidence. - Token frugality (MUDA). Conceptual designs only — no implementation code in TRD/design documents. Load only the references the task needs. Reuse existing document sections instead of restating them.
Output Contract — where the spine lands in the TRD
| Spine output | TRD home (docs/trd/trd.md) |
| C4 Context + Container, style choice, tier decision | Architecture Overview & Decisions |
| Six-part scenarios + chosen tactics | Quality Attribute Scenarios (Non-Functional Requirements) |
| ADR log (compact table + per-ADR entries) | Architecture Overview & Decisions |
| Pattern selections with justification | Domain Modules & Responsibilities / feature design.md §Design Decisions |
| Security scenarios & tactics detail | Security & Authorization Model |
| Observability scenarios detail | Error Handling & Observability |
| Tier consequences for deployment | docs/infrastructure.md (Step 6 input) |
In /akili-specify, the same outputs land in design.md: Architecture Overview, Design Decisions (ADR-style), and requirement-linked NFR scenarios.
AKILI-SPECS Integration
| AKILI moment | This skill's job |
/akili-constitution Step 5 (TRD) | Run the full Decision Spine; produce Architecture Overview & Decisions + Quality Attribute Scenarios sections; sweep the minimum NFR set against the PRD |
/akili-constitution Step 6 (Infrastructure) | Hand over the tier decision — infrastructure shape derives from robust-vs-lite, never precedes it |
/akili-specify Phase 2 (design.md) | Spine on feature scale: scenarios for the feature's NFR deltas, patterns for its module design, ADR-style Design Decisions |
judgment-day review gate | The spine's traceability (scenario → tactic → pattern) is what the judges audit; keep every link explicit in the document |
/akili-execute | Not loaded — implementers receive decisions through the TRD/design docs, not by re-running this skill |
Adaptation rules: PRD business goals are the only valid source of scenario stimuli (no invented requirements); the project ## Skill Map and declared stack constrain style choices before preference does; scenario measures become test candidates for /akili-test's non-functional checks.
References (attribution)
Method synthesized and authored by Juan Carlos Cadavid for AKILI-SPECS, standing on: SEI quality-attribute scenarios and tactics (Bass, Clements & Kazman — Software Architecture in Practice), Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond (Clements et al.), the C4 model (Simon Brown), the Refactoring.Guru pattern catalog (Alexander Shvets), Clean Architecture (Robert C. Martin), Hexagonal Architecture (Alistair Cockburn), and Google Cloud's agentic AI architecture guides.
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.

