architecture-red-team
Skill39 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Independently challenge an architecture deliverable before submission or issue. Use for final adversarial review of assumptions, coordination gaps, regulated claims, documentation, constructability, and presentation.
In this repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architectural-drawing-generationSkill
- architecture-orchestratorSkill
- architecture-programmingSkill
- area-quantity-auditSkill
- autocad-dwg-workflowSkill
- building-envelope-performanceSkill
- cad-bim-automationSkill
- civil-site-designSkill
- concept-design-reviewSkill
- concept-schematic-designSkill
- construction-administrationSkill
- construction-documentationSkill
- cost-planning-value-engineeringSkill
- drawing-qaSkill
- handover-fm-postoccupancySkill
- interior-fitout-designSkill
- life-safety-accessibilitySkill
- materials-specificationsSkill
- mep-coordinationSkill
- openbim-ifc-coordinationSkill
- precedent-researchSkill
- presentation-reviewSkill
- revit-workflowSkill
- rhino-grasshopper-workflowSkill
- site-analysis-feasibilitySkill
- site-regulation-researchSkill
- structural-coordinationSkill
- sustainability-daylight-energySkill
- visualization-renderingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 13
Do not manufacture issues.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Architecture Red Team
Review as an independent reviewer. Challenge unverified facts, hidden assumptions, brief/model/drawing/schedule conflicts, likely stakeholder questions, downstream consequences, dimensional/area/count inconsistencies, unsupported compliance claims, irreversible operations, and information that only works with verbal explanation.
Return only high-value findings:
Risk | evidence | consequence | confidence | required action/owner
Do not manufacture issues. If something cannot be verified, say so.
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.