architecture-planning
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when new cross-module work, unclear system boundaries, or a costly architecture decision needs an implementation plan. Skip small changes with an obvious approach.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- liza-mas/lizatheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- codetesla51/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 25, 2026
- HamzaSheikh768/Agents-Skills-Laptheir own version, first seen Feb 4, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- liza-mas/liza★ 418same name
- codetesla51/skills★ 32same name
- HamzaSheikh768/Agents-Skills-Lap★ 3same name
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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- backend-engineeringSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- database-api-evolutionSkill
- deployment-safetySkill
- design-researchSkill
- excalidraw-diagramsSkill
- execution-loopSkill
- explain-with-diagramsSkill
- frontend-engineeringSkill
- hyperframes-videoSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- test-verifySkill
- ui-ux-reviewSkill
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 10
Read the repository instructions and relevant established patterns.
≈ “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 planning
Make the material decisions that allow implementation to proceed. Match the depth of the plan to uncertainty, reversibility, and the number of affected components.
- Read the repository instructions and relevant established patterns. Locate the entry points, callers, data owners, configuration, and existing verification commands. Build only the repository map needed for this task; do not read the whole tree by default.
- State the user-visible outcome, scope, constraints, and acceptance criteria. Separate evidence from assumptions. Resolve routine choices from the code and user context. Ask only about missing information that would materially change the result; continue independent work while waiting.
- Trace the proposed flow across UI, services, APIs, storage, and external dependencies as applicable. Define ownership, trust boundaries, failure behavior, retry/concurrency semantics, and resource limits where the change depends on them. Preserve the existing stack unless changing it is part of the request.
- Compare alternatives only for a real tradeoff. Explain why the recommended approach fits the current workload and maintenance needs. Avoid adding services, abstractions, dependencies, or a migration merely to make the plan look complete.
- Break the change into coherent, reviewable steps with affected files or modules and a check for each material outcome. Identify compatibility, rollout, recovery, and integration risks where applicable. Use database-api-evolution for a changing persisted-data or consumer contract; do not repeat its full workflow here.
Deliver a concise plan with assumptions, decisions, implementation order, and repository-specific verification. Record durable decisions in the project's existing location when useful; do not create a new memory system automatically.
Proceed to authorized implementation after the plan. A planning skill does not create a new approval gate. If the request is explicitly planning-only, stop at the reviewable plan. Use delegation for bounded work that can usefully run independently or for a required independent assessment; do not spawn an agent for every task.
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.