review-architecture
Skill73 starsChanged 7 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review touched subsystems for layering, crate boundaries, single-source-of-truth rules, registry-driven behavior, and compiler/runtime separation. Use when a broad review needs a dedicated architecture pass or when the user asks for architectural review specifically.
15 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-librarytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pascalorg/editortheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- dotnet/orleanstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- rpraharaj/ai-sdlctheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ROCm/rocprofiler-systems-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- nesnilnehc/ai-cortextheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use review-testing, review-correctness and 1 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.
worldbankSkillreview-testing
Review test code for quality, design, and completeness after implementing a feature or fixing a bug. Use when the user asks to "review my tests", "check my test quality", "are these tests good enough", "review testing", or after completing a feature implementation that includes tests. Also use when tests feel brittle, flaky, or superficial. Cross-references production code to find coverage gaps.
Also in 4 projects that use this
navjyotnishantSkillreview-correctness
Use this skill when the user asks to "review my changes for bugs", "check this diff for correctness", "did I introduce a regression", or wants a correctness-focused review of the current commit or uncommitted work before pushing. Reviews the changed lines and their blast radius for logic errors, regressions, unhandled edge cases, and missing validation. Works in any git repo; nothing here is project-specific.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillwrite-tests
Write tests following project conventions. Use when adding new tests or modifying existing ones.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions15 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 15
- pascalorg/editor★ 25ksame name
- dotnet/orleans★ 11ksame name
- daveallie/crosspoint-reader★ 8.7ksame name
- crosspoint-reader/crosspoint-reader★ 8.7ksame name
- apache/pinot★ 6.2ksame name
- mrinalwadhwa/fluent★ 125same name
- igmarin/rails-agent-skills★ 26same name
- nesnilnehc/ai-cortex★ 8same name
- omarismailb/product-wiki★ 8same name
- ROCm/rocprofiler-systems-skills★ 5same name
5 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- add-learningSkill
- bump-rfcSkill
- closeoutSkill
- create-github-issueSkill
- create-planSkill
- create-pr-descriptionSkill
- fixSkill
- flag-compiler-bugSkill
- fleet-auditSkill
- hello-worldSkill
- loopSkill
- orchestrate-parallel-workSkill
- ralph-loopSkill
- review-and-fixSkill
- review-code-smellsSkill
- review-docs-claimsSkill
- review-incan-source-qualitySkill
- review-orchestrateSkill
- review-rfcSkill
- review-rust-proseSkill
- review-scopeSkill
- reviewSkill
- review-test-styleSkill
- start-workSkill
- testSkill
- write-commit-messageSkill
- write-rfcSkill
- yeet-prSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
8
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
- Distinctive: line 30
Write a slice report at:
- Very specific: line 34
Do not write to the canonical .agents/state/review-report.md.
- Very specific: line 36
When the architecture report has findings, also copy the scope and findings into a lightweight central snapshot outside individual repo …
- Distinctive: line 47
Use a deterministic, descriptive filename when possible:
- Distinctive: line 53
Do not create a snapshot for clean reviews.
- Very specific: line 54
Treat FINDINGS_ROOT as an append-only central corpus for local review work: create new snapshot files, but do not delete, overwrite, prune, …
- Distinctive: line 60
Check the repo’s layering rules and canonical-source-of-truth expectations.
- Distinctive: line 66
Check whether behavior can diverge across local source, imported source, facade reexports, package consumers, test batches, dependency …
- Distinctive: line 72
All three are valid findings.
- Distinctive: line 96
If there are no findings, say so explicitly.
- Distinctive: line 100
Only write this file when findings are present.
“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
Review Architecture — Incan Compiler
Purpose
/review-architecture is a cross-file report-only reviewer for subsystem architecture.
Own:
- wrong-layer implementation
- dependency direction and crate-boundary mistakes
- duplicated policy across layers
- hardcoded behavior that should extend canonical registries
- compiler/runtime semantic drift
- split-brain decision surfaces where local/imported/reexported/package/test/vocab/generated-Rust paths can make different decisions for the same semantic concept
Do not own:
- local prose quality
- docs truthfulness unless it reveals architecture drift
- test style
- final branch-clean judgment
Output artifacts
Write a slice report at:
.agents/state/review-report.architecture.md
Do not write to the canonical .agents/state/review-report.md.
When the architecture report has findings, also copy the scope and findings into a lightweight central snapshot outside individual repo worktrees under FINDINGS_ROOT. Resolve it once per review and record the absolute path in the slice report:
COMMON_GIT_DIR="$(git rev-parse --path-format=absolute --git-common-dir)"
WORKSPACE_ROOT="$(dirname "$(dirname "$COMMON_GIT_DIR")")"
FINDINGS_ROOT="${INCAN_REVIEW_FINDINGS_ROOT:-$WORKSPACE_ROOT/.incan-review-findings}"
mkdir -p "$FINDINGS_ROOT"git-common-dir keeps the default stable when the review runs in a linked worktree. Set INCAN_REVIEW_FINDINGS_ROOT to use a different shared corpus location.
Use a deterministic, descriptive filename when possible:
YYYY-MM-DD-pr-<number>-architecture-<slug>.mdYYYY-MM-DD-branch-<branch-slug>-architecture.mdYYYY-MM-DD-review-architecture.mdwhen no PR or branch context is known
Do not create a snapshot for clean reviews. The snapshot is raw corpus for later analysis, not canonical guidance.
Treat FINDINGS_ROOT as an append-only central corpus for local review work: create new snapshot files, but do not delete, overwrite, prune, or "clean up" existing snapshots unless the user explicitly asks for that exact maintenance.
Snapshot content is evidence, not a fix log. Preserve the original finding blocks verbatim, including severity, category, file path, line reference, and explanatory text. If the finding is fixed before the snapshot is written, keep the original finding as observed and add a separate Resolution note after it; do not replace the evidence with a resolved checklist item or a summary of the fix.
Workflow
- Review touched code by subsystem, not merely by file.
- Check the repo’s layering rules and canonical-source-of-truth expectations.
- Flag:
- logic in the wrong crate/layer
- duplicated semantics that should live in shared registries/helpers
- hidden policy drift between compiler/runtime/tooling layers
- For any touched compiler, tooling, package, vocab, or metadata path, ask where the canonical source of truth is for callable identity, defaults, ownership/coercion, union wrapper identity, Rust metadata, dependency ownership, and vocab helper-call behavior. If two paths decide the same concept separately, file an architecture finding unless the duplication is explicitly documented and covered by tests.
- Check whether behavior can diverge across local source, imported source, facade reexports, package consumers, test batches, dependency vocab, formatter parsing, generated Rust, or downstream acceptance lanes. Same-module success does not clear an architectural risk when another boundary can observe the behavior differently.
- Attach findings to files, but explain the cross-file architectural reason.
- Architectural review may legitimately produce either:
- concrete bugs,
- maintainability warnings,
- or design tensions. All three are valid findings. Classify them so downstream fixers know how to treat them, but do not suppress them.
- If the report contains findings, create
FINDINGS_ROOTif needed and write a new snapshot containing only the review source metadata, Scope, and Findings sections. Copy the finding blocks verbatim from.agents/state/review-report.architecture.md; do not generalize them into policy or rewrite them as fix summaries. Preserve exact file:line evidence when the report has it; if a finding is only file-level, make that explicit in the finding text. Do not overwrite an existing snapshot path; add a suffix if needed.
Slice report shape
# Review Slice Report
- role: architecture
- worker: <agent-id or stable label>
- status: in_progress | clean | blocked
## Scope
- reviewed subsystems:
- ...
## Findings
- [ ] warning | design-tension | wrong layer | loaves/toolchain/incan-cli/src/commands/lifecycle.rs:210
Resolution policy duplicates env semantics that should stay in `loaves/oven/oven_model/src/project_lifecycle/**`.
## Reviewed Clean Surfaces
- <optional, only for risky or disputed clean calls>If there are no findings, say so explicitly.
Findings snapshot shape
Only write this file when findings are present.
# Architecture Findings Snapshot
- source: PR #<number> / <branch-or-context>
- date: YYYY-MM-DD
- reviewer: review-architecture
## Scope
- reviewed subsystems:
- ...
## Findings
- [ ] warning | design-tension | wrong layer | loaves/toolchain/incan-cli/src/commands/lifecycle.rs:210
Resolution policy duplicates env semantics that should stay in `loaves/oven/oven_model/src/project_lifecycle/**`.
## Resolution
- <optional, only if this snapshot is written after a fix loop>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.

