agentleFS
dannys-code-cornerdannys-code-corner/incan/.agents/skills/review-architecture/SKILL.md

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

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.
  • worldbankSkill

    review-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

  • navjyotnishantSkill

    review-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

  • SentrySkill

    write-tests

    Write tests following project conventions. Use when adding new tests or modifying existing ones.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write a slice report at:

    line 30
  2. Very specific:

    Do not write to the canonical .agents/state/review-report.md.

    line 34
  3. Very specific:

    When the architecture report has findings, also copy the scope and findings into a lightweight central snapshot outside individual repo …

    line 36
  4. Distinctive:

    Use a deterministic, descriptive filename when possible:

    line 47
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not create a snapshot for clean reviews.

    line 53
  6. Very specific:

    Treat FINDINGS_ROOT as an append-only central corpus for local review work: create new snapshot files, but do not delete, overwrite, prune, …

    line 54
  7. Distinctive:

    Check the repo’s layering rules and canonical-source-of-truth expectations.

    line 60
  8. Distinctive:

    Check whether behavior can diverge across local source, imported source, facade reexports, package consumers, test batches, dependency …

    line 66
  9. Distinctive:

    All three are valid findings.

    line 72
  10. Distinctive:

    If there are no findings, say so explicitly.

    line 96
  11. Distinctive:

    Only write this file when findings are present.

    line 100

“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.

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

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>.md
  • YYYY-MM-DD-branch-<branch-slug>-architecture.md
  • YYYY-MM-DD-review-architecture.md when 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

  1. Review touched code by subsystem, not merely by file.
  2. Check the repo’s layering rules and canonical-source-of-truth expectations.
  3. Flag:
    • logic in the wrong crate/layer
    • duplicated semantics that should live in shared registries/helpers
    • hidden policy drift between compiler/runtime/tooling layers
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Attach findings to files, but explain the cross-file architectural reason.
  7. 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.
  8. If the report contains findings, create FINDINGS_ROOT if 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>

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.