Cognitive Architecture Review

A system that demos well tells you almost nothing. The demo runs on the happy path, with the founder steering, before any of the load lands. The question that decides whether you have a company is quieter: strip the AI out, and does anything of value remain? Most "AI products" survive the removal, which is the precise reason they get cloned and never command an AI-native price. This skill audits what you already built, names the pillar holding it up by luck, and finds the loop that should make it yours.

The method

Score the four pillars, find the missing loop, then run the Remove-the-AI test on the whole design. Full rubric, worked audit, and anti-patterns: references/review-rubric.md.

Step 1: Score each pillar against the rubric

Walk the system and grade each pillar 0 to 3 (absent, bolted-on, present, load-bearing). Use the red-flag column in the rubric to catch the pillar that is present on the slide and absent in the code.

Step 2: Find the closed loop, or prove there is not one

Point to the single line where a customer's use this week makes the product measurably better next month. Trace it: use to capture to data to a sharper product. If you cannot draw that return arrow, record it as the headline finding. No loop means no flywheel means no moat, however good the pillars.

Step 3: Run the Remove-the-AI test on the whole design

Mentally delete every model call. If the product still does its core job, you graded a feature, not a company. Write the one-sentence verdict: AI-native (collapses without intelligence) or wrapper (survives removal). This verdict outranks any individual pillar score.

Step 4: Prioritise the fixes by severity against effort

Place each finding on the grid in the rubric. Fix the load-bearing pillar with the worst score first. A missing closed loop is always severity-high, whatever it costs to build.

Output

• A filled four-pillar scorecard with a 0 to 3 grade and evidence for each pillar.
• The single weakest link named, plus the closed-loop diagnostic (present, weak, or absent).
• A severity-by-effort fix list, top item first, and a one-line AI-native or wrapper verdict.
• Next: feed the fix list into agentic-build-loop, or back to architect-before-code if a pillar is absent.

Constraints

• Do not grade the pitch deck. Grade what the code and the data actually do; a pillar on a slide is a zero.
• The God Agent is a failure, not a feature. One agent doing Brain, Memory, Planning, and Tools at once scores low on every pillar; say so.
• Apply the Remove-the-AI test last and let it overrule a flattering pillar average. A high-scoring wrapper is still a wrapper.
• Stay theme-agnostic; the founder supplies the domain, you supply the rigour.

Dictionary

the Remove-the-AI test · data flywheel · AI-native vs wrapper · the God Agent

Copy-paste version

For non-coders: paste into any chatbot or no-code builder (Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Lovable, Bolt, v0).

Act as my lead systems engineer running an architecture audit. Do not flatter the design.
My product: [ONE_LINER]. Domain: [DOMAIN]. Here is how it works today: [DESCRIBE_THE_SYSTEM].

Audit it against the four pillars. Grade each 0 to 3 (absent, bolted-on, present, load-bearing)
and quote my own description as evidence:
1. Brain: which model reasons, and what cheaper fallback covers bulk or failure?
2. Memory: what does the system know that the model does not, and does it persist between sessions?
3. Planning: how does it decide its moves, in order, before acting, and where does a human approve?
4. Tools: which actions reach the world, and what is the worst case if each misfires?

Then: trace the ONE closed loop where a customer's use this week makes the product better next month.
If you cannot find it, tell me I have a wrapper and say so as the headline finding.

CONSTRAINTS: grade the system as described, not as I wish it were; a pillar I only assert is a zero.
Flag the God Agent if one component does everything. Run the Remove-the-AI test last and let it
overrule a good average.

OUTPUT: the four-pillar scorecard with evidence; the single weakest link; the closed-loop verdict
(present/weak/absent); a fix list sorted by severity against effort; and one next action.