kelgirechandrakant-cpukelgirechandrakant-cpu/vibe-coding-playbook/skills/architecture-review/SKILL.mdplan-review
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Architecture and engineering review protocol. Locks architecture, data flow, edge cases, and test plans before coding. Forces hidden assumptions into the open. Use before building new features or making structural changes.
43 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- yubuhui/opencode-self-evolvingtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- bas1l/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
- duncanmorris/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- vzhukovs/podman-desktop-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Esi-Abolfazl/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- kopp0510/claude-ddtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use plan-execute, pr-comment and 6 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.
longranger2Skillplan-execute
Use when the user says "/plan-execute", "plan execute", "implement plan", or "execute plan" and provides a finalized plan file path to carry out. Claude orchestrates, Codex writes code, Claude reviews, and Codex fixes issues until the quality bar is met.
Also in 3 projects that use this
BenjaminGSkillpr-comment
This skill should be used when reviewing someone else's pull request and you want drafted review comments posted to GitHub — either gate / gate-wf findings (tier-marked) or pr-challenge's reviewer questions (unmarked) — each drafted through humanizer and posted as a standalone inline comment at its file:line, after one confirmation. Triggers on "post these as review comments", "comment the gate findings on the PR", "draft and post my review", "leave review comments", after a gate / gate-wf run or a pr-challenge pass on a PR you're reviewing.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillspec-review
Independent, multi-model review of a design or spec **before** any code is written, for the microsoft/winappcli repo. Activate when a contributor asks to "review this spec", "review my design", "review this design doc", "validate this approach", "should we build this", "spec review", "design review", or "feature review". Fans out parallel sub-agents — each doing its OWN research against the real codebase and ecosystem rather than trusting the spec — covering necessity & scope, approach & alternatives, feasibility vs reality, risks & unknowns, DX & user impact, and a different-model-family cross-check. Emits a decision-oriented recommendation (proceed / proceed-with-changes / reconsider) to stdout. This is the PRE-CODE companion to the pr-review skill (which reviews code already written); use spec-review at the design/spec stage, not on an implemented diff. Does NOT write code or edit the spec.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AWSSkillretro
Conduct a retrospective on a coding session.
Also in 5 projects that use this
BlockSkillplan
Draft a TDD, PRD, or lightweight plan in the conversation without committing it.
Also in 5 projects that use this
asterkinSkilladr
Create Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following project standards. Guides template usage, process, and best practices for documenting architecturally significant decisions.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions43 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 43
- ahmadrosid/nakama★ 786same name
- igerber/diff-diff★ 413same name
- Mathews-Tom/armory★ 340same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-dev-flow★ 192same name
- sd0xdev/sd0x-harness★ 192same name
- YougLin-dev/Aha-Loop★ 181same name
- longranger2/claude-gpt-workflow★ 76same name
- ConnorGriffin/skills★ 21same name
- liewcf/agent-skills★ 16same name
- kopp0510/claude-dd★ 12same name
33 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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- llms-full.txtllms.txt
- llms.txtllms.txt
- anti-slop-uiSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- investigateSkill
- linkedin-postSkill
- perf-auditSkill
- shipSkill
- office-hoursSkill
- security-auditSkill
- test-shieldSkill
- design-reviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 35 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
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 8
Before writing code for a new feature, you must review the user's plan and lock down the architecture.
- Distinctive: line 23
Verify that the proposed solution aligns with the existing stack.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 35 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
Plan Review Protocol
Before writing code for a new feature, you must review the user's plan and lock down the architecture.
1. Trace the Data Flow
Analyze how data moves through the proposed feature:
- Where does the data originate?
- How is it mutated?
- Where is it stored?
2. Identify Edge Cases
List at least 3 failure states for the proposed architecture:
- What happens if the network fails midway?
- What if the user has stale data in their cache?
- What if the database rejects the schema?
3. Technology Alignment
Verify that the proposed solution aligns with the existing stack. If the user proposes adding a new dependency (e.g., Redux, Lodash), push back and ask if native APIs (Context, standard JS) can handle it.
4. Output the Architecture Lock
Produce a markdown block summarizing the final architecture, required files, and exactly what is Out of Scope for this PR. Request explicit approval before proceeding to implementation.
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.