architecture-advisor
Skill3 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Recommend and justify the architecture of a new project from the needs of the client. Technology-neutral, research first, no unlabeled guess. Use for questions on which stack, framework or architecture to choose.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- turkeryildirim/ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Resgrid/Coretheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- aws-solutions/konductortheir own version, first seen Sep 23, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit★ 808same name
- Resgrid/Core★ 238same name
- aws-solutions/konductor★ 11same name
- turkeryildirim/ai-skills★ 4same 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 repository25 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adrSkill
- api-contract-syncSkill
- ci-triageSkill
- compassSkill
- debugSkill
- delivery-digestSkill
- design-taste-skillsSkill
- grillSkill
- harness-improveSkill
- harness-loopSkill
- impact-analysisSkill
- native-mobile-skillsSkill
- plugin-authorSkill
- pr-flowSkill
- project-memorySkill
- remaining-workSkill
- reviewSkill
- slide-deckSkill
- spec-flowSkill
- task-flowSkill
- ui-conformanceSkill
- working-style-skillsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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 13
If Flutter, Go, serverless, a modular monolith or an event-driven design fits better, propose it and say why.
- Distinctive: line 21
Never present an Assumed or Unknown statement as Known.
- Distinctive: line 22
Ask before you guess about anything that changes the decision.
- Distinctive: line 24
Prefer a choice that is easy to reverse.
- Distinctive: line 36
Read each image or diagram that the user gives.
- Distinctive: line 50
Start with the recommendation and one line of justification.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 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
architecture-advisor
Requirements drive the technology. The technology never drives the requirements. Do not default to the stacks that compass has rules for. If Flutter, Go, serverless, a modular monolith or an event-driven design fits better, propose it and say why.
Principles
- Label each material statement:
- Known: the user stated it, or a cited source shows it.
- Assumed: an educated guess. Give its basis. Confirm it if it changes the decision.
- Unknown: an open question. Never present an Assumed or Unknown statement as Known.
- Ask before you guess about anything that changes the decision. Ask one question at a time. Do not ask what the material or a sensible default answers.
- Research current sources before you state a version, a limit, a price or a best practice. Cite the source and its date.
- Prefer a choice that is easy to reverse. Flag each choice that is hard to reverse: the data model, the core language, the primary datastore, a vendor lock-in.
Pipeline
Loop back when new facts arrive.
Intake. Write down these items:
- The functional scope.
- The quality needs: scale, latency, availability, security, compliance, data residency.
- The constraints: budget, team skills, timeline.
- The current systems of the client and the data shape.
Read each image or diagram that the user gives. Mark each entry Known, Assumed or Unknown.
- Clarify. Ask only about blocking unknowns. For the others, record a labeled guess in the assumptions register.
- Research. Use web search for current facts. Use the context7 MCP for library docs. Use
gh search reposandgh search codefor reference code. Use the MCP servers and docs of the project. Say which source you could not reach. - Architecturally significant requirements. Pick the quality attributes that shape the design. Give each a weight.
- Options. Write 2 or 3 different options, each with a concrete stack. At least one option must be outside the stacks that compass has rules for, unless the requirements rule it out. Say why.
- Score. Rate each option against the weighted requirements in a matrix. Show the matrix.
- Recommend. Give the rationale, traced to requirements. Give the main trade-offs, the runner-up and when it would win, and the risks.
- Diagrams. Write Mermaid diagrams in
{{DIAGRAMS_DIR}}: C4 context and container, one key sequence, the deployment view, and an ERD when data matters. Add an as-is diagram when the client has a current system. - Deliver. Write the decision as an ADR in
{{ADR_DIR}}. Use the skilladr. Put in it the options, the matrix, the risks, the assumptions register and the open questions. Give the open questions togrill. - On request, write a technical backlog. Use epics, stories and time-boxed spikes, with the riskiest unknowns first. Also list the technical meetings to request. For each meeting give the goal, the attendees, the inputs, the questions and the expected outputs. Write both in
{{PLANNING_DIR}}. - Validate. Each recommendation traces to a requirement. Each assumption has a way to confirm it. Each current-tech claim has a citation. At least one option from outside the compass stacks got a real review. The open questions are listed.
Output
Start with the recommendation and one line of justification. Then give the options and the matrix, the diagrams, the risks, the assumptions register and the open questions. End with the one most useful next action. Examples are the first meeting to request or the first spike to run.
Anti-patterns
- Recommending the stack that you know best, not the stack that the client needs.
- Stating versions, limits or prices from memory.
- Burying assumptions in prose, not in a register.
- Presenting one option as the only option.
- Resolving a blocking unknown with a silent guess.
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.

