architecture-review
Skill4 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when asked to review a repository's architecture, check whether code follows documented layer or service boundaries, audit package coupling, or test ADR and AGENTS.md compliance. Garuda indexes the code into a call and import graph, extracts the rules written in ADRs, specs and agent instruction files, and evaluates them with declarative YAML policies. Every finding cites the file and line behind it, labels whether the match was exact or only keyword-based, and lists contradictions between documented intent and actual code. It reports verified facts only, never guesses, and separates confirmed violations from advisory observations so reviewers can trust what they read. Read-only by default.
82 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Sequela02/canastatheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- OmarAlex24/audit-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- chuanglibs/Claude-Code-Game-Studios-Codextheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studiostheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- kinhluan/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Smaui94/ClaudeSkillCollectiontheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use create-stories, story-done and 10 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.
lilangMaxSkillcreate-stories
Break a single epic into implementable story files. Reads the epic, its GDD, governing ADRs, and control manifest. Each story embeds its GDD requirement TR-ID, ADR guidance, acceptance criteria, story type, and test evidence path. Run after /create-epics for each epic.
Also in 11 projects that use this
lilangMaxSkillstory-done
End-of-story completion review. Reads the story file, verifies each acceptance criterion against the implementation, checks for GDD/ADR deviations, prompts code review, updates story status to Complete, and surfaces the next ready story from the sprint.
Also in 11 projects that use this
- +10 more from lilangMax
Other versions82 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 82
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 39ksame name
- langwatch/langwatch★ 5ksame name
- ghuntley/loom★ 1.7ksame name
- microsoft/hve-core★ 1.6ksame name
- DataDog/dd-trace-js★ 840same name
- decebals/claude-code-java★ 763same name
- borgbase/vykar★ 722same name
- appdevforall/CodeOnTheGo★ 586same name
- getsentry/warden★ 424same name
- owainlewis/blueprint★ 423same name
72 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/garuda-talon.mdcCursor rule
- change-impactSkill
- evidence-verificationSkill
- post-edit-verificationSkill
- pre-edit-governanceSkill
- violation-repairSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 74 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 37
Epistemic States: Always distinguish SUPPORTED (backed by compiler/AST + runtime evidence where required), UNVERIFIED (statically …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 74 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
01 — Garuda Architecture Review
Reviews actual repository architecture against documented ADRs, design specs, and declarative YAML policies with file-and-line AST evidence.
1. Purpose & Triggers
Invoke this skill when the user or coding workflow asks:
- "Review this codebase's architecture"
- "Are we following our service or layer boundaries?"
- "Audit package coupling and ADR compliance"
2. Required Context
workspace: Target Garuda workspace name (default:"default").repo_dir: Repository root path (default:".").diff/target: Git revision range (e.g."HEAD") or symbol/package name.
3. Ordered MCP Workflow
garuda.summary— Retrieve workspace entity, relationship, package, and epistemic verification counts.garuda.docs_graph— Inspect the 4-tier Document -> Rule -> Policy -> Code lineage graph and checkmatch_method(ast_exactvspackage_or_keyword_match).garuda.criticality_tiers— Rank packages acrossHIGH_SEVERE,MEDIUM, andLOWblast-radius tiers.garuda.contradictions— Surface any active static-vs-ADR or runtime-vs-static contradictions.garuda.policy_evaluate— Run all 9 graph-native YAML policy predicates in dry-run mode.
CLI Fallback (when MCP stdio is not attached):
garuda summary && garuda check . --policy policies --json4. Decision & Epistemic Rules
- Epistemic States: Always distinguish
SUPPORTED(backed by compiler/AST + runtime evidence where required),UNVERIFIED(statically extracted, awaiting runtime trace), andCONTRADICTED(violates ADR, policy, or static boundary). - Governance Verdicts:
ALLOW(proceed),WARN(proceed with note),REVIEW(requires human architectural review),BLOCK(halt and remediate net-new violation),INCONCLUSIVE(0 entities matched policy scope; never treat as vacuousALLOW).
5. Output Contract
Format every report using this six-part structure:
Finding -> Evidence (file:line & match_method) -> Affected Components (callers & tier) -> Policy / ADR -> Confidence / Status -> Recommended Action
6. Safety & Limitations
- Read-Only by Default: Public installations run with
GARUDA_MCP_READ_ONLY=true. Never invoke mutating tools (garuda.approve_base_rulebook,garuda.decide_logic_variant,garuda.reconcile_data_audit) without explicit human authorization (GARUDA_MCP_APPROVER). - Scope Qualification: RFC 6962 Merkle proofs (
H_leaf = SHA256(0x00 || data)) establish tamper-evident integrity and inclusion of recorded governance evaluations; they do not replace unit, integration, or dynamic security testing.
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.

