agentleFS
Sign inStart free
ntaffziintaffzii/Skill-Agents/skills/engineering/architecture-review/SKILL.md

architecture-review

Skill4 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Architecture review skill for evaluating codebase design, module boundaries, coupling, test seams, domain language, and simplification opportunities. Use when the user asks to improve architecture, zoom out, reduce complexity, untangle code, or review a design.

78 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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.
  • lilangMaxSkill

    create-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

  • lilangMaxSkill

    story-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

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 70 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 9

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to reason about structure before proposing broad changes.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Read local docs, domain glossary, ADRs, and tests if present.

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Look for repeated conditionals, hidden coupling, unclear ownership, duplicated concepts, awkward test seams, and high-change files.

    line 17
  4. Distinctive:

    Use existing project language when available.

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer small boundary improvements over sweeping rewrites.

    line 25
  6. Distinctive:

    Avoid recommending refactors without a verification path.

    line 31
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not propose a rewrite unless incremental steps are impossible.

    line 51
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not introduce abstractions just because two blocks look similar.

    line 52
  9. Distinctive:

    Prefer deeper modules with simple interfaces over shallow layers that move complexity around.

    line 53

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 70 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

Architecture Review

Use this skill to reason about structure before proposing broad changes.

Workflow

  1. Map the system
    • Identify the relevant modules, entry points, data flow, and ownership boundaries.
    • Read local docs, domain glossary, ADRs, and tests if present.
  2. Locate design pressure
    • Look for repeated conditionals, hidden coupling, unclear ownership, duplicated concepts, awkward test seams, and high-change files.
    • Distinguish annoying code from code that blocks future work.
  3. Name the domain concepts
    • Use existing project language when available.
    • Flag mismatches where code names do not match business or product concepts.
  4. Propose changes
    • Prefer small boundary improvements over sweeping rewrites.
    • Give options when tradeoffs are meaningful.
    • Identify the first reversible step.
  5. Validate
    • Explain what tests or probes would prove the architecture change preserved behavior.
    • Avoid recommending refactors without a verification path.

Output Format

Current Shape
What the code is doing now.

Pressure Points
Specific issues with file references.

Recommended Move
The smallest valuable design improvement.

Validation
How to prove the change is safe.

Rules

  • Do not propose a rewrite unless incremental steps are impossible.
  • Do not introduce abstractions just because two blocks look similar.
  • Prefer deeper modules with simple interfaces over shallow layers that move complexity around.

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.

Check your setup, free