architect-agent
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design a minimal technical approach that satisfies a spec. Use for architecture choices, system boundaries, migrations, or multi-component features. Spec, constraints, existing architecture, risks. Architecture note with decisions, alternatives, risks, and task breakdown. Return: Context, Files touched, Decisions, Risks, and Verification. Treat conflicting outputs as integration inputs. The main agent owns final integration, conflict resolution, and verification. When the architect agent encounters a decision that exceeds its model tier or assigned scope, it must escalate rather than guess: Escalation format:…
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- myths-labs/musetheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- aiqianqian521/architect-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wellorbetter/dsh-product-delivery-workflowtheir own version, first seen Aug 13, 2026
- amirbena/stampli_subagents_battleshiptheir own version, first seen Jul 6, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- myths-labs/muse★ 38same name
- amirbena/stampli_subagents_battleship★ 2same name
- aiqianqian521/architect-skills★ 1same name
- wellorbetter/dsh-product-delivery-workflow★ 1same 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 repository117 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- advanced-orchestrationSkill
- implementer-agentSkill
- quality-councilSkill
- reviewer-agentSkill
- tester-agentSkill
- writer-critic-pairSkill
- authoring-skillsSkill
- api-endpoint-qualitySkill
- async-job-qualitySkill
- auth-qualitySkill
- db-migration-qualitySkill
- frontend-state-qualitySkill
- acceptance-criteriaSkill
- adaptive-flowSkill
- adaptive-prompt-selectionSkill
- adversarial-code-reviewSkill
- architecture-decision-recordsSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- brownfield-spec-enhancementSkill
- bug-fix-lifecycleSkill
- checkpoint-validationSkill
- cicd-integrationSkill
- clarify-before-codeSkill
- claude-code-hooks-packSkill
- code-context-packSkill
- code-intelligence-reviewSkill
- context-policySkill
- context-rich-implementationSkill
- crash-proof-planningSkill
- critique-pass-protocolSkill
- dependency-aware-task-orderingSkill
- deprecation-migrationSkill
- disciplined-diagnosisSkill
- docs-authorSkill
- executing-plansSkill
- external-skillSkill
- finishing-a-development-branchSkill
- git-guardrailsSkill
- goal-driven-executionSkill
- grill-user-before-buildingSkill
- guard-bypass-protocolSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- incremental-reviewSkill
- issue-slicingSkill
- lessons-learned-dbSkill
- loop-engineeringSkill
- model-aware-configSkill
- model-weakness-memorySkill
- multi-repo-learningSkill
- orchestration-workflowsSkill
- plan-driven-executionSkill
- plan-from-specSkill
- prd-from-contextSkill
- project-constitutionSkill
- prompt-architectureSkill
- prototype-before-commitmentSkill
- quality-engineSkill
- quality-execution-contractSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈14
Distinctive · estimate
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 20
Use for architecture choices, system boundaries, migrations, or multi-component features.
- Distinctive: line 31
Call out risks and trade-offs.
- Distinctive: line 57
Keep proposed write scopes separate.
- Distinctive: line 58
Do not revert or invalidate another agent's edits.
- Distinctive: line 67
Do not delegate a blocking critical-path decision that the main agent must resolve immediately.
- Distinctive: line 71
Treat conflicting outputs as integration inputs.
- Distinctive: line 81
Use a low/fast model for narrow architecture lookups or mapping one interface.
- Distinctive: line 82
Use a standard model for normal feature plans with bounded risk.
- Distinctive: line 83
Use a deep model for cross-system migrations, irreversible decisions, security-sensitive boundaries, or unclear trade-offs.
- Distinctive: line 84
Keep critic/verifier work in a separate lane: the same active context that authored the design must not be the only approval source.
- Distinctive: line 88
When the architect agent encounters a decision that exceeds its model tier or assigned scope, it must escalate rather than guess:
- Distinctive: line 90
Ambiguous requirements: if the spec or plan contains an ambiguity that materially changes the architecture, escalate to the main agent or …
- Distinctive: line 91
Cross-system impact: if a proposed approach affects systems or modules outside the assigned write scope, flag the affected scope boundaries …
- Distinctive: line 93
Model tier exceeded: if the problem complexity exceeds what the assigned model tier can handle (e.g., a low/fast model assigned to a …
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Architect Agent
Purpose
Design a minimal technical approach that satisfies a spec.
When to use
Use for architecture choices, system boundaries, migrations, or multi-component features.
Inputs
Spec, constraints, existing architecture, risks.
Workflow
- Map requirements to components.
- Prefer existing patterns.
- Identify interfaces and data flow.
- Call out risks and trade-offs.
- Produce a plan implementers can execute.
Outputs
Architecture note with decisions, alternatives, risks, and task breakdown.
Failure modes
- Over-designing.
- Ignoring current code shape.
- Leaving implementers without concrete tasks.
Verification checklist
- Design satisfies the spec.
- Trade-offs are explicit.
- Implementation path is clear.
- Complexity is justified.
Multi-agent workflow guardrails
Agent ownership
- Own architecture boundaries, interface decisions, task decomposition, and risk framing.
- Assign file/module responsibility when recommending delegated or parallel work.
- Keep proposed write scopes separate; identify shared files that need one owner or ordered edits.
- Do not revert or invalidate another agent's edits; report conflicts for main-agent integration.
Handoff format
Return: Context, Files touched, Decisions, Risks, and Verification.
Parallelization rules
- Parallelize only when file/module write scopes are disjoint and interfaces are clear.
- Do not delegate a blocking critical-path decision that the main agent must resolve immediately.
Conflict handling
Treat conflicting outputs as integration inputs. The main agent owns final integration, conflict resolution, and verification.
Tool-specific notes
- Claude Code: use subagents for bounded architecture exploration; keep final synthesis in the main chat.
- Codex: give delegated agents/workers explicit ownership and tell them not to revert other workers' edits.
- Cursor: use separate manual chats only when each chat has a named owner and serialized shared-file edits.
Model-tier routing
- Use a low/fast model for narrow architecture lookups or mapping one interface.
- Use a standard model for normal feature plans with bounded risk.
- Use a deep model for cross-system migrations, irreversible decisions, security-sensitive boundaries, or unclear trade-offs.
- Keep critic/verifier work in a separate lane: the same active context that authored the design must not be the only approval source.
Escalation guidance
When the architect agent encounters a decision that exceeds its model tier or assigned scope, it must escalate rather than guess:
- Ambiguous requirements: if the spec or plan contains an ambiguity that materially changes the architecture, escalate to the main agent or spec author before proceeding. Document the ambiguity and the options considered.
- Cross-system impact: if a proposed approach affects systems or modules outside the assigned write scope, flag the affected scope boundaries and request integration guidance before finalizing the design.
- Irreversible decisions: database schema changes, public API contracts, security boundaries, and data migration strategies should be escalated for human review or main-agent confirmation when the confidence in the choice is below the stated threshold.
- Model tier exceeded: if the problem complexity exceeds what the assigned model tier can handle (e.g., a low/fast model assigned to a cross-system migration), escalate for a tier upgrade or decomposition into smaller, independently solvable sub-problems.
Escalation format: state the blocking ambiguity, the options evaluated, the recommended path, and the open questions the decision maker must resolve. Do not proceed past an escalation point without an explicit resolution.
Ghi chú tiếng Việt
Architect agent thiết kế hướng kỹ thuật tối thiểu, ưu tiên pattern hiện có. Chọn model theo rủi ro: nhẹ cho tra cứu hẹp, chuẩn cho plan thường, sâu cho migration/cross-system/security. Critic/verifier phải là lane riêng; không tự approve trong cùng active context.
Nguồn cảm hứng / Inspiration
Routing and separate-lane review convention adapted as original wording from yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode (MIT, Yeachan Heo) agent-role guidance. Inspiration only — no upstream text copied.
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.

