| name | architecture-review |
| description | Review codebase architecture for deepening opportunities — modules where the
interface is nearly as complex as the implementation. Uses depth-as-leverage
model and the deletion test. Use when the codebase feels tangled, after a
burst of fast development, or when asked to review architecture.
|
Architecture Review — Find Deepening Opportunities
Surface architectural friction and propose refactors that turn shallow modules
into deep ones. A deep module has a small interface hiding a lot of behavior.
A shallow module has an interface nearly as complex as its implementation — the
abstraction isn't earning its keep.
Vocabulary
Use these terms exactly. Do not drift to synonyms.
| Term | Definition |
|---|
| Module | Anything with an interface + implementation: function, class, package, file, slice |
| Interface | Everything a caller must know: types, invariants, error modes, ordering constraints, config |
| Implementation | The code inside the module |
| Depth | Leverage at the interface. Deep = small interface, lots of behavior. Shallow = interface nearly as complex as implementation |
| Seam | Where the interface lives; the point where behavior can be altered without editing the module's internals |
| Adapter | A concrete thing that satisfies an interface at a seam |
| Leverage | What callers get from depth — how much behavior they can exercise per unit of interface they must learn |
| Locality | What maintainers get from depth — change, bugs, and knowledge concentrated in one place |
Do not use: "component" (too vague), "service" (implies network), "API" (overloaded), "boundary" (use "seam").
The Core Diagnostic: The Deletion Test
For any module you suspect is shallow, ask:
Would deleting this module concentrate complexity into a meaningful new
abstraction, or just move the same code somewhere else?
- If deleting it concentrates complexity into something better: the module was earning its keep. Leave it.
- If deleting it just relocates the same logic to callers: it was shallow. Candidate for deepening or removal.
Before Starting
- Read CLAUDE.md and any existing architecture docs, ADRs, or CONTEXT.md
- Walk the codebase organically — don't start with a checklist. Read the code. Note friction. Where do things feel tangled? Where does a simple change require touching many files?
- Apply the deletion test to modules that feel off
- Check dependency patterns — are there modules that everything depends on? Modules that depend on everything?
What to Look For
Shallow Module Symptoms
- Interface is a thin wrapper over the implementation (pass-through methods)
- Callers need to understand the implementation to use the interface correctly
- Changing the implementation always requires changing callers
- The module name describes HOW it works, not WHAT it does
Depth Opportunities
- Multiple callers doing the same multi-step sequence (logic wants to be pulled into a deeper module)
- Error handling scattered across callers instead of concentrated in one place
- Configuration or setup that every caller repeats
- Knowledge that's spread across files instead of concentrated
Dependency Classification
When proposing a deepened module, classify its dependencies:
| Dependency Type | Testing Approach |
|---|
| Pure computation (no I/O) | Test directly, no mocking needed |
| Local stand-in available (PGLite, in-memory FS, test DB) | Use the stand-in in tests |
| Network boundary | Define a port at the seam, inject transport as an adapter |
Output
Present findings as a numbered list of deepening opportunities, ranked by leverage (highest first).
For each opportunity:
### [N]. [Module or area name]
**Files:** `path/to/file.ts`, `path/to/other.ts`
**Problem:** [What's shallow and why — be specific]
**Deletion test:** [What happens if you delete it? Concentrates or relocates?]
**Proposed deepening:** [How to make the interface smaller or the behavior richer]
**Leverage gain:** [What callers or maintainers get from this change]
**Risk:** [What could go wrong, dependencies that might break]
**Recommendation strength:** Strong / Moderate / Worth discussing
After Presenting
Do NOT propose interfaces or start coding. Present the candidates and ask which
to explore. When the user picks one:
- Enter a grilling conversation about the interface design
- Walk the decision tree: What should the interface expose? What should it hide? What are the seams?
- If the deepening introduces a new domain concept, suggest adding it to CONTEXT.md
Only write code after the design conversation resolves.
When to Run This
- After a burst of fast, agent-assisted development (entropy accumulates)
- When a simple feature change requires touching 5+ files
- When onboarding someone new and they can't find where things live
- When the same bug pattern keeps appearing in different places
- Periodically (every few weeks) on active codebases
