القائمة
Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | improve-codebase-architecture |
| description | Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
This command is informed by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
/mx:codebase-design skill for the architecture vocabulary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality) and its principles (the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary."CONTEXT.md gives names to good seams; ADRs in decisions/ record decisions this command should not re-litigate.Read the project's domain glossary (CONTEXT.md) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
Then use the Agent tool with subagent_type=Explore to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
Apply the deletion test to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.
Write a self-contained HTML file to the ~/tmp/architecture-review directory so nothing lands in the repo, falling back to /tmp, and write to <tmpdir>/architecture-review/<project/repo name>-<slug>-<timestamp>.html so each run gets a fresh, recognizable file. Open it for the user and tell them the absolute path.
The report uses Tailwind via CDN for layout and styling, and Mermaid via CDN for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a before/after visualisation. Be visual.
For each candidate, render a card with:
Strong, Worth exploring, Speculative, rendered as a badgeEnd the report with a Top recommendation section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the /codebase-design vocabulary for the architecture. If CONTEXT.md defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
ADR conflicts: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly in the card (e.g. a warning callout: "contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
See HTML-REPORT.md for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
Once the user picks a candidate, run the /mx:grilling skill to walk the design tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.
Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — run the /mx:domain-modelling skill to keep the domain model current as you go:
CONTEXT.md? Add the term to CONTEXT.md. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.CONTEXT.md right there./mx:codebase-design skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.Work a feature's ticket DAG in parallel — one orchestrator fans independent frontier tickets out to parallel worker agents and integrates them on the feature branch until the feature ships. Use when a ticketed feature has independent frontier tickets, the user says "dispatch" or wants tickets worked in parallel, or when another skill routes parallel frontier work here.
Which mx skill or flow fits the current situation — a router over the mx workflow.
Run commands in tmux whenever they run long or need eyes on them — anything expected to take more than ~30–60s (training runs, ML experiments, builds, servers), anything worth observing mid-run (progress logs, monitoring output), and anything interactive (sudo prompts, REPLs, wizards), locally or on a remote host. Always reach for this instead of a fire-and-forget Bash call in those cases — the human can attach and step in at any time.
Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published per the tracker conventions — ticket files with blocked-by edges, or native blocking links on a real tracker.
Review and update Claude Code's auto-approved command allowlist based on Bash commands that triggered permission prompts in recent sessions.
Turn the current conversation into a spec and publish it to the project issue tracker — no interview, just synthesis of what you've already discussed.