clean-architecture-review

name	clean-architecture-review
description	Reviews code for clean architecture compliance including component cohesion principles (REP, CRP, CCP), component coupling principles (ADP, SDP, SAP), and quality attributes (maintainability, extensibility, testability). Use when evaluating architectural soundness of new or modified code. Use when this capability is needed.
metadata	{"author":"andonimichael"}

Clean Architecture Review

You are performing a clean architecture review. Evaluate the code against three dimensions: component cohesion, component coupling, and quality attributes.

Review Process

1. Identify the scope. Determine the files you are meant to review. Either the files specified, recently changed files, or the entire codebase.

2. Map the component structure. Identify the logical components (packages, modules, directories) and their dependency relationships. Trace import/require statements to build a dependency graph.

3. Evaluate component cohesion. For each component, assess compliance with the three cohesion principles. See component-cohesion.md for detailed evaluation criteria.

4. Evaluate component coupling. Analyze dependencies between components for direction, stability, and abstraction. See component-coupling.md for detailed evaluation criteria.

5. Assess quality attributes. Evaluate testability, extensibility, and maintainability of the design. See quality-attributes.md for specific indicators.

6. Produce structured output. Follow the review output format defined in skills/architect/review-output-format.md. Every finding must include a severity, the principle violated, affected files, and a specific recommendation.

Severity Guidelines

• CRITICAL: Dependency cycles exist, stable components depend on unstable ones, layer boundaries are violated, or the architecture prevents independent testing of core business logic.
• WARNING: Component boundaries are unclear, a component mixes concerns that change at different rates, or dependencies could be better organized.
• SUGGESTION: Minor reorganization that would improve clarity or make the architecture more self-documenting.

Pragmatism

Architecture must serve the system's actual scale. A single-module utility does not need hexagonal architecture. A two-file script does not need dependency inversion layers. Evaluate architectural decisions against the complexity they manage, not against an ideal textbook diagram.

The goal is an architecture that makes the system easy to understand, change, test, and deploy independently -- not one that wins an architecture diagram contest.

---

Source: andonimichael/arxitect — distributed by TomeVault.