improve-codebase-architecture

name	improve-codebase-architecture
description	Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the project's architecture rules in .cursor/rules/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
disable-model-invocation	true

Improve Codebase Architecture

Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.

Glossary

Use these terms exactly in every suggestion. Consistent language is the point — don't drift into "component," "service," "API," or "boundary." Full definitions in LANGUAGE.md.

• Module — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, package, slice).
• Interface — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, invariants, error modes, ordering, config. Not just the type signature.
• Implementation — the code inside.
• Depth — leverage at the interface: a lot of behaviour behind a small interface. Deep = high leverage. Shallow = interface nearly as complex as the implementation.
• Seam — where an interface lives; a place behaviour can be altered without editing in place. (Use this, not "boundary.")
• Adapter — a concrete thing satisfying an interface at a seam.
• Leverage — what callers get from depth.
• Locality — what maintainers get from depth: change, bugs, knowledge concentrated in one place.

Key principles (see LANGUAGE.md for the full list):

• Deletion test: imagine deleting the module. If complexity vanishes, it was a pass-through. If complexity reappears across N callers, it was earning its keep.
• The interface is the test surface.
• One adapter = hypothetical seam. Two adapters = real seam.

Process

1. Gather Project Context

Read the project's architecture rules from .cursor/rules/ to understand:

• Project structure and layering conventions (DDD + Clean Architecture)
• Naming conventions and code style
• Domain modules and their responsibilities
• Layer-specific patterns (domain, usecase, adapter, repository, gateway, handler)

Key rules to read:

• 00-project-overview.mdc — architecture overview, domain modules, directory structure
• 01-code-style.mdc — naming, error handling, context passing
• 02-best-practices.mdc — general patterns
• Layer rules (10-domain-layer.mdc through 15-task-layer.mdc) — layer-specific constraints

Use these rules as the domain vocabulary when naming modules and describing seams.

2. Explore

Use the Task tool with subagent_type="explore" to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:

• Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
• Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
• Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no locality)?
• Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
• Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
• Where do the actual layer boundaries diverge from what .cursor/rules/ prescribes?

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.

3. Present candidates

Present findings using the Canvas skill (read .cursor/skills-cursor/canvas/SKILL.md). Create a .canvas.tsx file that renders an interactive architecture review report.

The report should include for each candidate:

• Files — which files/modules are involved
• Problem — why the current architecture is causing friction
• Solution — plain English description of what would change
• Benefits — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
• Before / After diagram — side-by-side, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
• Recommendation strength — one of Strong, Worth exploring, Speculative

End the report with a Top recommendation section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.

Use .cursor/rules/ vocabulary for the domain (e.g. "the Certificate usecase manager" not "the cert handler"), and LANGUAGE.md vocabulary for the architecture.

Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the report is presented, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"

4. Grilling loop

Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation. Walk the design tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.

Present design choices as structured lettered/numbered options in chat when appropriate.

Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:

• Naming a deepened module? Use vocabulary consistent with .cursor/rules/ conventions — PascalCase for structs/interfaces, snake_case for files.
• User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason? Suggest recording it in a comment or rule so future reviews don't re-suggest it.
• Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module? See INTERFACE-DESIGN.md.

5. Plan the refactor

Once the design is agreed, hand off to the writing-plans skill to create an implementation plan. The plan should:

• Follow the vertical-slice structure from writing-plans
• Respect the layer conventions in .cursor/rules/
• Include TDD steps with tests at the deepened module's interface
• Delete old shallow-module tests that the new interface subsumes

Diagram Patterns

When creating the Canvas report, use these visual patterns (as React components with Tailwind):

• Mermaid graph — for dependency/call flow diagrams
• Cross-section — stacked horizontal bands showing layers a call passes through
• Mass diagram — two rectangles per module (interface vs implementation area)
• Call-graph collapse — before: tree of calls; after: one deep module

See HTML-REPORT.md for detailed diagram pattern guidance.

Tone

Plain English, concise — but the architectural nouns and verbs come straight from LANGUAGE.md. Concision is not an excuse to drift.

Use exactly: module, interface, implementation, depth, deep, shallow, seam, adapter, leverage, locality.

Never substitute: component, service, unit (for module) · API, signature (for interface) · boundary (for seam) · layer, wrapper (for module, when you mean module).