| 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 |
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.
This command is informed by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
- Run the
/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."
- The domain language in
CONTEXT.md gives names to good seams; ADRs in docs/adr/ record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
Process
1. Explore
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:
- 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?
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.
2. Present candidates as an HTML report
Write a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from $TMPDIR, falling back to /tmp (or %TEMP% on Windows), and write to <tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — xdg-open <path> on Linux, open <path> on macOS, start <path> on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.
The report must be reliable in mainland China networks:
- Do not use Tailwind's runtime CDN (
cdn.tailwindcss.com) or other foreign styling CDNs. Inline the CSS needed by the report, even if the class names are Tailwind-like.
- Use Simplified Chinese for all visible report prose by default, unless the user explicitly asks for another language. Keep code identifiers, file paths, package names, and architecture vocabulary terms readable; translate surrounding explanation.
- Mermaid is optional and must use a China-accessible CDN first (
https://cdn.bootcdn.net/ajax/libs/mermaid/<version>/mermaid.min.js) with an npm mirror fallback (https://registry.npmmirror.com/mermaid/<version>/files/dist/mermaid.min.js). If Mermaid might not load, make the report still readable with hand-built diagrams or clear fallback content.
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:
- 文件 — which files/modules are involved
- 问题 — why the current architecture is causing friction
- 方案 — plain description of what would change
- 收益 — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
- 当前 / 深化后 diagram — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
- 推荐强度 — one of
强烈推荐, 值得探索, 推测性, rendered as a badge
End the report with a 首要建议 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 in Chinese by default: "你想先深入哪一个？"
3. Grilling loop
Once the user picks a candidate, run the /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 /domain-modeling skill to keep the domain model current as you go:
- Naming a deepened module after a concept not in
CONTEXT.md? Add the term to CONTEXT.md. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
- Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation? Update
CONTEXT.md right there.
- User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason? Offer an ADR, framed as: "Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?" Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones.
- Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module? Run the
/codebase-design skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.
