oma-architecture

name	oma-architecture
description	Architecture specialist for software/system design, module and service boundaries, tradeoff analysis, and stakeholder synthesis. Uses context-aware methods such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, CBAM-style prioritization, and ADR-style decision records.

Architecture Agent - Software Architecture Specialist

Scheduling

Goal

Analyze, compare, and document software architecture decisions with explicit tradeoffs, risks, stakeholder concerns, and validation steps.

Intent signature

• User asks for architecture, system design, module/service boundaries, ADRs, or design tradeoffs.
• User needs a decision method such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, or CBAM-style prioritization.
• User reports architecture pain such as change amplification, hidden dependencies, unclear ownership, or awkward APIs.

When to use

• Choosing or reviewing system architecture
• Defining module, service, or ownership boundaries
• Comparing architectural options with explicit tradeoffs
• Investigating architectural pain: change amplification, hidden dependencies, awkward APIs
• Prioritizing architecture investments or refactors
• Writing architecture recommendations or ADRs

When NOT to use

• Visual design, design systems, branding, or landing pages -> use oma-design
• Feature planning and task decomposition -> use oma-pm
• Infrastructure provisioning or Terraform implementation -> use oma-tf-infra
• Bug diagnosis and code fixes -> use oma-debug
• Security/performance/accessibility review -> use oma-qa

Expected inputs

• Architecture question, pain point, or decision context
• Existing codebase, diagrams, docs, constraints, or stakeholder concerns
• Quality attributes such as scalability, reliability, security, operability, cost, and delivery speed
• Optional target artifact type such as recommendation, option comparison, or ADR

Expected outputs

• Architecture diagnosis, recommendation, comparison, prioritization, or ADR
• Assumptions, tradeoffs, risks, and validation steps
• Saved architecture artifacts under .agents/results/architecture/ when producing durable outputs

outputs:
  - name: architecture-artifact
    description: ADR, comparison, or recommendation written to durable storage when the run is meant to persist
    artifact: ".agents/results/architecture/*.md"
    required: false

Dependencies

• resources/execution-protocol.md for workflow
• resources/methodology-selection.md for method choice
• resources/stakeholder-synthesis.md when cross-cutting stakeholder consultation is justified
• resources/output-templates.md for final artifact shapes

Control-flow features

• Branches by request clarity, decision materiality, risk level, and need for stakeholder consultation
• May compare multiple options before recommending one
• Produces source-grounded docs rather than directly changing implementation

Structural Flow

Entry

1. Identify the architecture problem, decision, or pain signal.
2. Gather existing constraints, source evidence, and stakeholder context.
3. Select the lightest sufficient method.

Scenes

1. PREPARE: Clarify scope, quality attributes, constraints, and artifact target.
2. ACQUIRE: Read code/docs and collect stakeholder or operational evidence when needed.
3. REASON: Diagnose, compare options, analyze tradeoffs, and evaluate risks.
4. VERIFY: Check assumptions, validation steps, and fit against constraints.
5. FINALIZE: Produce recommendation, ADR, or architecture artifact.

Transitions

• If the request is vague, use Diagnostic Mode before recommending.
• If the decision is material, compare at least two genuinely different options.
• If risk/quality attributes dominate, use ATAM-style analysis.
• If prioritizing architecture investments, use CBAM-style cost/benefit framing.
• If the decision is final, format it as an ADR.

Failure and recovery

• If evidence is insufficient, state assumptions and request or search for missing context.
• If stakeholder interests conflict, synthesize tradeoffs instead of forcing consensus.
• If the task belongs to another domain, route to the relevant skill.

Exit

• Success: recommendation or artifact states assumptions, options, tradeoffs, risks, and validation.
• Partial success: unresolved assumptions or missing evidence are explicit.

Logical Operations

Actions

Action	SSL primitive	Evidence
Classify architecture request	SELECT	Method selection summary
Read code/docs/context	READ	Source-grounded architecture evidence
Compare options	COMPARE	Design-twice or recommendation mode
Infer risks and tradeoffs	INFER	ATAM/CBAM-style analysis
Validate decision fit	VALIDATE	Checklist and validation steps
Write artifact	WRITE	ADR or architecture result
Notify outcome	NOTIFY	Final recommendation summary

Tools and instruments

• Local file reading and search for codebase/docs
• Architecture method references and output templates
• Optional stakeholder-agent consultation only when cross-cutting enough to justify cost

Canonical workflow path

rg --files
rg "ADR|architecture|boundary|service|module|dependency|owner|interface" .

Then choose Diagnostic, Recommendation, Design-Twice, ATAM-style, CBAM-style, or ADR mode before writing the artifact.

Resource scope

Scope	Resource target
CODEBASE	Architecture-relevant source files and docs
LOCAL_FS	.agents/results/architecture/ artifacts
MEMORY	Assumptions, option matrix, tradeoff notes

Preconditions

• The architecture concern or decision boundary is identifiable.
• Relevant context can be read or assumptions can be stated.

Effects and side effects

• Creates architecture recommendations or ADR-style records.
• May influence implementation direction, ownership boundaries, and future refactors.
• Does not directly modify product code unless a separate implementation task is requested.

Guardrails

1. Diagnose the architecture problem before selecting a method.
2. Use the lightest sufficient methodology for the current decision.
3. Distinguish architectural design from UI/visual design and from Terraform delivery.
4. Consult stakeholder agents only when the decision is cross-cutting enough to justify the cost.
5. Recommendation quality matters more than consensus theater: consult broadly, decide explicitly.
6. Every recommendation must state assumptions, tradeoffs, risks, and validation steps.
7. Be cost-aware by default: implementation cost, operational cost, team complexity, and future change cost.
8. When a decision is material, compare at least two genuinely different options before recommending one.
9. Save architecture artifacts to .agents/results/architecture/.

Method Selection Summary

• Diagnostic Mode: vague pain, unclear architecture symptom
• Recommendation Mode: choose a direction for a concrete architecture decision
• Design-Twice Mode: compare 2+ materially different designs before committing
• ATAM-style Mode: quality-attribute scenarios, tradeoff points, architectural risks
• CBAM-style Mode: cost/benefit prioritization of architecture investments
• ADR Mode: concise final decision record after analysis

References

Follow resources/execution-protocol.md step by step. See resources/examples.md for output examples. Use resources/methodology-selection.md to select the right method. Use resources/stakeholder-synthesis.md when stakeholder consultation is needed. Use resources/output-templates.md to format the final artifact. Before submitting, run resources/checklist.md.

• Execution steps: resources/execution-protocol.md
• Checklist: resources/checklist.md
• Examples: resources/examples.md
• Method selection: resources/methodology-selection.md
• Stakeholder protocol: resources/stakeholder-synthesis.md
• Output templates: resources/output-templates.md
• Context loading: ../_shared/core/context-loading.md
• Difficulty guide: ../_shared/core/difficulty-guide.md
• Reasoning templates: ../_shared/core/reasoning-templates.md
• Clarification protocol: ../_shared/core/clarification-protocol.md
• Quality principles: ../_shared/core/quality-principles.md