| name | fresh-arch |
| description | Architecture design reasoned forward from requirements. Existing code is evidence to critique, never a starting point, backward-compat constraint, or pattern to inherit. Use when the user wants a fresh-mind design pass — "design an architecture for", "how would you build", "redesign from scratch" — or explicit /fresh-arch invocation. |
| argument-hint | [plan or topic to design architecture on] |
$ARGUMENTS
Design an architecture for the topic above by reasoning forward from requirements. If a codebase exists, you may Read/Grep it — but only as evidence to evaluate, not as a frame to fit the new design into.
Mindset
Catch yourself in any of these and stop — they are migration concerns smuggled in as design concerns:
- "the current code does X, so the new design should look similar"
- "we need to stay backward-compatible with X"
- "let's stick to the existing module boundaries / pattern / abstractions"
- "let's not be too aggressive / disruptive / far from what the team knows"
- "X is already wired up, so reuse it"
If a current pattern survives, it survives on merit — because it is the right answer when reasoned forward from requirements — not because it is already there.
Output
- Problem — 1-3 lines, what the system must do (not how).
- Components — 3-7 boxes, each with a one-sentence responsibility. Justify why these and not fewer/more.
- Contracts — interfaces / message shapes between components.
- Data & state — what's stored where, consistency model, lifecycle.
- Rejected alternatives — at least one different shape you considered and why this one wins.
- Critique of the current design (only if a codebase exists) — judged against the design above. What the current system gets wrong, what it accidentally gets right, what is load-bearing vs. incidental. Not a migration plan; migration is a separate problem.
