Skip to main content

ix-architecture

Analyze system design — structure, coupling, code smells, and high-risk hotspots. Purely graph-based, no code reads.

Ir a la instalación

Datos de origen

Repositorio
ix-infrastructure/ix-openclaw-plugin
Última actividad en el origen
4 de junio de 2026 a las 06:40
Idioma detectado de SKILL.md
inglés
Estrellas
1
Forks
0

Opciones de instalación

De forma predeterminada está seleccionado el prompt que primero revisa el origen. Puedes cambiar a un comando directo o descargar una copia local.

Revisa los archivos de origen

Lee SKILL.md y los archivos complementarios que muestra SkillsMP antes de decidir si quieres instalarlo.

Mostrando SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
ix-architecture
description
Analyze system design — structure, coupling, code smells, and high-risk hotspots. Purely graph-based, no code reads.
metadata
{"openclaw":{"requires":{"bins":"[Truncated]"}}}
Run `command -v ix` to verify ix is on PATH. Never use tilde paths (`~/...`) or absolute paths — always invoke `ix` directly via PATH. If not found, stop and say so — this skill requires a graph. ## Goal Answer: *how healthy is this system's design, where are the weak boundaries, and what should be improved?* Never reads source code — structural analysis only. ## Phase 1 — Structure (always) Run in parallel: ```bash timeout 60s ix subsystems --format llm timeout 60s ix subsystems --list --format llm ``` If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided, also run: ```bash timeout 60s ix subsystems $ARGUMENTS --explain timeout 60s ix subsystems $ARGUMENTS --format llm ``` Extract: - Region hierarchy (systems → subsystems → modules) - Cohesion scores per region (higher = more self-contained) - External coupling per region (lower = better) - `crosscut_score` > 0.1 → cross-cutting concern (design smell) - `confidence` < 0.6 → fuzzy boundary (uncertain region) ## Phase 2 — Smells ```bash timeout 60s ix smells --format llm ``` If `$ARGUMENTS` scopes to a path: ```bash timeout 60s ix smells --path $ARGUMENTS --format llm ``` Classify each finding: `orphan` / `god-module` / `weak-component`. ## Phase 3 — Hotspots (only if smells are found or coupling is high) Run only if Phase 1 or 2 revealed significant issues: ```bash timeout 60s ix rank --by dependents --kind class --top 10 --exclude-path test --format llm timeout 60s ix rank --by dependents --kind function --top 10 --exclude-path test --format llm ``` Correlate: are the most-depended-on entities also in poorly-bounded subsystems? These are the highest-risk components. ## Output ``` ## Architecture Analysis ### System Structure [Region hierarchy with file counts. Flag: low-confidence boundaries, high-coupling regions, cross-cutting modules.] ### Health Scores | Region | Cohesion | Ext. Coupling | Boundary Ratio | Flag | |--------|----------|---------------|----------------|------| | [name] | [0-1] | [0-1] | [ratio] | [⚠ if bad] | ### Code Smells **High severity:** - [smell type] in [file/module] — [why it matters] **Medium severity:** - ... ### Hotspots [Top components where structural debt + centrality combine — highest risk for changes] ### Improvement Areas 1. [specific issue] — [concrete suggestion] 2. ... ### What's healthy [Briefly note well-structured areas — not everything is a problem] ``` **Evidence:** All claims must cite graph data (cohesion scores, smell counts, rank positions). No speculative design advice without structural evidence.
Ver en GitHub