improve-codebase-architecture

name	improve-codebase-architecture
description	Find architecture-deepening refactor opportunities grounded in vault docs and code evidence. Use when the user asks to improve codebase architecture, module boundaries, cohesion, or AI navigability.
user-invocable	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.

Use the project's domain model. Vault domain docs give names to good seams; vault decision docs record decisions that should not be re-litigated.

Process

1. Explore

Search/read relevant blueprints vault domain and decision artifacts for the area you're touching first. If no relevant vault docs exist, proceed silently.

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

Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. 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 also in how tests would improve

Use vault domain vocabulary for the domain, and LANGUAGE.md vocabulary for the architecture. If a vault domain doc defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."

Decision conflicts: if a candidate contradicts an existing vault decision artifact, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the decision. Mark it clearly (e.g. "contradicts [[event-sourced-orders]] — but worth reopening because…"). Don't list every theoretical refactor a decision forbids.

Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"

3. 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.

Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize:

• Naming a deepened module after an undocumented domain concept? Create or update the relevant vault domain doc — same discipline as $question (see VAULT-DOMAIN-DOC-FORMAT.md). Create the vault doc lazily only when there is a resolved term to record.
• Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation? Update the relevant vault domain doc right there.
• User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason? Offer a vault decision doc, framed as: "Want me to record this as a decision doc 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. See VAULT-DECISION-DOC-FORMAT.md.
• Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module? See INTERFACE-DESIGN.md.

4. Follow-up tasks

If the user asks for executable follow-up work, create persisted tasks with task_write; do not add planning files to the repo or vault unless explicitly asked.