architecture-review

name	architecture-review
description	Review local code, diffs, modules, directories, or design changes for consequential architecture issues when the user explicitly asks for architecture review, when an upstream review routes architecture-sensitive scope here, or when the current review/evaluation request is primarily architectural.

Provide an architecture review for the given local target.

Use this skill after .agents/skills/codereview/SKILL.md routes the task here. Read ../references/triggering-and-signal.md first.

Do not use this skill for ordinary PR/MR bug review when architecture is not the main or clearly material question. Use ../prmr-codereview/SKILL.md for that flow. Do not use this skill for routine implementation self-checks or casual cleanup opinions.

Agent assumptions (applies to all agents and subagents):

• All tools are functional and will work without error. Do not test tools or make exploratory calls. Make sure this is clear to every subagent that is launched.
• Only call a tool if it is required to complete the task. Every tool call should have a clear purpose.
• Choose subagents by capability tier rather than vendor-specific model names: use a lightweight reviewer for scope discovery, a general reviewer for structural summaries, and the strongest available reviewer for issue finding or validation.
• This workflow requires subagents. Do not silently collapse it into a single-agent review. If delegation is unavailable or not yet authorized, stop and ask for explicit delegation permission before proceeding.
• Keep the active architecture-review wave bounded. Close completed structural-summary, reviewer, and validator agents as soon as their outputs have been incorporated before launching later phases.
• The reviewer counts and validation pass described below are mandatory for this workflow. Do not silently launch fewer subagents or merge distinct reviewer roles into one agent.

To do this, follow these steps precisely:

1. Determine the review target and scope.

   • Identify whether the review target is a local directory, file set, git diff, branch diff, or design-oriented change.
   • Identify the paths that actually belong to the requested review scope.
   • If the request is ambiguous, choose the smallest reasonable scope that satisfies the request.

2. Gather only the in-scope guidance.

   • Load this repository's root AGENTS.md file, if it exists.
   • Load any directory-scoped AGENTS.md files that apply to the target.
   • Load the in-scope .agents/instructions/, .agents/references/, and .agents/skills/ files referenced by those AGENTS.md files.
   • Always include .agents/references/architecture-review-guideline.md when it is in scope.

3. Produce a concise structural summary before finding issues.

   • Summarize the main layers, contracts, and caller-facing boundaries in the target.
   • State which architecture dimensions are materially relevant to this review.

4. Launch 3 reviewers in parallel.

   • Reviewer 1: boundary and ownership reviewer
   • Reviewer 2: contract and compatibility reviewer
   • Reviewer 3: abstraction and evolvability reviewer

   Each reviewer should return only issues with:

   • a concrete architectural problem
   • clear impact on maintainability, compatibility, extension cost, or correctness boundary
   • enough evidence to validate the issue from the reviewed scope Close these reviewers once the candidate-issue set has been consolidated.

5. Validate each proposed issue.

   • Launch validation reviewers in small batches for candidate issues.
   • Validate that the issue is real within the stated scope and that the claimed impact is concrete.
   • Validate any cited AGENTS.md / .agents guidance rule is actually in scope for the affected files.
   • Close each validator as soon as its assigned validations have been incorporated.

6. Filter and de-duplicate.

   • Remove unvalidated issues.
   • Merge overlapping issues across reviewers.
   • Keep only high-signal findings.

7. Output a report using REPORT_TEMPLATE.md.

   • State the reviewed scope and the architecture dimensions actually reviewed.
   • If no issues were found, use the exact text: No issues found. Checked the reviewed architecture dimensions.