architecture-review

name	architecture-review
description	Conduct a top-down, layer-by-layer architecture review of a software module by reading every file in scope, running a uniform 10-dimension checklist per layer, and triaging each candidate finding through a structured developer checkpoint. Produces a phased polish plan in .rpiv/artifacts/architecture-reviews/ that blueprint can consume per phase. Language-agnostic — works on TypeScript, Java, .NET, Rust, Python, Go, or any other typed module. Use before a 1.0 release, after a major refactor, or when a module has grown enough to warrant a structural audit.
argument-hint	[target path: file, directory, or module]
shell-timeout	10
disable-model-invocation	true
contract	{"produces":{"kind":"produces","meta":{"artifactKind":"architecture-review"},"data":{"type":"object","required":["phases","layer_count"],"properties":{"status":{"enum":["in-progress","ready"]},"layer_count":{"type":"integer","minimum":1},"phases":{"type":"array","minItems":1,"maxItems":32,"items":{"type":"object","required":["n","title"],"properties":{"n":{"type":"integer","minimum":1},"title":{"type":"string"},"depends_on":{"type":"array","items":{"type":"integer","minimum":1}},"blast_radius":{"enum":["internal","public-API","on-disk","cross-module"]},"effort":{"enum":["S","M","L"]}}}}}}},"consumes":{"meta":{"world":"target-path"}}}

Architecture Review

You are tasked with conducting a layer-by-layer architecture review of a target module, producing a single living artifact that captures every triaged finding plus a phased polish plan downstream skills can consume.

Input

$ARGUMENTS — target path (file, directory, or module). Empty input triggers a developer checkpoint to identify the target.

Metadata

node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/now.mjs"
echo
node "${SKILL_DIR}/../_shared/git-context.mjs"

Copy values verbatim — do not reformat the timezone offset.

Flow

1. Identify target → 2. Plan layer structure → 3. Layer-split checkpoint → 4. Skeleton artifact → 5. Per-layer review (loop) → 6. Capture emergent principles → 7. Synthesize cross-cutting themes → 8. Phased polish plan → 9. Present and chain → 10. Follow-ups

The final artifact is blueprint-consumable per phase.

Steps

Step 1: Identify the Target

1. Argument is empty: use the ask_user_question tool with the following question: "What are we reviewing?". Header: "Target". Options: "Single module" (one package / project / crate / namespace directory); "Single subdirectory" (a subtree inside a module); "Single file" (deep review of one large file); "Other" (developer specifies path).

2. Validate the target exists. Use ls via the Bash tool on the resolved path. If missing, ask for a corrected path.

3. Capture target context into main context:

   • Read the target's manifest file if one exists (package.json, pom.xml, *.csproj, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml, go.mod, build.gradle[.kts], mix.exs). The manifest names public exports, dependencies, and ecosystem.
   • Read any README.md or architecture doc at the target root.
   • For a single file: read it FULLY (no limit/offset).
   • Enumerate all source files in scope via ls -R or find, filtering by the extensions visible at the target root. Record total file count and LOC ballpark.

Step 2: Plan Layer Structure

Layers mirror dependency direction. Higher layers consume lower-layer vocabulary, so the review walks from the public surface inward.

1. Categorize each in-scope file by responsibility. Typical role buckets:

   • Public surface / facade / entry point (the file users import)
   • Type vocabulary / shared types
   • Authoring DSL / public API
   • Command / dispatch / UI surface
   • Configuration / loaders
   • Validation
   • Orchestration / runtime
   • Sessions / I/O lifecycle
   • Persistence / on-disk format
   • Cross-cutting utilities

2. For complex targets, dispatch parallel agents to accelerate categorization — all in a single assistant message with multiple Agent calls (concurrent, synchronous). Never run_in_background: its completion can't re-drive a workflow session, so the skill ends its turn before writing the review and the stage fails with no artifact.

   Agent — codebase-locator: "Map every source file in {target path} to one responsibility from the standard role buckets (facade, vocabulary, DSL, command, loaders, validation, orchestration, sessions, persistence, utilities). Return a file → responsibility table."

   Agent — codebase-analyzer: "For {target path}, identify the import / use-graph dependency direction. Which files are leaves? Which are hubs? Return a topo-ordered list from leaves to hubs."

   Wait for ALL agents to complete before proceeding.

3. Synthesize a layer proposal:

   • Group by responsibility, not file count. A layer is 1 file (a barrel) or 100+ files (an enterprise DAL); both are valid.
   • Top-down by review direction: entry point at Layer 0, deepest concern at Layer N. Entry point = library barrel / MVC controller / lib.rs / __init__.py / whatever the request hits first.
   • Layers >~10 files: propose sub-layers (3.1, 3.2, ...) grouped by file-name cohesion. Example .NET DAL: 3.1 DbContext + migrations; 3.2 entities + value objects; 3.3 entity configurations; 3.4 repositories; 3.5 specifications.
   • Aim for 3–10 top-level layers; sub-layers reviewable in one Step 5 pass.
   • Flag uncategorisable files as cross-cutting utility candidates.

Step 3: Layer-Split Checkpoint

1. Surface the proposal. Use the ask_user_question tool with the following question: "Proposed split: {N} top-level layers, {file count} files. L0 — {names or count}; L1 — ...; {sub-layers if any: L3.1, L3.2, ...}. Approve?". Header: "Layers". Options: "Approve (Recommended)"; "Adjust split" (reorder / merge / split — describe); "Reduce scope" (drop layers — useful for monolith reviewed one bounded context at a time); "Specify manually".

2. Loop until approved. Adjustments re-enter Step 2.3 then return here.

Step 4: Create Skeleton Artifact

1. Read the template at ${SKILL_DIR}/templates/architecture-review.md FULLY (no limit/offset).

2. Determine metadata from the Metadata block above: filename .rpiv/artifacts/architecture-reviews/<slug>_<topic>.md (use <slug> from line 1; <topic> is a brief kebab-case description); repository: from repo:; branch: / commit: from matching labels; author: ← matching label (fallback: unknown); date: / last_updated: ← <iso> from line 1 (copy the offset verbatim).

3. Write the skeleton using the Write tool with status: in-progress in frontmatter. Sections:

   • Frontmatter: date, author, commit, branch, repository, target, target_kind, layer_count, phases (derived from the ### Phase N — name headings — see Step 6), unresolved_finding_count, status, tags, last_updated, last_updated_by.
   • Conventions: finding shape (ID, Evidence, Current state, Desired state, Proposed improvement, Severity, Effort, Blast radius, Class, Status, Depends on, Cross-cut tag).
   • Methodology principles: empty placeholder (_principles emerge during Step 5 triage and are captured at Step 6_).
   • Layers: one ## Layer N — {name} heading per layer from Step 3, each empty.
   • Cross-cutting themes: placeholder (_written last, after all layers have been seen_).
   • Consolidated polish plan: placeholder (_phases assembled after Step 7 cross-cut synthesis_).

4. All subsequent writes use the Edit tool. Never re-Write the whole file — the artifact is the durable checkpoint between sessions.

Step 5: Per-Layer Review (Loop)

For each layer (and sub-layer, if any) in order (L0, L0.1, L0.2, L1, L1.1, ...), run the five sub-steps below. The ## Layer N section fills progressively; the tally at the end of each layer is the visible progress marker.

5.1. Read Files

1. Batch (large layer only). When the layer wasn't pre-decomposed into sub-layers at Step 3 and holds >~10 files, propose batches by file-name cohesion (e.g., all *Repository.cs; all *Configuration.cs; DbContext.cs + migrations; entities). Confirm via the ask_user_question tool: "Layer {N}: {count} files. Batches: {B1 — count}; {B2 — count}; .... Approve?". Header: "Layer {N} batches". Options: "Approve"; "Adjust batches"; "Promote to sub-layers" (each batch becomes L{N}.{x} with its own tally).

2. Read files FULLY (no limit/offset) — the entire layer for unbatched, the current batch for batched.

3. Resolve non-obvious call graphs. For any file whose internal structure isn't clear from a single read, dispatch a parallel codebase-analyzer agent: "For {file path}: enumerate public-visible symbols, functions/methods, call sites. Report the call graph; highlight outsized functions."

4. Verify external consumers via the ecosystem's reference-finding pattern (rg "from \"<module>\"", grep -r "import <pkg>", grep -r "using <namespace>", rg "use <crate>::"). Hold counts in main context — feeds the wise-decision lens at triage.

5. Iterate (batched layers only). After 5.2–5.5 close for the current batch, return to step 2 for the next batch.

5.2. Dimension Sweep

1. Walk ten dimensions across every file in the layer. Hold candidate findings in memory — do NOT triage yet.

   • Boundary — what does the layer own? Any leaks up or down?
   • Public surface — exported / public-visible names, types, ergonomics. Do siblings reach past the facade? Per-symbol consumer-count audit.
   • Coherence / SRP — does each file and each function/method do one thing?
   • Granularity — functions or methods too big or too small; god-parameter lists; over- or under-decomposed?
   • Programming by intention — does the file read top-down as a story? Named operations preferred over inline blocks? Helpers below entries?
   • DRY — duplicated patterns within the layer or across siblings?
   • DDD / ubiquitous language — domain vocabulary consistent? Any legacy names lingering?
   • Naming — file, type, function, constant names. Symmetric where the concept is symmetric?
   • Error / fail-soft posture — uniform across the layer? Multi-state returns use the language's idiomatic discriminated form?
   • Module-graph hygiene — no cycles. Type-only back-refs only where the language supports them.

2. Produce a candidate findings list (typically 6–14 per layer). Each candidate carries: ID (L<layer>-<seq>), Evidence (file:line + short quote), Current state, Desired state, Proposed improvement, Severity (Low / Med / High), Effort (S / M / L), Blast radius (internal / public-API / on-disk / cross-module), Class (polish vs redesign).

5.3. Triage Each Candidate

1. Present each candidate as a structured triage question using the ask_user_question tool: "L{X}-{YY} — {headline}. Evidence: file:line ({short quote}). Current: {one sentence}. Desired: {one sentence}. Pick a triage outcome.". Header: "L{X}-{YY}". Options: "{Concrete option A — action}"; "{Concrete option B — action}"; "Defer" (post-release).

2. Batch where independent. 2–4 independent candidates per call when answers don't depend on each other; sequential when they do, or when blast-radius is public-API / cross-module.

3. Author options to force the right calls:

   • Deletion candidates with zero current consumers: ALWAYS include a "Keep as composition primitive" or "Keep as type-narrowing idiom" option alongside the drop option. The developer judges abstraction value, not the skill.
   • Multi-state return candidates (property-presence discrimination, partially-tagged shapes, null-as-state, exception-as-state): include "Convert to {target-language's discriminated form}" as an option. TypeScript: { kind: "ok" } | { kind: "err" }. Java 17+: sealed interface + records. .NET 9+: records + pattern matching. Rust: enum. Kotlin: sealed class. Python 3.10+: matched Union. Go: tagged-struct + type switch.
   • File-size candidates (>~200 LOC for TS/Rust/Go; >~300 for Python/Kotlin; >~400 for C#; >~500 for Java): include "Split into <layer>/ directory with one concern per file" with the proposed decomposition inlined.

5.4. Persist Each Triaged Finding

1. Edit the ## Layer N section the instant the developer picks an outcome. Append the finding with its full per-finding block.

2. Set Status verbatim from the chosen option: **accepted** — {summary} / **rejected** — {reason} / **deferred** — post-release / **accepted (absorbed into LX-YY)** when the change rides another finding.

3. Maintain the counter. Increment unresolved_finding_count in frontmatter when filing a candidate from 5.2; decrement on each triage outcome. Should hit zero before Step 6.

5.5. Tally

1. Append a tally table at the end of each layer pass (or each batch within a layer):

   ### Layer N — tally
   
   | Status | Count |
   |---|---|
   | accepted | {A} |
   | rejected | {R} |
   | deferred | {D} |
   | withdrawn | {W} |
   
   Cross-cutting tags introduced: {list}. Reused: {list}.
   Dependency edges within Layer N: {bullets, e.g., "L1-04 depends on L1-02"}.
   

2. Batched-layer roll-up. Prefix per-batch tallies with the batch ID (### Layer 3 — batch 3.2 (Repositories) — tally); after all batches close, append a ### Layer 3 — roll-up table summing counts.

Step 6: Capture Emergent Methodology Principles

1. Identify candidates. A principle typically surfaces when the developer reverses an earlier finding's status with a generalizable reason; picks the same option type across multiple independent triages; or articulates a rule that informs future review work.

2. Ask explicitly. Use the ask_user_question tool with the following question: "Across {F} findings, did any methodology principle emerge during triage that should be named?". Header: "Methodology". Options: "No new principle" (Recommended if none was articulated — proceed to cross-cut synthesis); "Capture one principle" (developer describes; skill drafts an M{N} block); "Capture multiple" (loop one at a time).

3. Format captured principles into the artifact's Methodology Principles section:

   ### M{N} — {principle name}
   
   **Origin:** {finding ID + one-sentence quote from the developer's reasoning, if available}.
   
   **Rule.** {One paragraph: what to do, why, when to apply.}
   
   **Apply to (keep):** {bullet list.}
   **Apply to (drop / change):** {bullet list.}
   

Step 7: Synthesize Cross-Cutting Themes

1. Group findings by cross-cut tag across all layers. Each tag becomes a theme.

2. Write a section per theme into ## Cross-cutting themes:

   ### T{N} — {theme name} ({active | closed by L{X}-{YY}})
   
   **Findings:** {comma-separated finding IDs}.
   
   {One paragraph: what unifies these findings, what the theme thread delivers when implemented, what the closing finding is if any.}
   

3. Confirm grouping via the ask_user_question tool: "{N} cross-cutting themes: {T1 — name; T2 — name; ...}. Approve grouping or adjust?". Header: "Themes". Options: "Approve grouping (Recommended)"; "Merge themes" (developer names which); "Split a theme" (developer names which); "Other".

Step 8: Consolidated Polish Plan

Phases are agent-driven: each one will be handed to blueprint → implement. Size by signals blueprint can act on (file count, finding count, blast-radius mix, coordination need) — not by human-day estimates.

1. Topo-sort findings by Depends on edges. Dependency-free findings land in early phases.

2. Group by leverage:

   • Foundation (no dependencies, low risk) — tiny renames, new utility files, doc fixes.
   • Vocabulary — type renames, file renames.
   • Locality — moves of strings / constants / types to proper homes (one phase per locality theme).
   • Structural — file splits, directory restructures (one phase per layer's directory split).
   • Behavioural — shape conversions, dispatcher introductions, pipeline redesigns.
   • Public-API — additive surface changes requiring downstream coordination.

3. Describe each phase by agent-relevant signals, not days:

   • Findings: count + ID list.
   • Files touched: count + repo-relative paths.
   • Blast-radius mix: breakdown across internal / public-API / on-disk / cross-module.
   • Coordination: none / sibling-package PR required / downstream consumer release required.
   • Class mix: ratio of polish to redesign findings.

4. Risk-flag phases that touch on-disk format, public-API shape, or require cross-module coordination (sibling packages, downstream Maven artifacts, NuGet versioning, dependent crates).

5. Draw the dependency graph (ASCII) at the end of the plan section:

   Phase 1 (Foundation)
      ↓
   Phase 2 (Vocabulary)
      ↓
      ├──► Phase 3 (Locality)
      └──► Phase 4 (Structural)
                 ↓
       Phase 5 (Behavioural)
                 ↓
       Phase 6 (Public-API)
   

6. Confirm the plan + flip status. Use the ask_user_question tool: "{N} phases ({F} findings across {Files} files). Approve or adjust?". Header: "Plan". Options: "Approve (Recommended)" (rebuild the phases: frontmatter array from the ### Phase N — name headings — one { n, title, depends_on, blast_radius, effort } entry per heading, in body order: depends_on from the dependency graph (Step 5, earlier phases only), blast_radius the phase's widest of internal/public-API/on-disk/cross-module (Step 3), effort S/M/L; e.g. phases: [{ n: 1, title: Foundation, depends_on: [], blast_radius: internal, effort: S }, { n: 2, title: Vocabulary, depends_on: [1], blast_radius: internal, effort: M }]; then Edit frontmatter status: in-progress → status: ready, proceed to Step 9); "Adjust phase boundaries" (describe); "Resequence phases" (describe); "Other".

Step 9: Present and Chain

1. Display the completion summary:

   Architecture review written to:
   `.rpiv/artifacts/architecture-reviews/{filename}.md`
   
   {F} findings reviewed: {A} accepted, {R} rejected, {D} deferred, {W} withdrawn.
   {P} methodology principles captured, {T} cross-cutting themes, {N} phases across {Files} files.
   
   The artifact is blueprint-consumable per phase:
   
   **Next step (per-phase landing):**
   - `/skill:blueprint .rpiv/artifacts/architecture-reviews/{filename}.md` followed by free-text "Implement Phase 1: {phase name}" — blueprint treats the named phase as the feature scope.
   - Repeat for each phase.
   
   > 🆕 Tip: start a fresh session with `/new` before each blueprint invocation — chained skills work best with a clean context window.
   

Step 10: Handle Follow-ups

1. Append, never rewrite. Append a ## Follow-up Review {ISO 8601 timestamp} section. Prior content stays immutable.

2. Bump frontmatter. Update last_updated + last_updated_by; set last_updated_note: "Updated <brief description>".

3. When to re-invoke instead. If the target has materially changed (new files, restructured layers), re-run /skill:architecture-review for a fresh artifact.

Guidelines

1. Be Structural: Every checkpoint is ask_user_question with concrete options. Never prose "what do you think?". The developer answers; the skill captures.

2. Be Grounded: Every finding cites file:line + a short quote. Triage questions embed the evidence verbatim. If you can't ground a candidate in code, it's not a finding.

3. Be Top-Down: Walk facade / entry point first (Layer 0), persistence last. Higher layers depend on lower layers — fixing the public surface before the runtime would invert the dependency direction.

4. Be Cumulative: Each layer's tally + each finding's cross-cut tag feed Step 7's synthesis. The tally is the visible progress marker — never skip it.

5. Be Linear: Findings depend on each other. Topo-sort before phasing. A rename lands before a directory split that uses the new name.

6. Be Patient with the Wise-Decision Lens: When a candidate proposes dropping a symbol with no current consumers, the deletion option is ONE of the choices — never the only one. The developer judges abstraction value.

Subagent Usage

Context	Agents Spawned
Step 2 layer discovery (complex targets)	codebase-locator + codebase-analyzer in parallel
Step 5.1 deep-file analysis (any file whose call graph isn't obvious)	codebase-analyzer (one per file or one batched)
Step 5.1 external-consumer audit	inline grep / ripgrep via Bash (no agent needed)
Step 10 follow-up rescan (if scope expanded)	codebase-analyzer (max 1–2)

Spawn multiple agents in parallel when they're searching for different things. Each agent runs in isolation — provide complete context in the prompt, including the target path.

Important Notes

• All checkpoints are ask_user_question — no prose "ask the user". The tool always offers free-text via "Other"; don't author free-text prompts.
• Read all in-scope files FULLY in Step 5.1 — no limit/offset on the Read tool. Selective reads bias findings toward what you happened to load.
• Edit the artifact progressively in Step 5.4 — never batch all findings into one final write. The artifact is the durable checkpoint between sessions.
• Critical ordering:
  • ALWAYS confirm the layer split at Step 3 BEFORE creating the skeleton artifact (Step 4).
  • ALWAYS read every file in a layer (Step 5.1) BEFORE producing the candidate findings list (Step 5.2).
  • ALWAYS triage via ask_user_question (Step 5.3) — never auto-accept a finding even when the answer seems obvious.
  • ALWAYS Edit the artifact immediately after each triage outcome (Step 5.4) — never queue accepted findings for a batch write at the end of the layer.
  • ALWAYS run Step 6 methodology capture BEFORE Step 7 cross-cut synthesis — a principle named at Step 6 informs theme labeling.
  • NEVER skip the per-layer tally at Step 5.5 — it's the visible progress marker.
  • NEVER edit source files during the review — the artifact is the product; implementation is blueprint's job (Step 9 hands off).
• Methodology emerges from triage, never from a pre-baked list. Step 6 is the dedicated capture point; principles named earlier (e.g., during Step 5 when the developer reverses a finding) are recorded inline at the time and reformatted into Methodology Principles at Step 6.
• The artifact is blueprint-consumable per phase — per-phase blueprint invocations are the supported chaining pattern, not whole-artifact blueprint invocations.
• Frontmatter consistency: Always include frontmatter; use snake_case for multi-word fields; keep tags relevant.
• Status invariants: in-progress during Steps 1–7; flips to ready at Step 8 confirmation.