architect

name	architect
description	Find deepening opportunities in the codebase — refactors that reduce coupling, simplify interfaces, and improve AI-navigability. Use when improving architecture, finding refactoring opportunities, or making a codebase easier to work with.

Architect

Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is AI-navigability, clear ownership, and reduced coupling.

Glossary

Use these terms exactly. Consistent language prevents drift.

• Module — anything with an interface and an implementation (function, class, Manager, service)
• Interface — everything a caller must know to use the module: types, error modes, ordering
• 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
• Locality — complexity, bugs, and knowledge concentrated in one place
• 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.

Process

1. Explore

Read CONTEXT.md and any ADRs first if they exist.

Walk the codebase organically. Note where you experience friction:

• Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small files?
• Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
• Where do tightly-coupled modules leak responsibilities across their seams?
• Which areas have repeated if (p == nullptr) { return ERR_X; } scattered across many callers instead of being centralised?
• Where does the same data structure get modified in multiple places without a clear owner?

Apply the deletion test to anything suspect.

2. Present Candidates

Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each:

• Files — which files are involved
• Problem — why the current architecture causes friction
• Solution — plain English description of what would change
• Benefits — explained in terms of locality, leverage, and reduced coupling

Use the project's domain vocabulary (Manager names, sdp struct names) — not generic terms like "service" or "component".

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

3. Design Loop

Once the user picks a candidate:

• Walk the design tree — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module
• Resolve one decision at a time (invoke /grill if needed)
• Side effects during the conversation:
  • New concept not in CONTEXT.md? Add it
  • User rejects with a load-bearing reason? Offer to record as an ADR
  • Design crystallises? Transition to /plan to create the implementation plan

4. C++ Game Server Specifics

When looking for deepening opportunities in this codebase, focus on:

• Manager classes doing too much — split by domain responsibility
• CmdParser handlers with embedded business logic — push logic into the Manager
• Duplicated data-loading patterns across multiple Managers — centralise
• Direct cross-Manager access — introduce a clean interface at the seam
• Deeply nested if/else chains — extract to named functions with clear semantics