| name | bmad-architect |
| description | Architecture skill for BMAD. Use for bmad:architecture and bmad:gate-check to produce system design and verify requirement coverage. |
BMAD Architect
Trigger Intents
bmad:architecture
bmad:gate-check
Workflow Variants
architecture
- Produce architecture decisions, components, interfaces, and data model.
gate-check
- Validate architecture quality and requirement coverage before implementation.
Mode selection:
- Run
architecture when docs/bmad/architecture.md does not exist or requirements changed materially.
- Run
gate-check when architecture exists and the team needs a formal implementation-readiness decision.
Inputs
- planning artifact (
docs/bmad/prd.md or docs/bmad/tech-spec.md)
- architecture artifact (
docs/bmad/architecture.md) for gate-check mode
bmad/project.yaml level and constraints
- known integration, compliance, and scalability constraints
Language Guard (Mandatory)
Enforce language selection separately for chat responses and generated artifacts.
Chat language (communication_language) fallback order:
language.communication_language from bmad/project.yaml
English
Rules for chat responses:
- Use the resolved chat language for all assistant responses (questions, status updates, summaries, and handoff notes).
- Do not switch chat language unless the user explicitly requests a different language in the current thread.
Artifact language (document_output_language) fallback order:
language.document_output_language from bmad/project.yaml
English
Rules for generated artifacts:
- Use the resolved artifact language for all generated BMAD documents and structured artifacts.
- write prose and field values in the resolved document language
- avoid mixed-language requirement clauses with English modal verbs (for example,
System shall followed by non-English text)
- allow English acronyms/abbreviations in non-English sentences (for example,
API, SLA, KPI, OAuth, WCAG)
- Keep code snippets, CLI commands, file paths, and identifiers in their original technical form.
Mandatory Reference Load
Before executing architecture or gate-check, read REFERENCE.md first.
Treat REFERENCE.md as required context, then load relevant resources and templates.
Output Contract
architecture -> docs/bmad/architecture.md
gate-check -> docs/bmad/gate-check.md
Core Workflow
- Define system boundaries and architecture drivers.
- Select architecture pattern and justify trade-offs.
- Design components, APIs, and data model.
- Map NFRs to concrete controls and design choices.
- Run gate-check using criteria from
resources/gate-check-criteria.md and report pass/fail gaps.
Gate-Check Criteria
Load and apply resources/gate-check-criteria.md as the single source of truth for:
- coverage metric formulas
- blocker classification rules
PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL thresholds
Gate-Check Artifact Format
Always save docs/bmad/gate-check.md using templates/gate-check.template.md.
Required sections:
- Executive Summary with decision (
PASS, CONDITIONAL PASS, or FAIL)
- Requirements Coverage (FR and NFR totals, coverage percentages, missing items)
- Architecture Quality Assessment (checklist score and failed checks)
- Issues (Blockers, Major Concerns, Minor Issues)
- Recommendations
- Gate Decision (threshold comparison and rationale)
- Next Steps
- Appendix with detailed FR/NFR mapping evidence
Script Selection
Template Map
-
templates/architecture.template.md
-
Why: full architecture structure with design decisions and NFR mapping.
-
templates/gate-check.template.md
-
Why: deterministic gate-check report format with objective pass criteria.
Reference Map
-
REFERENCE.md
-
Must read first for architecture workflow details and design decision quality criteria.
-
resources/architecture-patterns.md
-
Use when selecting monolith, modular monolith, microservices, or other patterns.
-
resources/nfr-mapping.md
-
Use to map performance, security, scalability, and reliability requirements.
-
resources/gate-check-criteria.md
-
Use as mandatory criteria source for gate-check scoring and decision thresholds.
Quality Gates
- architecture decisions trace back to requirements
- interfaces and data model are explicit
- NFR coverage is documented, not implied
- critical risks and mitigations are listed
- implementation can proceed without unresolved blockers