Review a plan or implementation for model integrity, service boundaries, and canonical architecture direction. Use when a change touches service boundaries, data models, or trust boundaries.
Instalação
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Review a plan or implementation for model integrity, service boundaries, and canonical architecture direction. Use when a change touches service boundaries, data models, or trust boundaries.
Architecture Review
Purpose
Review a plan or implementation for model integrity, service boundaries, and canonical architecture direction before code review.
When To Use
A plan of record exists and needs architecture-specific challenge before implementation.
Implementation is in progress or complete and needs architectural validation before review.
A change touches service boundaries, data models, or trust boundaries.
When Not To Use
No plan exists yet. Use planning first.
The review is about broad plan quality (scope, sequencing, testing). Use plan-review.
The review is about code quality, style, or implementation details. Use review.
Core Principles
Protect the canonical model. The data model and domain boundaries are the foundation. Changes that weaken them require strong justification.
Boundaries are contracts. Service boundaries, API surfaces, and module interfaces are explicit contracts. Review for leaky abstractions, responsibility drift, coupling across boundaries, and circular dependencies. In practice: internal types should not surface in consumer APIs, implementation details should not cross service boundaries, and dependency direction should flow inward toward the domain model, not outward toward consumers.
SOLID as a lens, not a dogma. Use SOLID principles to identify structural problems. Do not flag violations mechanically — flag them when they create real maintenance, extensibility, or correctness risk.
Simplify where possible. Identify unnecessary abstraction layers, indirection, or complexity that does not serve the architecture. Recommend removal.
Trust boundaries are non-negotiable. Every trust boundary (user input, external APIs, LLM output, service-to-service) must be explicitly identified and defended.
Recommend the canonical path. When the architecture drifts from the intended direction, recommend the path back. Do not accept legacy compatibility as a default.
Target Resolution
Determine the review target. Accept one of:
File path — a plan, brainstorm, or source file to review.
Staged changes — the current staged diff.
Branch diff — diff between current branch and base branch.
If the target is ambiguous, ask.
Workflow
Read the artifact in full. Plan, code, or both. Understand the model, boundaries, and architecture direction before reviewing.
Map the architecture. Identify the key entities, services, boundaries, and trust boundaries. Understand how data flows and who owns what.
Apply review lenses. Walk through each lens. Produce findings only when something needs to change.
Present findings one at a time. Each finding includes a recommendation. Confirm resolution before moving to the next.
Modify the artifact. Apply confirmed changes directly. Annotate significant changes with inline HTML comments.
Review Lenses
Verify each lens against the artifact. Produce findings only when something needs to change.
Model integrity. Does the change preserve or strengthen the data model and domain boundaries? Are entities, relationships, and ownership clear?
Service and API boundaries. Are responsibilities in the correct layer? No leaked abstractions, no coupling across boundaries, dependency direction flows inward toward the domain. Interfaces should be clean and cohesive — not so wide that consumers depend on things they don't use, but not so aggressively split that they fragment the API surface.
Trust boundaries. Are all trust boundaries (user input, external APIs, LLM output, service-to-service) explicitly identified and defended?
Single responsibility. Does each module, service, or component have one clear reason to change? Flag god objects, mixed concerns, and responsibility drift.
Open/closed alignment. Can the architecture be extended without modifying core behavior? Flag designs that require changes to existing contracts to add new capabilities.
Dependency inversion. Do high-level modules depend on abstractions rather than concrete implementations? Flag hard-wired dependencies that reduce testability or flexibility.
Simplification. Is there unnecessary abstraction, indirection, or complexity that does not serve the architecture? Recommend removal.
Canonical path. Does the change strengthen or drift from the intended architecture direction? If drifting, recommend the path back.
Annotation Format
Significant changes are annotated with inline HTML comments:
<!-- architecture-review: model boundary violation — moved X to correct layer --><!-- architecture-review: trust boundary added for LLM output --><!-- architecture-review: simplified — removed unnecessary indirection -->
Minor tightening does not require annotation.
Constraints On This Skill
This skill reviews and modifies plans or code only. It must never generate new implementation code.
Findings are presented one at a time. Confirm resolution before moving to the next.
Findings must be high-confidence. Do not generate noise.
Agent-agnostic. No tool-specific or platform-specific references.
