architecture-review

Solid

Reviews an existing codebase for structural friction, unclear ownership, leaky or shallow interfaces, excessive coupling, misplaced state, poor testability, and risky dependency direction, then prioritizes evidence-backed improvement candidates. Use for architecture audits, modularization, modernization, or recurring cross-cutting change pain. Not for designing one new interface, simplifying a local function, or fixing a reproduced bug.

Code & Development 94 stars 78 forks Updated 2 weeks ago MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 81/100

Stars 20%
66
Recency 20%
90
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
94
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Architecture Review Find structural changes that reduce the cost and risk of likely future work. Do not produce a generic best-practices checklist. ## Scope the review Use `codebase-orientation` first when ownership and execution paths are not known. Focus on the user-named subsystem or on evidence-backed hotspots from history, incidents, change coupling, and test failures. Read relevant ADRs and domain vocabulary before proposing alternatives. ## Inspect structural pressure Look for: - behavior spread across many callers instead of owned behind one interface; - interfaces that expose nearly as much complexity as they hide; - dependency cycles, unstable direction, duplicated policy, and hidden global state; - abstractions with one hypothetical implementation or pass-through layers; - tests that require internal knowledge because the public seam is wrong; - concepts named inconsistently across code, data, and product language. Apply the deletion test: if removing a module only moves its complexity into every caller, it may be earning its place; if complexity disappears, it may be ceremony. Use [candidate-report.md](references/candidate-report.md) to compare current and proposed ownership. ## Prioritize, do not redesign silently Rank candidates by observed friction, expected locality/leverage, migration risk, reversibility, and relevance to upcoming work. Include a smallest useful change and explicit non-goals. Mark speculative ideas as speculative. Hand an approv...

Details

Author
thiientv
Repository
thiientv/godmode
Created
4 weeks ago
Last Updated
2 weeks ago
Language
Python
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Listed

architecture-review

Review an existing codebase for high-value architectural improvements, using concrete code evidence to identify weak boundaries, shallow modules, duplication, coupling, scattered responsibilities, and unstable seams.

1 Updated 1 weeks ago
martonpaulo
Code & Development Listed

architecture-review

Runs a structured architecture-quality review of a system's module/service boundaries, coupling, data ownership, communication patterns, resilience, structural scalability, extensibility, documentation, pattern consistency, and versioning — evaluating structural soundness and evolvability of the design, not line-level code correctness and not measured runtime performance — then reports the results as one table (check, area, status, evidence, recommendation). Covers domain-aligned vs. arbitrary module boundaries, circular dependencies between modules/packages/services, coupling (does a change in one module ripple into unrelated ones), layering violations (a lower layer reaching up, or a domain layer importing from presentation), data ownership per service vs. shared-database distributed-monolith anti-patterns, cross-boundary consistency (sagas, eventual consistency, distributed transactions), sync-vs-async communication choices and single-points-of-failure created by synchronous call chains, event/message cont

0 Updated 4 days ago
finnley07
Code & Development Listed

architecture-review

A focused, single-lens review of a change's design and structure — not its defects. Judges separation of concerns and SOLID, coupling and cohesion, module/layer boundaries and dependency direction, whether the right abstraction is present (and the wrong/early one is absent), files and functions that have grown too large or do too much, leaky abstractions, intent-hiding names, duplication that wants to be a shared unit, and whether the change fits how this codebase is already built. Every finding cites file/module:line, a severity, the future cost it imposes, and a concrete refactor direction. Constructive and pragmatic — flags structure that will cost future change, never taste.

0 Updated today
itzikiusa