aws-well-architected-review
SolidReviews AWS architectures, IaC, and design docs against the AWS Well-Architected Framework's six pillars, producing a findings report with pillar-mapped risks (High/Medium) and concrete remediation. Loads only the pillars relevant to the change. Use for AWS architecture reviews, not generic code review. Triggers on: "well-architected review", "review this AWS architecture", "WAR review", "check this design against AWS best practices", "review my Terraform/CDK for AWS pitfalls", "is this architecture production-ready".
Install
Quality Score: 81/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- timwukp
- Repository
- timwukp/agent-skills-best-practice
- Created
- 4 months ago
- Last Updated
- today
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
Integrates with
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
security-architecture-review
Use when reviewing a system's security architecture — assessing control coverage, defense-in-depth layers, single points of failure, and zero-trust alignment with TOGAF/SABSA/NIST SP 800-160. Triggers on "security architecture review", "defense in depth", "control coverage", "zero trust", "north-south east-west traffic".
architecture-review
Audit an architecture that already exists. Infers the current stack from the repo, then checks every component against the requirement it should be serving — finding what is over-provisioned, what is about to break, and what nobody can justify. Use when the user asks to review or audit an existing architecture, asks "is my stack right", "am I over-engineering", "what will break first", "why is my bill so high", "should we still be on X", or is inheriting a system they did not design.
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.