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.
Scanned 9/22/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add thiientv/godmode --skill architecture-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Architecture Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/thiientv-architecture-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: architecture-review
description: >-
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.
---
# 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 approved candidate to `solution-design` and
`implementation-planning`; use `code-simplification` when no architectural
boundary changes.
## Completion condition
The report ties each candidate to repository evidence, shows current and
proposed ownership, respects existing decisions or explicitly challenges them,
and recommends a bounded first move without implementing an unapproved
redesign.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!