Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.
Architecture Lens
Review code-level structure using Richards and Ford's Fundamentals of Software Architecture and Practical Model-Driven Enterprise Architecture. Judge ease of change through coupling, placement, cohesion, dependency direction, and scope. A real choice has a tradeoff; state its cost without manufacturing alternatives to settled decisions.
Use macro-architecture for system style, domain-driven-design for domain modeling, and full-review for a correctness or security review.
Select the lens
| Decision or review | Method to load |
|---|---|
| Unresolved approach, boundary, library, sync/async, or build/reuse choice | Lens 1: references/decision-review.md |
| Tangled code or deciding what to split, extract, or merge | Lens 2: references/coupling-review.md |
| Layer placement, cohesion, dependency direction, or scope in a diff or design | Lenses 3–6: references/structural-review.md |
Combine methods only when the question needs them. Inspect the affected code and its contracts; a local boundary review does not require mapping the whole repository. Reuse existing design decisions and evidence.
Connascence ranks coupling by strength × locality × degree. Strong coupling can be acceptable locally; distant dynamic coupling deserves attention. Keep the smallest coherent shape: remove speculative scope without introducing more indirection than the change needs.
Authority and output
This skill reports findings. A user's request for scoped fixes authorizes those edits. A design-gate or other read-only reviewer invocation returns findings only and overrides standalone edit routes.
For a standalone review, group findings by selected lens with file:line, the violated rule, and a concrete fix. For a decision, state the chosen shape, actual tradeoff, and next move. A small decision can use two lines. A clean lens returns clean; do not invent findings or a counterpoint to fill a category.
Under design-gate, return verdict (proceed | revise), blocking_findings, advisory_findings, and required_changes. A load-bearing issue can require revision; cosmetic preference cannot.
Use all three or no ADR: hard to reverse, surprising without context, and a real tradeoff. Record on settle using references/adr-template.md when all three apply. Otherwise preserve the decision in the existing task or review note.
Additional references
- references/verification-menu.md: when a finding needs an executable check.
- references/fitness-functions.md: when a durable architecture rule needs enforcement.
- references/risk-and-diagrams.md: when a migration, availability boundary, unproven technology, or requested diagram needs a risk model.
The selected methods link to their detailed taxonomies and checklists. Load those only when the decision needs them.
