architect-reviewlisted

# Skill: architect-review Critique an existing architecture artifact. Severity-tagged findings, genre-aware rubric routing, no file write — reviews are throwaway artifacts. ## When to invoke Before reviewing, confirm: 1. There is an *artifact in scope* — pasted into the conversation, linked, or named at a known path. "Review our architecture" with nothing concrete attached is a design conversation, not a review. 2. The artifact is *finished enough to critique*. A two-bullet outline is a discussion; a draft with all the sections at least started is a review. Don't critique tumbleweeds. 3. The user wants *severity-tagged findings*, not a discussion. If they want a conversation, route to `architect-design` (if installed) or tell the user to switch to a design-conversation surface. If any check fails, push back rather than reviewing. ## Procedure 1. **Identify the artifact type.** Read the paste; pick one: - Design doc (Google-style or close to it) → `references/rubric-design-doc.md` - C4 Container / Context diagram → `references/rubric-c4-diagram.md` - Sequence diagram → `references/rubric-sequence-diagram.md` - State diagram → `references/rubric-state-diagram.md` - ER diagram → `references/rubric-er-diagram.md` - Something else, or unclear → `references/rubric-generic.md` If the artifact is the *wrong shape for the question* — a sequence diagram when the user wanted topology, an ADR when the user wanted a design doc — flag it