architecture-reviewlisted

Cross-checks ADRs, API contracts, data model, threat model and feature specs for consistency and feasibility before build; verifies stack facts against the stack reference. Read-only report with PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL. Run at the architecture→build gate.
gonimar/claude-web-studio · ★ 0 · Web & Frontend · score 76

Install: claude install-skill gonimar/claude-web-studio

# Architecture Review Reply in the project conversation language (CLAUDE.md → Language); code, identifiers, paths and commit messages stay in English. Read-only; writes nothing. The report goes to the chat. ## Phase 1: Collect All `docs/architecture/adr-*.md`, `docs/architecture/api/*`, `data-model.md`, `threat-model.md`, `test-strategy.md`, `docs/specs/features/*.md`, `technical-preferences.md`, `stack-reference/index.md`. ## Phase 2: Checks 1. **Consistency**: ADRs do not contradict each other or technical-preferences; the contract covers the feature-spec operations; the data model covers the contract's data; the threat model covers the contract's surfaces (GraphQL/WS/uploads). 2. **ADR completeness**: Status/Options/Consequences/Verification; accepted ADRs are `Accepted`. 3. **Stack facts**: versions and claims in ADRs match the reference (e.g. three.js has no SemVer, Vue 3.6 is RC, GraphQL @defer is outside the spec). 4. **Feasibility**: performance budgets realistic; basic security measures present; the test strategy covers the levels. 5. In parallel via Task: `backend-lead`, `frontend-lead`, `security-lead` (and `game-lead` for games) — top 3 risks in their area. ## Phase 3: Report Table "document → status → findings (BLOCKING/WARNING/INFO)", then the verdict `PASS` / `CONCERNS` / `FAIL` with reasons. Never change `stage.txt` — only recommend. Next step — one `AskUserQuestion`: on PASS `/create-stories` (Recommended) · re-run the review after fixes · stop here; ot