archify-review

Featured

Review Archify issues, PRs, or code through value, cost, and impact to support evidence-based maintenance decisions. Use for issue triage, change reviews, and code quality assessments.

Code & Development 72,017 stars 4849 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 91/100

Stars 20%
100
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
70
Issue Health 10%
50
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Archify Review Judge whether a problem is worth addressing and an approach is worth maintaining over time. - **Value**: Identify the real problem, who benefits, how often it occurs, its consequences, and whether it is worth addressing now. - **Cost**: Consider implementation and verification effort, along with the future cost of understanding, changing, and maintaining the code. Prefer existing capabilities and keep the solution proportional to the problem. - **Impact**: Identify affected behavior and modules, consequences for users and future development, and whether the change improves maintainability or adds coupling and constraints. Consider maintainability, complexity, compatibility, performance, and other relevant concerns within these three dimensions, according to the specific problem. Ground judgments in evidence: verify the target revision and relevant facts, distinguish direct verification from existing evidence and assumptions, and choose checks that resolve the key uncertainties. Explain whether the work is worthwhile, the approach's cost and impact, any better alternatives, and unresolved questions that matter to the decision. Give reasons and scale the detail to the importance of each concern. For repository-specific review and contribution requirements, consult [REVIEWING.md](../../../REVIEWING.md) and [CONTRIBUTING.md](../../../CONTRIBUTING.md) as needed.

Details

Author
tt-a1i
Repository
tt-a1i/archify
Created
5 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
JavaScript
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Listed

architecture-review

Review an existing codebase for high-value architectural improvements, using concrete code evidence to identify weak boundaries, shallow modules, duplication, coupling, scattered responsibilities, and unstable seams.

1 Updated 4 weeks ago
martonpaulo
Code & Development Listed

review-arch

Conduct a principal-level architecture review of a system, specification, diagram, or set of design decisions. Use when asked to review an architecture, evaluate a design, assess coupling/cohesion, check for anti-patterns, audit system boundaries, or produce an Architecture Review Board (ARB) style verdict. Also use when someone says 'review this architecture', 'is this design sound', 'what's wrong with this topology', 'evaluate these tradeoffs', or 'audit this system'. Produces a structured verdict organized around critical risks, significant concerns, observations, strengths, and open questions, grounded in evidence from the codebase and cited against established methodology (ATAM, ISO/IEC 25010, documented anti-pattern catalogues). Do NOT use for line-by-line code review, spec-vs-implementation verification, or PR-level correctness checks. Name the system, spec, or design to be reviewed in the arguments; the skill does not infer the target from the conversation.

6 Updated yesterday
sergeyklay
Code & Development Listed

architecture-review

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.

95 Updated 1 months ago
thiientv