archify-review
FeaturedReview 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.
Install
Quality Score: 91/100
Skill Content
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
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.
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.
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.