Add /arch-review-repo command for repository architecture reviews
Creates a new command that spawns the software-architect agent to perform comprehensive architecture audits. The command analyzes directory structure, package organization, patterns, anti-patterns, dependencies, and test coverage, then presents prioritized recommendations with a health score. Closes #58 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit was merged in pull request #65.
This commit is contained in:
73
commands/arch-review-repo.md
Normal file
73
commands/arch-review-repo.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Perform a full architecture review of the current repository. Analyzes structure, patterns, dependencies, and generates prioritized recommendations.
|
||||
argument-hint:
|
||||
context: fork
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Architecture Review
|
||||
|
||||
@~/.claude/skills/software-architecture/SKILL.md
|
||||
|
||||
## Process
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Identify the repository**: Use the current working directory as the repository path.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Spawn the software-architect agent** for deep analysis:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
ANALYSIS_TYPE: repo-audit
|
||||
TARGET: <repository-path>
|
||||
CONTEXT: Full repository architecture review
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The agent will:
|
||||
- Analyze directory structure and package organization
|
||||
- Identify patterns and anti-patterns in the codebase
|
||||
- Assess dependency graph and module boundaries
|
||||
- Review test coverage approach
|
||||
- Generate structured findings with prioritized recommendations
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Present the results** to the user in this format:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
## Repository Architecture Review: <repo-name>
|
||||
|
||||
### Structure: <Good|Needs Work>
|
||||
- [Key observations about package organization]
|
||||
- [Directory structure assessment]
|
||||
- [Naming conventions evaluation]
|
||||
|
||||
### Patterns Identified
|
||||
- [Positive patterns found in the codebase]
|
||||
- [Architectural styles detected (layered, hexagonal, etc.)]
|
||||
|
||||
### Anti-Patterns Detected
|
||||
- [Anti-pattern name]: [Location and description]
|
||||
- [Anti-pattern name]: [Location and description]
|
||||
|
||||
### Concerns
|
||||
- [Specific issues that need attention]
|
||||
- [Technical debt areas]
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommendations (prioritized)
|
||||
1. **P0 - Critical**: [Most urgent recommendation]
|
||||
2. **P1 - High**: [Important improvement]
|
||||
3. **P2 - Medium**: [Nice-to-have improvement]
|
||||
4. **P3 - Low**: [Minor optimization]
|
||||
|
||||
### Health Score: <A|B|C|D|F>
|
||||
[Brief justification for the grade]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Offer follow-up actions**:
|
||||
- Create issues for critical findings
|
||||
- Generate a detailed report
|
||||
- Review specific components in more depth
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
- Be specific: Reference exact files, packages, and locations
|
||||
- Be actionable: Every finding should have a clear path to resolution
|
||||
- Be balanced: Acknowledge what the codebase does well
|
||||
- Be proportionate: Focus on high-impact issues first
|
||||
- Stay objective: Focus on patterns and principles, not style preferences
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user