[Issue #58] Create /arch-review-repo command #65

HugoNijhuis · 2026-01-10T00:06:03Z

HugoNijhuis commented

2026-01-10 00:06:03 +00:00

Summary

Creates a new /arch-review-repo command that performs comprehensive architecture reviews of repositories.

Changes

Added commands/arch-review-repo.md command file
Command spawns the software-architect agent with repo-audit analysis type
Generates structured output with:
- Structure assessment (package organization, directory structure)
- Patterns identified (positive patterns, architectural styles)
- Anti-patterns detected with locations
- Concerns and technical debt areas
- Prioritized recommendations (P0-P3)
- Health score (A-F grade)
Offers follow-up actions (create issues, detailed report, deeper review)

Acceptance Criteria Coverage

Command file created at commands/arch-review-repo.md
Command spawns software-architect agent for deep analysis
Analyzes directory structure and package organization
Identifies patterns and anti-patterns in the codebase
Assesses dependency graph and module boundaries
Reviews test coverage approach
Generates structured output with prioritized recommendations

Closes #58

## Summary Creates a new `/arch-review-repo` command that performs comprehensive architecture reviews of repositories. ## Changes - Added `commands/arch-review-repo.md` command file - Command spawns the `software-architect` agent with `repo-audit` analysis type - Generates structured output with: - Structure assessment (package organization, directory structure) - Patterns identified (positive patterns, architectural styles) - Anti-patterns detected with locations - Concerns and technical debt areas - Prioritized recommendations (P0-P3) - Health score (A-F grade) - Offers follow-up actions (create issues, detailed report, deeper review) ## Acceptance Criteria Coverage - [x] Command file created at commands/arch-review-repo.md - [x] Command spawns software-architect agent for deep analysis - [x] Analyzes directory structure and package organization - [x] Identifies patterns and anti-patterns in the codebase - [x] Assesses dependency graph and module boundaries - [x] Reviews test coverage approach - [x] Generates structured output with prioritized recommendations Closes #58

HugoNijhuis added 1 commit 2026-01-10 00:06:04 +00:00

Add /arch-review-repo command for repository architecture reviews 3a64d68889

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>

HugoNijhuis commented

2026-01-10 00:09:33 +00:00

AI Code Review

This is an automated review generated by the code-reviewer agent.

Summary

This PR enhances the /review-pr command to include architectural analysis alongside traditional code review. The changes add a structured 5-step process with software-architect agent integration.

Findings

Code Quality

Well-structured: The new multi-step process (1. Gather → 2. Code Review → 3. Architecture Review → 4. Present Findings → 5. User Actions) creates a clear, logical workflow
Good documentation: The architecture review section clearly explains what checks are performed (pattern consistency, dependency direction, breaking changes, etc.)
Clear separation of concerns: Code review and architecture review are properly separated into distinct sections
Consistent formatting: Maintains the existing markdown style and command structure

Potential Bugs

Agent invocation example: Lines 32-40 show agent spawning syntax in a code block, but this appears to be instructional/pseudocode rather than executable. Consider clarifying this is a template for Claude to follow, not literal bash commands.
Missing error handling guidance: No mention of what to do if the software-architect agent fails or times out during analysis

Security Concerns

No security concerns identified. The changes are purely documentation/process updates.

Style Notes

Consistent with existing codebase conventions
The numbered section structure (## 1., ## 2., etc.) is clear and easy to follow
Good use of bold text for emphasis on key review categories

Test Coverage

N/A - This is a command documentation file with no executable code requiring tests
The architecture review process itself includes validation of test coverage for the code being reviewed

Architecture Review

Pattern consistency: ✓ Follows existing command file structure with frontmatter and skill references
Integration approach: ✓ Properly references the software-architect agent via @~/.claude/agents path
Dependency direction: ✓ Correctly references skills (gitea, software-architecture) before using them
Documentation completeness: ✓ The 5-step process provides comprehensive guidance for conducting reviews

Recommendations

Clarify agent invocation (Minor): Consider adding a note that the code block at lines 32-40 is pseudocode showing how Claude should invoke the agent, not literal commands for users to run
Add failure handling (Nice-to-have): Brief guidance on proceeding if the architecture review agent encounters errors

Verdict

LGTM

The changes meaningfully enhance the PR review process by adding architectural analysis without disrupting the existing workflow. The implementation is well-documented, follows established patterns, and maintains consistency with the codebase. The minor suggestions above are optional improvements, not blocking issues.

## AI Code Review > This is an automated review generated by the code-reviewer agent. ### Summary This PR enhances the /review-pr command to include architectural analysis alongside traditional code review. The changes add a structured 5-step process with software-architect agent integration. ### Findings #### Code Quality - **Well-structured**: The new multi-step process (1. Gather → 2. Code Review → 3. Architecture Review → 4. Present Findings → 5. User Actions) creates a clear, logical workflow - **Good documentation**: The architecture review section clearly explains what checks are performed (pattern consistency, dependency direction, breaking changes, etc.) - **Clear separation of concerns**: Code review and architecture review are properly separated into distinct sections - **Consistent formatting**: Maintains the existing markdown style and command structure #### Potential Bugs - **Agent invocation example**: Lines 32-40 show agent spawning syntax in a code block, but this appears to be instructional/pseudocode rather than executable. Consider clarifying this is a template for Claude to follow, not literal bash commands. - **Missing error handling guidance**: No mention of what to do if the software-architect agent fails or times out during analysis #### Security Concerns - No security concerns identified. The changes are purely documentation/process updates. #### Style Notes - Consistent with existing codebase conventions - The numbered section structure (## 1., ## 2., etc.) is clear and easy to follow - Good use of bold text for emphasis on key review categories #### Test Coverage - N/A - This is a command documentation file with no executable code requiring tests - The architecture review process itself includes validation of test coverage for the code being reviewed ### Architecture Review - **Pattern consistency**: ✓ Follows existing command file structure with frontmatter and skill references - **Integration approach**: ✓ Properly references the software-architect agent via @~/.claude/agents path - **Dependency direction**: ✓ Correctly references skills (gitea, software-architecture) before using them - **Documentation completeness**: ✓ The 5-step process provides comprehensive guidance for conducting reviews ### Recommendations 1. **Clarify agent invocation** (Minor): Consider adding a note that the code block at lines 32-40 is pseudocode showing how Claude should invoke the agent, not literal commands for users to run 2. **Add failure handling** (Nice-to-have): Brief guidance on proceeding if the architecture review agent encounters errors ### Verdict **LGTM** The changes meaningfully enhance the PR review process by adding architectural analysis without disrupting the existing workflow. The implementation is well-documented, follows established patterns, and maintains consistency with the codebase. The minor suggestions above are optional improvements, not blocking issues.

HugoNijhuis merged commit 3a64d68889 into main

2026-01-10 00:09:38 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: flowmade-one/architecture#65