Hugo Nijhuis
7406517cd9
Claude Code has unified commands into skills with the user-invocable frontmatter field. This migration: - Converts 20 commands to skills with user-invocable: true - Consolidates docs into single writing-capabilities.md - Rewrites capability-writing skill for unified model - Updates CLAUDE.md, Makefile, and other references - Removes commands/ directory Skills now have two types: - user-invocable: true - workflows users trigger with /name - user-invocable: false - background knowledge auto-loaded Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
80 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
80 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: arch-review-repo
|
|
description: >
|
|
Perform a full architecture review of the current repository. Analyzes structure,
|
|
patterns, dependencies, and generates prioritized recommendations. Use when reviewing
|
|
architecture, auditing codebase, or when user says /arch-review-repo.
|
|
model: opus
|
|
argument-hint:
|
|
context: fork
|
|
user-invocable: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 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
|