Results for “architecture-review”

Performs structured code reviews of git branches, tracking findings in a living document and optionally running deep architectural analysis with subagents.

Finds gaps between documented intent and actual implementation in codebases, catching bugs that generic scanners miss because they lack a model of intent.

Review pull requests or audit repositories for correctness, security, performance, test risk, architecture, dependencies, developer experience, documentation, and grounded product direction. Use for code review, repository audits, evidence-backed findings, false-positive vetting, risk assessment, prioritization, or deciding which improvements should become implementation plans.

Runs an evidence-first, read-only workflow over large codebases via an external JSONL REPL server, retrieving only minimal file slices and greps to produce cited architecture and audit reports.

Code review is time-consuming and inconsistent. Reviewers miss security issues, overlook edge cases, or focus on style over substance. Meanwhile, AI agents catch these mechanical issues instantly but can't judge business logic correctness, UX decisions, or architectural fit.

Review generated code for style, security, and architecture issues; suggest refactorings and performance improvements. Use after implementation is complete, before merging changes, or when refactoring existing code. Follows OWASP guidelines, SOLID principles, and best practices for maintainable code.

Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying with before/after screenshots. For plan-mode design review (before implementation), use /plan-design-review. Use when asked to "audit the design", "visual QA", "check if it looks good", or "design polish". Proactively suggest when the user mentions visual inconsistencies or wants to polish the look of a live site. (gstack)

Audit, write, or revise Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), including the decision of whether one is warranted. Use when an architecturally significant decision needs recording, when reviewing an existing ADR collection, or when adding ADRs to a project that has none. Detects existing template (Nygard or MADR) and defaults to Nygard for new repos. Gates comparison ADRs through a decompose-and-verify interview before drafting.

Use this when reviewing a feature, service, API, auth design, integration, job system, or deployment plan for security weaknesses, unsafe trust assumptions, input risks, or privilege issues.

Perform thorough code reviews on files or pull requests, checking for bugs, security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and style violations. Use when the user requests code review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

Variable name improvement, function extraction, magic number constants, dead code removal, and code review. For refactoring and PR review — does not change behavior. Don't use for bug/security (Judge), new tests (Radar), architecture (Atlas), or feature implementation (Builder).

当一段改动已经写完、要在收尾或合并前对它做一次独立审查时使用——如"审一遍这条分支、review 这次改动、这批代码有没有问题、帮我把关再合"。先把 BASE..HEAD 生成一份审查包一次读完，再按 correctness / readability / architecture / security / performance 五轴加测试质量逐项判定，输出带 file:line 的 Critical / Important / Minor 分级 findings。composable 层能力单元，通常由 execute-task 在整体验收时调用。不要用于：改动还没写完、只想跑测试、要的是动手修复而不是审查、评审需求或技术方案本身。

Diagnoses AWS architecture issues and reviews Well-Architected pillars using read-only AWS CLI commands, with confirmation required for any changes.

Designs and implements backend systems including REST APIs, microservices, database architectures, authentication flows, and security hardening. Use when the user asks to "design REST APIs", "optimize database queries", "implement authentication", "build microservices", "review backend code", "set up GraphQL", "handle database migrations", or "load test APIs". Covers Node.js/Express/Fastify development, PostgreSQL optimization, API security, and backend architecture patterns.

Analyzes smart contract codebases against Trail of Bits' secure development guidelines, generating documentation, reviewing architecture and upgradeability patterns, assessing implementation quality, identifying pitfalls, and providing prioritized recommendations.

Perform a structured audit of a codebase covering security, code quality, performance, dependencies, architecture, and testing hygiene, then produce a prioritized findings report. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, code audit, security review, codebase assessment, "look over this repo", "what's wrong with this codebase", legacy-code triage, pre-acquisition technical due diligence, or any request to systematically evaluate the health of a project. Trigger even when the user is casual ("can you eyeball my repo?") — this skill imposes the structure that ad-hoc review misses. This skill audits a whole repository at a point in time — for reviewing a diff or PR use the built-in code-review skill; for security checks on pending changes use security-review.

Use this skill to create CodeTour .tour files — persona-targeted, step-by-step walkthroughs that link to real files and line numbers. Trigger for: "create a tour", "make a code tour", "generate a tour", "onboarding tour", "tour for this PR", "tour for this bug", "RCA tour", "architecture tour", "explain how X works", "vibe check", "PR review tour", "contributor guide", "help someone ramp up", or any request for a structured walkthrough through code. Supports 20 developer personas (new joiner, bug fixer, architect, PR reviewer, vibecoder, security reviewer, and more), all CodeTour step types (file/line, selection, pattern, uri, commands, view), and tour-level fields (ref, isPrimary, nextTour). Works with any repository in any language.