Automated Architecture Governance Fitness Function Evaluator

Automated Architecture Governance (Fitness Function Evaluator)

Evaluate structural rules and quantitative thresholds defined by architecture governance.

When to Use

• CI/CD architectural gates
• Nightly governance checks
• Pre-commit architecture checks
• Audits of layering, cycles, or metric thresholds

Scope

• Scans: explicit governance files, architecture tests, dependency graphs, and structural metrics such as cycles or layer violations.
• Exclusions: documentation-only updates, style-only changes, and runtime issues without a static architectural rule to evaluate.
• Fallback: if the repository lacks explicit rules, use the shared conventions fallback and report warning rather than fail.
• Routing: defer documentation freshness to Decision Log and ADR Tracer or Automated Software Guidebook Generator, and module-level coupling to Structural Coupling and Volatility Analyzer.

Workflow

1. Parse fitness functions.
   • Read governance files, architecture rules, and architecture-focused test suites.
   • Also inspect CI includes and validation jobs for executable governance that is not stored in a dedicated rules file.
   • Extract explicit thresholds and dependency rules.
2. Verify structure.
   • Detect forbidden cross-layer dependencies.
   • Detect cycles across packages, modules, or bounded contexts.
3. Evaluate metrics.
   • Check complexity, file size, and similar static thresholds.
   • Flag modules that exceed defined limits.
4. Report findings.
   • List failed fitness functions.
   • Include file paths, classes, and lines.
   • Distinguish between:
     • explicit architecture fitness functions that can fail the build
     • general CI governance that validates contracts, lint, or security
     • missing architecture rules, which should warn rather than fail if governance exists elsewhere
   • Provide CI-ready failure output and exit-code guidance.

Rules

• Use static analysis, configuration files, and AST parsing only.
• Keep the analysis deterministic and language-agnostic where possible.
• Prefer explicit governance definitions over inferred conventions.
• Treat the absence of a dedicated architecture rules file as a warning if other executable governance exists in CI.
• Treat explicit violations of declared architecture fitness functions as fails.

Shared Conventions

• Follow the repository-wide conventions in shared-skill-conventions.
• Use the canonical output contract, severity levels, confidence rubric, routing rules, and false-positive downgrades defined there.
• If this skill is not the closest match, defer to the routing guidance in the shared conventions file.

Output

Return:

• Failed fitness functions
• Structural dependency violations
• Metric threshold breaches
• CI-ready pass or fail output