# Workflow Architecture Audit > [Workflow] Use when activating the Architecture Audit workflow to review the whole project's architecture, run an architecture health check, or check production readiness/scalability in one pass — read-only, produces one consolidated Architecture Health Report. - Skill: `duc01226/workflow-architecture-audit-3` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add duc01226/workflow-architecture-audit-3` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/duc01226/workflow-architecture-audit-3/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: duc01226 (https://skillmd.com/u/duc01226) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/duc01226/workflow-architecture-audit-3 --- ## Quick Summary **Goal:** [Workflow] Audit the WHOLE project's architecture, scalability, and production readiness in ONE read-only pass and synthesize a single consolidated Architecture Health Report — three sub-scores and one combined verdict. Findings only; every validated fix routes to a FOLLOW-UP `/plan` or feature workflow. **Summary:** - READ-ONLY audit — produces findings + ONE consolidated Architecture Health Report (3 sub-scores + 1 combined verdict); NEVER applies fixes: every validated fix routes to a FOLLOW-UP `/plan` or feature workflow. - Core engine `architecture-review-full` runs INLINE (it owns the parallel fan-out + all-return barrier); this workflow declares NO workflow-level parallel groups. - FINAL `/why-review` gate (step 3) = the machine-visible guarantee no audit finding ships unvalidated — every PRIOR step routes its output into it; `docs-update` runs AFTER the gate and self-validates its own doc diff. - Main steps in order: **1** Scout scope → **2** Architecture-Review-Full (fan out 3 non-overlapping reviewers → progressive dedup synthesis → per-face `/why-review` fix → Finalize verdict) → **3** Why-Review FINAL gate → **4** Docs-Update → **5** Workflow-End → **6** Watzup. **Workflow:** 1. **Scout** — locate the modules, boundaries, and hotspots that scope the audit (whole project / current diff / specific path). **→ On completion, hand its scope map forward to the final `/why-review` (step 3) so the audit scope itself is validated (nothing in-scope missed, nothing out-of-scope pulled in).** 2. **Architecture-Review-Full** — the core step: runs INLINE (it spawns sub-agents), fans out three non-overlapping reviewers behind an all-return barrier, then PROGRESSIVELY synthesizes each face into ONE report file (status `IN PROGRESS` → `VALIDATING` → `FINISHED`): dedup, a fix-report-per-review `/why-review` gate that walks each of the three faces, and a Finalize step that locks the combined verdict. **→ On completion, hand the FINISHED consolidated report forward to the final `/why-review` (step 3) for report-level validation.** 3. **Why-Review (FINAL VALIDATION GATE over the audit findings)** — MANDATORY. Validates the findings AND reviews the results of every PRIOR step it can reach: the scout scope map, the FINISHED consolidated report (verdict-rollup correctness, dedup completeness, cross-review severity consistency), and each of the three review faces' contributions. Every prior step routes its output here; no audit finding ships unvalidated. `docs-update` runs AFTER this gate and is NOT validated by it — it self-validates its own doc diff (see step 4). 4. **Docs-Update** — refresh any documentation the validated audit shows as stale. **→ Self-validates its own output: re-invoke `/why-review` on the doc diff when docs-update makes non-trivial edits, so the doc changes are reviewed before workflow-end.** 5. **Workflow-End** — clear workflow state. 6. **Watzup** — wrap up and summarize. **Key Rules:** - MUST ATTENTION keep claims evidence-based (`file:line`) with confidence >80% to act. - MUST ATTENTION keep task tracking updated as each step starts/completes. - MUST ATTENTION treat this as READ-ONLY: produce findings + a verdict; NEVER apply fixes in this workflow — route them to a follow-up plan/feature workflow. - MUST ATTENTION run `architecture-review-full` INLINE (it owns the parallel fan-out + all-return barrier); this workflow declares NO workflow-level parallel groups. - MUST ATTENTION every PRIOR step routes its output to the FINAL `/why-review` gate (step 3): each producing step hands its findings + results forward, and the final `/why-review` validates the findings AND reviews the results of every prior step before docs-update — it is the final gate over the AUDIT FINDINGS. `docs-update` runs AFTER the gate and owns validation of its own output via an inline `/why-review` on non-trivial doc edits. - NEVER skip mandatory workflow or skill gates. **IMPORTANT MANDATORY Steps:** /scout -> /architecture-review-full -> /why-review -> /docs-update -> /workflow-end -> /watzup > **[BLOCKING]** Each step MUST ATTENTION invoke its `Skill` tool — marking a task `completed` without skill invocation is a workflow violation. NEVER batch-complete validation gates. ## Audit Protocol (READ-ONLY, ONE PASS) Audits the WHOLE project architecture + scalability + production readiness in one pass, synthesizing ONE consolidated Architecture Health Report. Core step `architecture-review-full` runs INLINE in the main session (it SPAWNS sub-agents). It: 1. **Resolves scope** — whole project / current diff / specific path. 2. **Fans out three deliberately-non-overlapping reviewers** as PARALLEL read-only sub-agents in one message behind an all-return barrier: - `architecture-scalability-review` (architect, scorecard /20) - `architecture-review` (architect, 13-category PASS/WARN/BLOCKED) - `production-readiness-review` (code-reviewer, SRE /24 + 8-item gate) 3. **Progressive synthesis (`IN PROGRESS`)** — opens ONE consolidated report file at status `🚧 IN PROGRESS` when fan-out starts, merges + **dedups** each face into it AS that face returns (never held in memory to the end). Siblings route to each other by design, so one underlying issue surfaces from multiple angles; collapse duplicates to one root finding citing every source. 4. **Fix-report-per-review `/why-review` gate (`VALIDATING`)** — ONE merged `/why-review` pass that WALKS EACH of the three review faces + the dedup and fixes the report in place (revise severities, drop false positives, restore any distinct issue the dedup collapsed). 5. **Finalize (`FINISHED`)** — locks the combined verdict (worst-case rollup: any BLOCKED / NOT READY / HIGH RISK dominates) and flips the report status to `✅ FINISHED`. Parallelism lives INSIDE `architecture-review-full` (it owns the fan-out + all-return barrier), so this workflow declares NO workflow-level parallel groups. After `architecture-review-full` returns the FINISHED report, the workflow-level **`why-review`** step runs the FINAL VALIDATION GATE over the AUDIT FINDINGS — a distinct altitude from the engine's per-face fix, and the machine-visible guarantee no audit finding ships without a why-review pass. Every PRIOR step routes its output into this gate; the gate BOTH validates findings AND reviews results across the steps it reaches: - **Scout scope map** → validate audit scope (nothing in-scope missed, nothing out-of-scope pulled in). - **`architecture-review-full` FINISHED report** → validate verdict-rollup correctness, dedup completeness, cross-review severity consistency; confirm each of the three review faces' contributions survived the per-face fix intact. - **`docs-update` output** → NOT validated by this gate (docs-update runs AFTER it); `docs-update` self-validates its own doc diff by re-invoking `/why-review` inline on non-trivial edits (see step 4) before workflow-end. Each PRIOR step, on completion, hands its findings + results forward to this gate — the AI MUST call the final `/why-review` to validate/review every prior step's output; a prior step is not "done" until routed to the gate. `docs-update`, running after the gate, owns validation of its own output. READ-ONLY audit: produces findings + a verdict only. Every validated finding routes to a FOLLOW-UP `/plan` or feature workflow owning the fix — no fixes applied in this workflow. After the final `why-review` gate confirms the report, `docs-update` refreshes impacted documentation, then `workflow-end` clears state and `watzup` wraps up. **UNIVERSAL RULES:** - Goal-Driven Execution: define success criteria before execution; loop until observable checks pass. - Tests Verify Intent: when a finding touches specs/tests, name the protected business intent or invariant and ensure the test would fail if that intent breaks. Activate the `workflow-architecture-audit` workflow. Run `/start-workflow workflow-architecture-audit` with the user's prompt as context and the audit protocol above. **Steps:** /scout → /architecture-review-full → /why-review → /docs-update → /workflow-end → /watzup --- **IMPORTANT MANDATORY Steps:** /scout -> /architecture-review-full -> /why-review -> /docs-update -> /workflow-end -> /watzup > **AI Mistake Prevention** — Failure modes to avoid on every task: > > **Re-read files after context changes.** Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. > **Verify generated content against source evidence.** AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. > **Check downstream references before deleting or renaming.** Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. > **Trace the full impact chain after edits.** Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. > **Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first.** One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. > **Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing OR flagging one as a defect.** Before changing or reporting a constant, limit, flag, cutoff, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history, the CALLER's ordering, and 2+ sibling call sites of the same convention. A doc stating WHAT without WHY is missing rationale, not proof of a missing guard. > **Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently.** Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. > **Assert the outcome your system owns, not the intermediate state your infrastructure owns.** When verifying async work, assert the final business state — never the delivery/retry bookkeeping held in shared infrastructure that any co-running process can write. Such a check passes when run alone and flakes the moment anything else shares that infrastructure. > **Keep shared guidance role-relevant.** Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols. > **Nested Task Expansion Contract** — For workflow-step invocation, the `[Workflow] ...` row is only a parent container; the child skill still creates visible phase tasks. > > 1. Call `TaskList` first. If a matching active parent workflow row exists, set `nested=true` and record `parentTaskId`; otherwise run standalone. > 2. Create one task per declared phase before phase work. When nested, prefix subjects `[N.M] $skill-name — phase`. > 3. When nested, link the parent with `TaskUpdate(parentTaskId, addBlockedBy: [childIds])`. > 4. Orchestrators must pre-expand a child skill's phase list and link the workflow row before invoking that child skill or sub-agent. > 5. Mark exactly one child `in_progress` before work and `completed` immediately after evidence is written. > 6. Complete the parent only after all child tasks are completed or explicitly cancelled with reason. > > **Blocked until:** `TaskList` done, child phases created, parent linked when nested, first child marked `in_progress`. > **Critical Thinking Mindset** — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. > **Anti-hallucination:** Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. > **Incremental Result Persistence** — MANDATORY for all sub-agents or heavy inline steps processing >3 files. > > 1. **Before starting:** Create report file `plans/reports/{skill}-{date}-{slug}.md` > 2. **After each file/section reviewed:** Append findings to report immediately — never hold in memory > 3. **Return to main agent:** Summary only (per SYNC:subagent-return-contract) with `Full report:` path > 4. **Main agent:** Reads report file only when resolving specific blockers > > **Why:** Context cutoff mid-execution loses ALL in-memory findings. Each disk write survives compaction. Partial results are better than no results. > > **Report naming:** `plans/reports/{skill-name}-{YYMMDD}-{HHmm}-{slug}.md` > **Sub-Agent Return Contract** — When this skill spawns a sub-agent, the sub-agent MUST return ONLY this structure. Main agent reads only this summary — NEVER requests full sub-agent output inline. > > ```markdown > ## Sub-Agent Result: [skill-name] > > Status: ✅ PASS | ⚠️ PARTIAL | ❌ FAIL > Confidence: [0-100]% > > ### Findings (Critical/High only — max 10 bullets) > > - [severity] [file:line] [finding] > > ### Actions Taken > > - [file changed] [what changed] > > ### Blockers (if any) > > - [blocker description] > > Full report: plans/reports/[skill-name]-[date]-[slug].md > ``` > > Main agent reads `Full report` file ONLY when: (a) resolving a specific blocker, or (b) building a fix plan. > Sub-agent writes full report incrementally (per SYNC:incremental-persistence) — not held in memory. > > **Context budget** — the return payload is a SUMMARY, not a transcript: ≤10 finding bullets, no raw file contents / full diffs / verbatim logs inline, no re-pasted source. Everything beyond the summary lives in the `Full report` on disk. A sub-agent that would exceed the summary shape MUST write the detail to its report and return only the pointer — the orchestrator's context is the scarce resource the whole map-reduce protects. **MUST ATTENTION** apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (`file:line` for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence. **MUST ATTENTION** apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting. - **MANDATORY** Parent workflow rows do not replace child phase tracking; expand phases and link the parent when nested. - **MANDATORY** Orchestrators pre-expand child skill phases before invocation; use `[N.M] $skill-name — phase` prefixes and one-`in_progress` discipline. > **Project Protocol Overlay** — Before executing this skill, resolve any PROJECT overlay rules layered onto it: match this skill's name against the `Target` column of the project's skill-protocol index (`docs/project-reference/skill-protocols-reference.md` by default; a `referenceDocs` entry in `docs/project-config.json` overrides the path), taking the most specific matching tier ONLY — exact name > glob > `*`. **That precedence orders overlays against EACH OTHER, never against this skill.** Read ONLY the matched bodies, resolved as `/.md`; a row's Body link is display text, never a read path. A matched body that is missing or malformed is REPORTED and skipped — never reconstructed from the index Description. No index, or no match -> proceed with no overlay, silently. Full contract: `.claude/skills/project-skill-protocol/references/registry.md`. > > Overlays are **ADDITIVE ONLY**: they ADD rules on top of this skill's own protocol and NEVER replace, override, disable, or reinterpret a rule it already states — removing every overlay must return this skill to exactly its documented behavior. An overlay is a BRIEF, not an authority escalation: it can NEVER waive a workflow gate, git discipline, a review gate, or a user-confirmation gate. A genuine overlay-vs-skill conflict, or two equally-specific overlays that directly contradict -> surface both to the user; NEVER resolve silently. **MUST ATTENTION** resolve project protocol overlays for this skill BEFORE executing — most specific matching tier only (exact > glob > `*`, which ranks overlays against each other, NEVER against this skill), read only matched bodies at `/.md`; a missing or malformed body is reported, never reconstructed. Overlays are ADDITIVE ONLY (they never replace this skill's own rules) and are a brief, NEVER an authority escalation; an equal-specificity contradiction goes to the user. ## Closing Reminders **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal:** READ-ONLY audit of the WHOLE project's architecture + scalability + production readiness in ONE pass → ONE consolidated Architecture Health Report (3 sub-scores + 1 combined verdict); findings only — every validated fix routes to a FOLLOW-UP `/plan` or feature workflow. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Main steps in order:** **1** /scout (scope) → **2** /architecture-review-full (INLINE: fan out 3 non-overlapping reviewers → progressive dedup synthesis → per-face `/why-review` fix → Finalize combined verdict) → **3** /why-review (FINAL validation gate over the audit findings — every prior step routes its output here) → **4** /docs-update (self-validates its own doc diff) → **5** /workflow-end → **6** /watzup. NEVER skip a gate; NEVER apply fixes inline. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):** - **AI Mistake Prevention:** verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity. - **Nested Task Creation:** expand child phases, link parent when nested. - **Critical Thinking:** traced `file:line` proof, confidence >80% to act. - **Incremental Persistence:** append findings to report file after each section. - **Subagent Return Contract:** sub-agent returns summary-only with `Full report:` pointer. **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** break work into small todo tasks using `TaskCreate` BEFORE starting **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** cite `file:line` evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act) **IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION** add a final review todo task to verify work quality **[TASK-PLANNING]** Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate. > **[IMPORTANT]** Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.