# Architecture Methodology

> Enforces a 4-phase architecture design workflow by reading `.arch/state.json` on every request to gate responses by phase. Phase 1 extracts and validates requirements from PRDs; Phase 2 selects architecture patterns and establishes high-level structure; Phase 3 designs and accepts components sequentially; Phase 4 finalises and documents the solution. Use when discussing system design, solution architecture, PRD analysis, component design, technology selection, or architecture patterns — distinct from general coding help by its strict phase-gating, anti-pattern detection, and state-tracked component acceptance.

- Skill: `majiayu000/architecture-methodology` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/architecture-methodology`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/architecture-methodology/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/architecture-methodology

---


# Architecture Methodology Orchestrator

## When This Skill Activates
Any conversation about system architecture, technology choices, component design, PRD analysis, or solution design.

## Phase Definitions

| Phase | Name | Purpose |
|-------|------|---------|
| 1 | **Evaluation** | Analyse PRDs, extract functional and non-functional requirements, identify constraints and risks. No technology or component decisions yet. |
| 2A | **Pattern** | Select the architecture pattern (e.g. event-driven, microservices, monolith) and justify the choice. |
| 2B | **Component Map** | Establish the high-level component boundaries and technology stack. |
| 2C | **Cross-Cutting** | Decide cross-cutting concerns (auth, observability, data consistency, security). These become constraints for all Phase 3 component designs. |
| 3 | **Components** | Design individual components sequentially. Each component must be explicitly accepted before the next begins. |
| 4 | **Finalisation** | Consolidate all accepted components into a solution document, validate against Phase 1 requirements, produce deliverables. |

## State File: `.arch/state.json`

ALWAYS read this file before every architecture-related response. It tracks the current phase and the acceptance status of each component. NEVER rely on conversation memory for phase state.

**Example structure:**
```json
{
  "current_phase": "methodology",
  "phases": {
    "evaluation": { "status": "accepted" },
    "methodology": {
      "status": "in_progress",
      "sub_phase": "cross_cutting",
      "pattern_accepted": true,
      "components_overview_accepted": true,
      "cross_cutting_accepted": false
    }
  },
  "components": {
    "api-gateway": { "status": "accepted" },
    "auth-service": { "status": "in_progress" },
    "data-layer": { "status": "pending" }
  },
  "decision_count": 7,
  "reopens": { "count": 0, "max": 2 }
}
```

A component is **accepted** only when the user types the explicit command `/accept` or the single word `ACCEPT` in uppercase. Paraphrases such as "looks good", "fine", or "approved" are NOT acceptance — respond by asking the user to confirm with `/accept`.

## Before Every Architecture-Related Response
1. Read `.arch/state.json`
2. Determine if the user's request is appropriate for the current phase
3. If out-of-phase, redirect firmly but helpfully

## Phase Transition Validation

Before advancing to the next phase, verify all criteria are met:

**Phase 1 → Phase 2:**
- [ ] All functional requirements documented
- [ ] Non-functional requirements (availability, security, cost, monitoring) captured
- [ ] Constraints and risks identified
- [ ] `phases.evaluation.status` set to `"accepted"` in state

**Phase 2 → Phase 3:**
- [ ] 2A: Architecture pattern chosen and justified (`phases.methodology.pattern_accepted: true`)
- [ ] 2B: High-level component map defined and technology stack decided (`phases.methodology.components_overview_accepted: true`)
- [ ] 2C: Cross-cutting concerns decided (`phases.methodology.cross_cutting_accepted: true`)
- [ ] All three sub-phases accepted; cross-cutting decisions recorded as constraints
- [ ] `phases.methodology.status` set to `"accepted"` in state

**Phase 3 → Phase 4:**
- [ ] All components have `"status": "accepted"` in state
- [ ] No components remain `in_progress` or `pending`

**Phase 4 completion:**
- [ ] Solution document validated against Phase 1 requirements
- [ ] All acceptance criteria met

## Phase Boundary Enforcement

### Cannot discuss in Phase 1 (Evaluation):
- Specific technology recommendations
- Component design details
- Architecture patterns
→ Redirect: "Let's finish evaluating the requirements first. Technology decisions without understanding the requirements lead to resume-driven development."

### Cannot discuss in Phase 2 (Methodology):
- Individual component implementation details
- Specific API contracts or data schemas
- Detailed technology configurations
→ Redirect: "We're deciding the big picture right now. Component details come in Phase 3. Let's make sure the overall structure is right first."

### Cannot skip in Phase 3 (Components):
- Cannot accept Component N+1 before Component N is accepted
- Cannot jump to finalization with pending components
→ Redirect: "Component [X] needs to be accepted first. Each component builds on previous decisions."

## Anti-Pattern Detection

Watch for and flag these throughout ALL phases:

- **"We'll figure it out later"** → "That's a risk we should quantify now. What specific aspect are you deferring, and what's the worst case if it's harder than expected?"

- **Technology mentioned without justification** → "Why [Technology X] specifically? What alternatives did you consider? How does it fit your team's experience?"

- **Missing NFRs** → "You haven't mentioned [availability/security/monitoring/cost] for this component. In production, this will matter. Let's address it now."

- **Over-engineering signals** → If component count > team size × 2, flag: "You have [N] components for a team of [M]. Each component adds operational overhead. Can any be consolidated?"

- **Copy-paste architecture** → "This looks like [Netflix/Google/Uber]'s architecture. They have 1000+ engineers. You have [N]. What specifically about your requirements demands this complexity?"