Miro Code To Board Architecture

Code-to-Board Architecture

Audit an entire repository and turn it into a structured architectural review on a Miro board: discovered systems, their dependencies, user flows, security-critical paths with OWASP analysis, and per-module code-quality findings. The output is a frame-per-topic board the user can pan through.

The user optionally supplies a Miro board URL. If none is given, the skill creates a fresh board via the Miro MCP board_create tool (see §7).

Workflow

1. Inventory the repo

Walk the working directory and identify the discrete systems in the repo. A system is anything with its own entry point and runtime: a frontend app, a backend service, a CLI tool, a worker, a library/SDK, an infra module (Terraform, Helm), etc.

Signals to identify systems:

• Top-level manifests: package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, Gemfile, composer.json
• Containerization: Dockerfile, docker-compose.yml, Procfile
• Build configs at non-root paths: webpack.config.*, vite.config.*, framework-specific configs
• Workspace declarations: pnpm-workspace.yaml, lerna.json, nx.json, turbo.json, Cargo / Go workspaces
• Infra: terraform/, k8s/, helm/, infra/
• Conventional layout: apps/, services/, packages/, cmd/

For each system, classify:

If the repo is a single application (not a monorepo), treat it as one system and skip straight to module-level analysis in §2.

2. Map modules and dependencies

For each system identified in §1:

Internal modules:

• Read the system's manifest to enumerate external dependencies
• Build an import graph for the system's own source (parse imports/requires/uses)
• Group source files into modules using the directory structure (or framework conventions: controllers/, services/, lib/, internal/<pkg>/, etc.)

Cross-system dependencies:

• Detect when one system depends on another (workspace imports, shared internal packages, HTTP/RPC clients pointing at sibling services)
• Record the direction and the surface used (HTTP path, gRPC method name, library entry point)

3. Trace user flows

For each system that has a user-facing surface, trace the principal flows:

• Frontends — routes / pages, the calls each page makes, the components it renders
• Backends — routes / RPCs, the auth boundary, the downstream services / datastores each handler touches
• CLIs / workers — commands or trigger events, the work each performs

A flow is a path from external input to terminal effect (DB write, response to user, queue publish). Capture flows that span multiple systems separately — they are the most important for the cross-system view in §4.

4. Build the architectural diagrams (Mermaid)

Codify the inventory into three diagram families. Generate them all as Mermaid; they're created on the board in §8 via the Miro MCP diagram_create_mermaid tool.

4a. System map (one diagram, top-level).

A flowchart showing every system as a node, with edges for cross-system dependencies. Annotate edges with the surface (HTTP /api/users, gRPC Auth.Verify, imports @org/lib-x). Include external dependencies (DBs, queues, third-party APIs) as differently-styled nodes.

4b. Module structure (one diagram per system).

A class or component diagram per system, showing internal modules and their dependencies. Group external deps into a separate cluster. For very small systems (≤ 3 modules), skip the per-system diagram and let the system map carry it.

4c. User flows (one diagram per principal flow).

A sequence diagram per flow showing actors → systems → datastores. For purely intra-system flows where the sequence is degenerate, a flowchart is acceptable.

5. Security analysis

Identify flows where data security or system integrity is critical. Heuristics for which flows qualify:

• Authentication / authorization boundaries (login, token issuance, session management)
• User input that hits a DB, a shell, an HTTP fetch, or a templating engine
• File upload / download
• Payments, billing, PII handling
• Multi-tenant boundaries (one tenant's data must not leak to another)
• Webhook receivers / OAuth callbacks
• Admin endpoints
• Anything touching crypto keys, secrets, or session material

For each critical flow, produce four artifacts:

5a. OWASP investigation. Walk through the OWASP Top 10 and note which categories are relevant to this flow. Skip categories that don't apply.

• A01 Broken Access Control
• A02 Cryptographic Failures
• A03 Injection
• A04 Insecure Design
• A05 Security Misconfiguration
• A06 Vulnerable & Outdated Components
• A07 Identification & Authentication Failures
• A08 Software & Data Integrity Failures
• A09 Security Logging & Monitoring Failures
• A10 SSRF

5b. Flow diagram. A sequence diagram showing the request path with trust boundaries marked. Annotate where authentication, authorization, validation, and sanitization happen — or are missing.

5c. Flow description document. A short markdown doc covering:

• Purpose of the flow
• Trust boundary (who can call it, what credentials are required)
• Inputs and how they are validated
• Outputs and how they're exposed
• Datastores touched
• Known gaps

5d. Findings table. A table of identified issues for this flow:

Order rows by impact descending (High first).

6. Code-quality analysis

For each module identified in §2, evaluate:

Quality signals:

• Cyclomatic complexity (heuristic: branches per function; flag > 10)
• Function length (flag > 50 lines)
• File length (flag > 400 lines)
• Duplication (repeated blocks across the module)
• Naming consistency
• Comment-to-code ratio (extremes in either direction are a smell)
• Coupling (number of imports from other modules)

Test coverage:

• Look for colocated __tests__/, *_test.go, *.test.ts, tests/, etc.
• Read coverage reports if present (coverage/, .coverage, coverage.out, etc.) and capture the numbers
• If no tests exist for a module, mark it explicitly

System quality:

• Error handling (silent failures, broad catches, swallowed errors)
• Logging discipline (over-logging, missing logs at boundaries)
• Type safety (@ts-ignore, any, unchecked casts, interface{} abuse)
• Documentation (public APIs without docstrings)

Produce a per-module findings table:

Order rows by impact descending.

7. Resolve the Miro board

If the user supplied a board URL, capture it as BOARD_URL and announce Using board: <BOARD_URL> in chat. Otherwise create a fresh board with the Miro MCP board_create tool before §8 — every downstream step assumes the board exists.

Naming the new board:

• Single-system repo → Architecture: <repo-name>
• Monorepo → Architecture: <repo-name> (N systems)

Announce in chat:

Created Miro board:

8. Compose the board

The board is laid out as a sequence of frames in a single horizontal row, each frame holding a logical chunk of the analysis. Create frames with the Miro MCP layout_create tool — pass the frame's title as part of the layout payload (no separate text widget needed for titles). If you're unsure about the layout DSL shape, call layout_get_dsl first to inspect a template.

Miro MCP tools used in this step:

Frame order (left-to-right):

Inside each frame, stack contents top-to-bottom.

Frame 1 — Architecture Overview

• Frame title (on layout_create): Architecture Overview
• The system map Mermaid diagram from §4a — diagram_create_mermaid
• A summary document — doc_create — listing:
  • Total systems and their types
  • Principal cross-system dependencies
  • Datastores and external services in use
  • Anything surprising or non-obvious about the topology

Size the frame wide enough that the system map renders at readable scale without zooming.

Frame 2 — System Structure & Flows

• Frame title (on layout_create): System Structure & Flows

Per system, in a vertical stack inside the frame:

• A module overview doc (doc_create) — H1 Module Structure: <system-name>, then a one-paragraph role description, a ## Modules section listing each module with responsibility + dependencies + exports, and a ## External dependencies section if non-empty. Keep it skim-readable.
• The §4b module diagram for that system — diagram_create_mermaid
• For each user-flow owned by this system:
  • A flow overview doc (doc_create) — H1 Flow: <flow-name>, then a one-paragraph trigger-to-effect description, a ## Steps list (numbered, naming the module/handler each step lives in), and ## Datastores touched if non-empty.
  • The §4c sequence diagram — diagram_create_mermaid

After all per-system stacks, place cross-system flows as a final section — these span boundaries and most often surface architectural issues. Use the same flow-overview doc shape for each.

Never emit a section as an H1-only doc with no body — the diagram visualizes the shape, the doc carries the prose. Both are needed.

Frames 3..(2+S) — Security flows (one frame per critical flow)

For each flow identified in §5:

• Frame title (on layout_create): flow name + risk level, e.g. Login flow — High risk
• Flow sequence diagram from §5b — diagram_create_mermaid
• Flow description document from §5c — doc_create
• Findings table from §5d — table_create, with the Impact column as a fixed-set column (High = red, Medium = orange, Low = green); rows sorted by impact

If §5 found no security-critical flows, skip these frames entirely and note it once in chat: "No security-critical flows identified — skipping per-flow frames."

Frames (3+S)..end — Code-quality per module

For each module from §6 that has at least one finding (or a notable test-coverage gap):

• Frame title (on layout_create): <module-name> — <parent-system>
• A short overview document — doc_create — covering the quality signals and test-coverage notes
• The findings table — table_create, Impact as a fixed-set color-coded column, rows sorted by impact
• For each High-impact issue, embed a code widget — code_widget_create — containing the problematic snippet. Caption with file:line-line; body is the offending code (or a minimal diff if the issue is a relationship between two snippets).

Skip modules that have no findings and no coverage concerns — an empty frame is noise.

9. Output

After composition, report in chat:

1. BOARD_URL
2. Summary: <N> systems, <M> modules, <S> security flows analyzed, <F> frames created
3. Top architectural concerns — 3–5 bullets
4. Top security findings — High-impact items only, with the frame they live in
5. Top quality findings — High-impact items only, with the frame they live in

Background

Why frames

This skill produces a lot of content. Frames let a viewer pan through the analysis at the granularity that matters to them — a developer wants the system map and one module; a security reviewer wants the security flows; a PM wants the overview. Each frame is self-contained.

Don't manufacture content

If a system has no internal modules worth diagramming, skip the per-system module diagram. If no flow is security-critical, skip the security frames — and say so in chat instead of creating empty sections. If a module has no findings, skip its frame. Every artifact must earn its place.

Linking conventions

When a remote URL is known (the repo has a configured origin and a head SHA can be resolved), render file:line-line references as clickable links:

• GitHub: https://{host}/{owner}/{repo}/blob/{sha}/{path}#L{a}-L{b}
• GitLab: https://{host}/{group}/{project}/-/blob/{sha}/{path}#L{a}-{b}

Resolve the SHA with git rev-parse HEAD. If no remote is configured, render references as plain paths and announce once: "No remote URL available — file references shown as plain paths." Do not invent URLs.

Layout reference

┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────┐  ┌──────────┐  ┌──────────┐
│  Frame 1     │  │  Frame 2     │  │ Security │  │ Security │  │ Module   │ ...
│  Overview    │→ │  Structure & │→ │ flow     │→ │ flow     │→ │ quality  │
│  (large)     │  │  Flows       │  │  frames  │  │  frames  │  │  frames  │
│              │  │  (large)     │  │          │  │          │  │          │
└──────────────┘  └──────────────┘  └──────────┘  └──────────┘  └──────────┘