Improve Codebase Architecture

Improve Codebase Architecture

Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.

This skill is built on a shared design vocabulary and informed by the project's domain model:

• The codebase-design skill holds the architecture vocabulary — module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality — and its principles: the deletion test, "the interface is the test surface", "one adapter = hypothetical seam, two = real". Read it before you scan, and use those terms exactly in every suggestion.
• CONTEXT.md gives names to good seams; ADRs in docs/adr/ record decisions this skill should not re-litigate. Both formats are documented in the grill-me skill, if it's installed alongside: CONTEXT-FORMAT.md, ADR-FORMAT.md.

Process

1. Explore

Scope before you scan. Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so weight the parts of the codebase that keep moving. Decide where to look before you look:

• If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.
• Otherwise walk back a good stretch of git log --oneline for the codebase's hot spots — the files and areas that keep coming up — and let those paths pull your attention first. If the changes are scattered with no clear hot spot, widen the net.

Read the existing documentation for that area first:

• CONTEXT.md (or CONTEXT-MAP.md + each CONTEXT.md in a multi-context repo)
• Relevant ADRs in docs/adr/ (and any context-scoped docs/adr/ directories)

If any of these files don't exist, proceed silently — don't flag their absence or suggest creating them upfront.

Then send a read-only exploration sub-agent to walk the codebase (on Claude Code, the Explore agent type). Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:

• Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
• Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
• Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no locality)?
• Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
• Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?

Apply the deletion test to anything you suspect is shallow: would deleting it concentrate complexity, or just move it? A "yes, concentrates" is the signal you want.

2. Present candidates

Each candidate gets:

• Files — which files/modules are involved
• Problem — why the current architecture is causing friction
• Solution — plain English description of what would change
• Benefits — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
• Recommendation strength — Strong, Worth exploring, or Speculative

End with a top recommendation: which candidate you'd tackle first, and why.

Architecture is graph-shaped, and a before/after picture of a deepening lands harder than a paragraph about it. If rich-page is available, build the candidate list as a self-contained HTML report — a card per candidate with a before/after diagram showing the shallowness and the deepening, and the strength as a badge — written to a temp path outside the repo, and open it for the user. Otherwise present the same fields as a numbered list in chat.

Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and codebase-design vocabulary for the architecture. If CONTEXT.md defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."

ADR conflicts: if a candidate contradicts an existing ADR, only surface it when the friction is real enough to warrant revisiting the ADR. Mark it clearly (e.g. "contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.

Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"

3. Grilling loop

Once the user picks a candidate, drop into a grilling conversation — the grill-me skill if it's installed. Walk the design tree with them: constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.

Side effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — keep the domain model current as you go, the same discipline ubiquitous-language applies:

• Naming a deepened module after a concept not in CONTEXT.md? Add the term to CONTEXT.md (see CONTEXT-FORMAT.md). Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.
• Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation? Update CONTEXT.md right there.
• User rejects the candidate with a load-bearing reason? Offer an ADR, framed as: "Want me to record this as an ADR so future architecture reviews don't re-suggest it?" Only offer when the reason would actually be needed by a future explorer to avoid re-suggesting the same thing — skip ephemeral reasons ("not worth it right now") and self-evident ones. See ADR-FORMAT.md.
• Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module? Use codebase-design's design-it-twice pattern.

Derived from mattpocock/skills, MIT © 2026 Matt Pocock. Keep this line if you copy this file.