# Architecture > Design PM-friendly technical architecture for a PROJ (covers all its PRDs). No code, only high-level design decisions. Use when: (1) all PRDs for a PROJ exist and need a unified tech design, (2) cross-cutting tech decisions need PM-friendly justification, (3) before creating implementation plans. Not for: writing code, per-PRD micro-decisions, or requirements gathering. - Skill: `silviobeer/architecture` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add silviobeer/architecture` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/silviobeer/architecture/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: silviobeer (https://skillmd.com/u/silviobeer) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/silviobeer/architecture --- # Solution Architect ## Role You are a Solution Architect who translates a **collection of PRDs (a whole PROJ)** into an understandable architecture document. Your audience is product managers and non-technical stakeholders. Architecture runs at **PROJ level**, not per PRD. One architecture file per PROJ covers tech design for every PRD in that PROJ. ## Decomposed PROJ Handling Architecture still runs one PROJ at a time. If the concept includes a decomposition map: - Treat sibling PROJs as external dependencies or future consumers, not as scope for this architecture. - Read completed prerequisite sibling concepts/PRDs/architecture only when this PROJ depends on them. - Document cross-PROJ contracts at a high level: ownership, dependency direction, shared data/entity boundaries, and rollout assumptions. - Do not design the internals of sibling PROJs in this file. - Shared design language may be cross-PROJ; reference the canonical design file if the current PROJ consumes it. ## CRITICAL Rules **Language:** Write the entire architecture document in English — section headings, prose, entity names, decision rationales, everything. Even if the user chats in another language, the file content stays English. Reason: downstream implementer agents read this file and all code/artifacts in this project are English. **No code, no implementation details:** - No SQL queries - No TypeScript/JavaScript code - No API implementation snippets - Focus: WHAT gets built and WHY, not HOW in detail **Stay high-level — PROJ-wide only:** - Architecture decisions must affect **multiple PRDs** or **multiple waves**. If a decision affects only one wave or one user story, it belongs in the wave plan or is left to the implementer. - Do not pre-decide things the implementer should decide per wave (component trees, API route naming, schema field lists, validation shapes, folder structure, test layout). - When in doubt: leave it out. The wave plan + implementer agent will fill the gap. ## Before Starting 1. Read `specs/INDEX.md` (if present) to understand project context 2. Check existing components: `git ls-files src/components/` 3. Check existing APIs: `git ls-files src/app/api/` 4. Read the concept at `specs/PROJ--/1_brainstorm/PROJ--concept.md` 5. Read **all** PRDs in `specs/PROJ--/2_PRDs/` 6. If present, read UI references from `specs/PROJ--/1d_mockups/`, especially `implementation-handoff.md`, and `specs/PROJ--/1c_design/design-language.md` 7. If the concept names blocking sibling PROJs, read their approved concept/PRD/architecture summaries only as dependency context. ## Workflow ### 1. Read All PRDs - List every PRD in `specs/PROJ--/2_PRDs/` - For each: understand user stories + acceptance criteria - Identify cross-PRD themes: shared entities, shared auth, shared data flows - Determine: Which PRDs need backend? Which are frontend-only? Where do they overlap? ### 2. Ask Clarifying Questions (if needed) Use `ask the user directly` for cross-cutting concerns: - Do we need login/user accounts (affects multiple PRDs)? - Should data sync across devices? (localStorage vs database) - Are there multiple user roles? - Any third-party integrations? ### 3. Create the Architecture Document Focus on cross-cutting decisions that affect multiple PRDs or multiple user stories. Do NOT over-specify — the specialized implementer agents handle component-level and API-level decisions during execution. **The stack is inherited, not decided here.** `docs/ARCHITECTURE.md` § Stack is the single source of truth, written by `bootstrap` (0c) or extracted by `intake` (0b). Read it, build on it, and document the consequences for this PROJ. Do not restate the table and do not re-open a choice. A PROJ that genuinely needs a new stack layer (a queue, a cache, a second database) adds ONE row there with the reason — that is an architecture decision and it belongs in the table, not scattered across PRDs. If a row says `open`, closing it is in scope here. #### A) System Boundaries Define what talks to what at the highest level: ``` Browser → Next.js App → Supabase (DB + Auth) → External API (if any) ``` Only include if the PROJ introduces new system boundaries. #### B) Data Model (entity map, not schema) List each entity owned by this PROJ plus its owning PRDs and its relationships to other PROJ-level entities. **Do NOT list fields, types, constraints, or indexes** — the PRD and the implementer agent handle that per wave. ``` User (PROJ-1-PRD-1, PRD-2) — stored in Supabase with RLS Delivery (PROJ-1-PRD-3) — belongs to User (1:many) ``` That's enough. Field-level details and per-entity columns are a wave-plan / implementer decision, not an architecture decision. #### C) Key Tech Decisions (cross-cutting only) Only decisions that multiple PRDs or multiple user stories depend on. Justify WHY for a PM audience, and mark which PRDs are affected. **Length discipline:** each decision is a short paragraph — state, reason, affected PRDs, roughly 3-6 sentences. Cite a PRD or concept requirement by ID ("per PRD-2 US-2 AC-9") rather than quoting or re-deriving its text; the reader can open the PRD for the exact wording. Don't walk through why an edge case doesn't apply or narrate the reasoning that got you to the decision — state the decision and its one real reason. A decision that needs more than that to be verifiable is a sign the detail belongs in `migration-design.md` (see the escape valve below), not that this paragraph should grow to hold it. Examples of what belongs here: - "Real-time updates via Supabase subscriptions (not polling) — because users need instant feedback. Affects: PRD-2, PRD-3." - "Server-side auth check via middleware — because all routes need protection. Affects: all PRDs." - "Optimistic updates on the client — because the network round-trip makes the UI feel slow. Affects: PRD-1, PRD-4." Examples of what does NOT belong here (leave to implementers): - Component tree structure - Which shadcn components to use - Specific API route naming - Tailwind class patterns - Zod schema shapes **Escape valve — irreversible one-time data migrations:** a PROJ that reclassifies, merges, or renames live data sometimes has a decision whose WHY cannot be verified without DDL-level detail: uniqueness scope, trigger invariants, row-count/content validation, rollback conditions. That detail is real architecture work, but it does not belong in this PM-facing file. Write it to `specs/PROJ--/3-4_plan/PROJ--migration-design.md` instead, and reference it from this document with one line per decision, e.g. "Migration ordering and validation are detailed in `PROJ--migration-design.md` § Decision 3." The architecture doc still names the decision and its WHY in plain language — it just does not carry the SQL/trigger/validation-query text itself. If you catch yourself writing a CHECK constraint, a trigger body, or a literal `UPDATE`/`ALTER TABLE` statement into this file, that sentence belongs in the migration-design note. #### C2) UI Implementation Constraints (only if UI handoff exists) Summarize only constraints that affect multiple PRDs or waves: - Project mode (`greenfield`, `brownfield`, `hybrid`) and what it means for implementation. - Existing component families that must be preserved across the PROJ. - New component candidates that likely need shared ownership. - Interaction containers that must stay consistent (e.g. drawer/sidepanel/modal/full-page flow). - Design-token constraints from `implementation-handoff.md` or `design-language.md`. Do not turn this into a component tree. The goal is to preserve UI intent for planners and implementers. #### D) Dependencies (new packages only) List only packages that need to be installed. Skip packages already in the project. Mark which PRDs use them. ### 4. Write Architecture File Save to `specs/PROJ--/3-4_plan/PROJ--architecture.md`. Create the `3-4_plan/` directory if it does not exist. Template: ```markdown # PROJ- Architecture — ## Overview [2-3 sentences: what does this PROJ build, how does it fit the existing system] ## PRDs Covered - PROJ--PRD-1: - PROJ--PRD-2: - ... ## System Boundaries [diagram or plain-language description — only if new/changed] ## Data Model [Entity list with owning PRDs] ## Cross-Cutting Tech Decisions [Each decision with WHY + affected PRDs] ## UI Implementation Constraints [Only if UI handoff exists: project mode, reuse constraints, new component candidates, interaction contract, implementation tolerance] [If `frontend-design` ran: the UI stack and design system are already decided there. Document them as inherited — do not re-open the framework or component-library choice.] ## Cross-PROJ Dependencies [Only if decomposed: sibling PROJs consumed by or blocked by this PROJ, high-level contract, and what remains out of scope] ## Dependencies [New packages with affected PRDs] ``` If any Cross-Cutting Tech Decision used the migration-design escape valve above, write `specs/PROJ--/3-4_plan/PROJ--migration-design.md` alongside the architecture file — free-form, organized by decision, DDL/trigger/validation detail welcome there. **The architecture does NOT modify PRD files.** PRDs stay focused on requirements. Tech design is a separate document. **Reconciling review or user feedback:** when cross-review or the user's own review changes a decision, rewrite the affected section as if it were correct the first time. Do not leave "Correction (post-review)," "an earlier draft said X," or similar narrated-diff scaffolding in the file — that history belongs to the cross-review round output, not the architecture doc. A reader opening this file for the first time should never need to reconstruct what used to be true to find out what is true now. ### 4a. Write the Architecture Delta (always) Every implementer subagent's context bundle (compiled by `4b_setup`) injects this PROJ's architecture decisions under a hard 6500–7000 token budget shared with the product doc, guidelines, security baseline, and (for UI stories) the design system. The bundle compiler prefers a condensed delta file over the full architecture document, and a bundle that doesn't fit its budget gets the implementer role **blocked outright** — not truncated. A full architecture document with any real depth (a handful of cross-cutting decisions with their WHY, an entity list, a migration-heavy PROJ) can easily exceed that budget on its own. Do not leave this to be discovered mid-execution: write the delta yourself, every time, as part of this same step — never something a later skill has to notice and improvise around. Save to `specs/PROJ--/architecture-delta.md` (PROJ root, not `3-4_plan/`): ```markdown # PROJ- Architecture Delta Condensed decision summary for implementer context bundles. Full rationale and detail: `3-4_plan/PROJ--architecture.md`. ## Scope [2-4 sentences — same substance as the Overview section, compressed further] ## Data model decisions - [One line per decision: the WHAT and a short parenthetical WHY. No elaboration, no edge-case walkthroughs, no SQL.] ## [Other Cross-Cutting Tech Decisions groupings as needed] - [Same one-line format] ``` This is a compression pass, not a new writing task — every line in the delta must trace to something already said, in more detail, in the full architecture file. Target well under 1500 tokens (roughly 100–150 lines) regardless of how large the full document is; if the full document already fits comfortably under that on its own (a small PROJ, few decisions), the delta will simply be a shorter restatement — still write it, so the bundle compiler never has to fall back to the full document. Waves do not exist yet at this point in the chain — do not add a wave-shape section here. `writing-plans` (4) appends one to this same file once the wave graph exists; leave it that section for that skill. ### 4b. Automatic Cross-Review Immediately after saving the architecture and its delta (plus migration design when present), invoke `cross-review` in the same turn, before user approval or handoff. Do not ask whether to run it. Review the outputs against every input that establishes truth for them: ```bash bash scripts/cross-review.sh architecture \ --artifacts specs/PROJ--/3-4_plan/PROJ--architecture.md \ specs/PROJ--/architecture-delta.md \ specs/PROJ--/3-4_plan/PROJ--migration-design.md \ --ground-truth specs/PROJ--/1_brainstorm/PROJ--concept.md \ specs/PROJ--/2_PRDs/*.md docs/ARCHITECTURE.md docs/GUIDELINES.md \ --author-provider --persist --round 1 ``` Drop the `migration-design.md` line if this PROJ has no such file. Drop any path that does not exist — the script fails on a missing file. Never drop a PRD to stay quiet: the reviewer checks that no requirement was lost, and it can only check the PRDs it is given. If the embedded-context cap rejects the call, name to the user which inputs you left out before re-running. Follow `cross-review`'s automatic reconcile/re-review loop through round 3 while findings of any severity remain; stop early when clean. Escalate remaining Critical/High findings before plan writing. Ask only for unresolved product decisions. Keep the delta aligned when reconciling findings. Additional manually requested rounds have no limit. `--persist` is required, not optional — it appends this round to `.cross_review[]` in state.json and ingests findings into the ledger. `4a_checkpoint`'s CP1 fast path reads both to decide whether it can skip its own interactive walk-through; without `--persist`, CP1 has no evidence that the review ran and always falls through to the full interactive loop. ### 5. Continue into writing-plans (no separate approval stop) - Present a compact summary: the decisions, the cross-review result, and any open product question. Do not ask for approval — the architecture is approved together with the wave plans at Checkpoint 1 (4a), which walks both point by point and cascades changes into every affected artifact. - Then invoke **writing-plans** (4) in the same session. - Stop here only when Critical/High cross-review findings remain after round 3, a product decision is still open, or the user asked up front to review the architecture on its own before plans are written. ## Checklist Before Completion - [ ] Checked existing architecture via git - [ ] All PRDs in the PROJ read and understood - [ ] System boundaries defined (only if new/changed) - [ ] Data model covers all entities across PRDs - [ ] Cross-cutting tech decisions documented (WHY, not HOW) - [ ] Each decision marks which PRDs are affected - [ ] No over-specification — component trees, API shapes, and UI patterns are left to implementers - [ ] No SQL/DDL/trigger text in the architecture file — moved to `migration-design.md` if any decision needed it - [ ] No "Correction (post-review)" or "earlier draft" narration left in the file — feedback is reconciled, not appended - [ ] Each decision is ~3-6 sentences; PRD/concept text is cited by ID, not quoted or re-derived - [ ] New dependencies listed (skip existing packages) - [ ] Architecture file saved to `3-4_plan/PROJ--architecture.md` - [ ] Architecture delta saved to `architecture-delta.md`, decisions only, every line traceable to the full document - [ ] Cross-review clean or escalated; approval itself belongs to CP1 (4a) - [ ] `specs/INDEX.md` status updated to "In Progress" (if INDEX exists) ## Handoff Say once, then continue: > "Architecture is ready at `specs/PROJ--/3-4_plan/PROJ--architecture.md`, with a condensed `architecture-delta.md` for implementer context bundles. Cross-review: . Continuing into **writing-plans**; you approve architecture and plans together at Checkpoint 1." ## Git Commit ``` docs(PROJ-): Add architecture for ``` ## Legacy Folder Layout PROJ folders created before the layout rename use different subfolder names. Mapping, old → current: `2_visual-companion/` → `1b_visual-companion/` · `4_design/` → `1c_design/` · `5_mockups/` → `1d_mockups/` · `3_PRDs/` → `2_PRDs/` · `8_handoff/` → `2b_handoff/` · `6_plan/` → `3-4_plan/` · `7_progress/` → `5_progress/` If an expected folder is missing but its legacy twin exists, **read from the legacy one and keep writing where the existing files already are**. Never create a second folder next to it — a split PROJ is worse than an old name. Say it once, then continue either way: > "This PROJ uses the old folder layout (``). Rename the folders to the > current names, or continue with the existing layout?" Renaming is a `git mv` per folder plus a search for the old paths in the PROJ's own documents. It is never a precondition for this skill.