# Soulcodex Agentic Code Review Architecture > Code Review — Architecture - Skill: `tomevault-io/soulcodex-agentic-code-review-architecture` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/soulcodex-agentic-code-review-architecture` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/soulcodex-agentic-code-review-architecture/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/soulcodex-agentic-code-review-architecture --- ## Code Review — Architecture Apply architecture-focused review using the checklist in this skill directory. ### Step 0 — Load Project Map Check for `.agentic/project-map.md` (this is essential for architecture review): - **If present**: read it. Use the layer structure, key modules table, and non-obvious conventions as the core concern. Architecture reviews depend heavily on knowing which directories map to which layers. - **If absent**: abort this specialized review and suggest running the `project-map` skill first. ### Step 1 — Load Checklist Read `checklist.md` in this skill directory and apply every item to the codebase. ### Step 2 — Determine Scope - **If the user specifies files**, review those. - **Otherwise review the current diff**: `git diff HEAD` or staged changes. - **Do not review files outside stated scope**. ### Step 3 — Analyze with Architecture-specific Lenses Work through the checklist systematically. For each issue found, note: - File path and line number - Risk level: `critical` / `high` / `medium` / `low` - Description of the issue - Why it matters - Verifiable source reference when the finding is non-obvious Architecture concerns to focus on: - Hexagonal/Clean architecture boundary violations - Anemic domain model (DDD anti-pattern) - God Aggregate violations - CQRS command/query leakage - Microservice coupling and shared databases For aggregate lifecycle violations or async state machine bugs that are too complex for prose, emit a Mermaid `stateDiagram-v2` diagram. ### Step 4 — Write the Review Output the review in this exact format: ``` ## Code Review — Architecture ### What Works Well - [At least one specific positive observation with file reference] ### Findings #### Critical - `path/to/domain/order.go:42` [critical] Description. Why it must change. *Source: [Hexagonal Architecture — Alistair Cockburn](https://alistair.cockburn.us/hexagonal-architecture/)* #### High - `path/to/application/service.go:18` [high] Description. Why it matters. *Source: ...* #### Medium - `path/to/infrastructure/repository.go:7` [medium] Description. #### Low - `path/to/pkg/foo.go:5` [low] Minor note. ### Suggested Improvements [Concrete alternatives and solutions for the most impactful findings] ### Summary [One paragraph: overall quality, main risks, merge recommendation] ``` ### Step 5 — Tone and Sources - Be direct and specific. Reference exact line numbers. - Cite verifiable sources (DDD books, architecture blog posts, well-known patterns) inline for non-obvious findings. Include the source name and URL. - Explain *why*, not just *what* to change. - Assume good intent. Use sandwich communication: open with positives, then findings by severity descending, then actionable improvement path. - For aggregate lifecycle or state machine issues too complex for prose: emit a `stateDiagram-v2` Mermaid block showing the problematic and correct state transitions. --- > Source: [soulcodex/agentic](https://github.com/soulcodex/agentic) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).