{"id":22314,"plugin_id":"plugins_6ab0220f392881919c67600b8d04305d","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:17:13.161Z","digest":"90693b83892afe1e329a5cf0bf2c553d2945c49255d953e5ba1dceb35bc46420","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Use when the user explicitly asks to scan a codebase for architectural improvement opportunities and interactively choose which one to deepen.","included_files":[{"relative_path":"HTML-REPORT.md","size_in_bytes":6685},{"relative_path":"SOURCE-METADATA.yaml","size_in_bytes":40},{"relative_path":"agents/openai.yaml","size_in_bytes":262}],"name":"improve-codebase-architecture","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: improve-codebase-architecture\ndescription: Use when the user explicitly asks to scan a codebase for architectural improvement opportunities and interactively\n  choose which one to deepen.\n---\n\n# Improve Codebase Architecture\n\nSurface architectural friction and propose **deepening opportunities** — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.\n\nThis command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:\n\n- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for 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\"). Use these terms exactly in every suggestion — don't drift into \"component,\" \"service,\" \"API,\" or \"boundary.\"\n- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.\n\n## Process\n\n### 1. Explore\n\n**Scope before you scan — YAGNI.** Deepening a module pays off by making future changes to it easier, so put extra weight on the parts of the codebase that have recently changed. Decide *where* to look before you look:\n\n- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.\n- Otherwise, walk back a good stretch of the commit history (`git log --oneline`) to find 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.\n\nRead the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.\n\nThen spawn a sub-agent to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:\n\n- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?\n- Where are modules **shallow** — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?\n- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no **locality**)?\n- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?\n- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?\n\nApply 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.\n\n### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report\n\nWrite a self-contained HTML file to the OS temp directory so nothing lands in the repo. Resolve the temp dir from `$TMPDIR`, falling back to `/tmp` (or `%TEMP%` on Windows), and write to `<tmpdir>/architecture-review-<timestamp>.html` so each run gets a fresh file. Open it for the user — `xdg-open <path>` on Linux, `open <path>` on macOS, `start <path>` on Windows — and tell them the absolute path.\n\nThe report uses **Tailwind via CDN** for layout and styling, and **Mermaid via CDN** for diagrams where a graph/flow/sequence reliably communicates the structure. Mix Mermaid with hand-crafted CSS/SVG visuals — use Mermaid when relationships are graph-shaped (call graphs, dependencies, sequences), and hand-built divs/SVG when you want something more editorial (mass diagrams, cross-sections, collapse animations). Each candidate gets a **before/after visualisation**. Be visual.\n\nFor each candidate, render a card with:\n\n- **Files** — which files/modules are involved\n- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction\n- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change\n- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve\n- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening\n- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge\n\nEnd the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.\n\n**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and the `/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.\"\n\n**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 in the card (e.g. a warning callout: _\"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…\"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.\n\nSee [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.\n\nDo NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: \"Which of these would you like to explore?\"\n\n### 3. Grilling loop\n\nOnce the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the decision tree with them — constraints, dependencies, the shape of the deepened module, what sits behind the seam, what tests survive.\n\nSide effects happen inline as decisions crystallize — run the `/domain-modeling` skill to keep the domain model current as you go:\n\n- **Naming a deepened module after a concept not in `CONTEXT.md`?** Add the term to `CONTEXT.md`. Create the file lazily if it doesn't exist.\n- **Sharpening a fuzzy term during the conversation?** Update `CONTEXT.md` right there.\n- **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.\n- **Want to explore alternative interfaces for the deepened module?** Run the `/codebase-design` skill and use its design-it-twice parallel sub-agent pattern.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}