{"id":24102,"plugin_id":"plugins_6ab39a6b4b408191b4220e44e482f464","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:17:57.120Z","digest":"693ad74ff972e7d1e7db3fc4ba6ded382aba797b5392675b05df99cb22a43f02","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Review a proposed architecture for security, reliability, operability, and fit.","included_files":[],"name":"architecture-review","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: architecture-review\ndescription: Review a proposed architecture for security, reliability, operability, and fit.\n---\n\n# Architecture Review\n\nApply when reviewing a supplied design, proposal, or architecture artifact.\n\n1. Establish scope and evidence. Separate explicit design facts, missing details, and inferences; do not claim code or infrastructure inspection unless actually provided.\n2. Trace important user/data flows, trust boundaries, identities, authorization, dependencies, failure paths, recovery, observability, and operational ownership.\n3. Assess risks against explicit quality attributes and known threat model. Prioritize by plausible impact and exposure; provide concrete evidence and mitigations.\n4. Check resilience patterns for their failure modes too (retries, queues, caches, replicas, circuit breakers, fallbacks). Identify cascading-failure and data-consistency risks.\n5. Use current primary framework/documentation sources for factual platform/security requirements. Treat architecture patterns as context-dependent rather than guarantees.\n6. Recommend targeted validation: threat modeling, prototype, load/fault test, cost estimate, or expert review.\n\nReturn prioritized findings and unknowns. Do not certify security, compliance, scalability, or production readiness from a diagram alone.\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}