improve-codebase-architecture

Name: improve-codebase-architecture
Author: tt-a1i

16stars3forks

How to install improve-codebase-architecture?

tt-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal/improve-codebase-architecture

$npx -y skills add tt-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal --skill improve-codebase-architecture

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Improve Codebase Architecture
2
3	Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
4
5	This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
6
7	- 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."
8	- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
9
10	## Process
11
12	### 1. Explore
13
14	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:
15
16	- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.
17	- 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.
18
19	Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
20
21	Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
22
23	- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
24	- Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
25	- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no locality)?
26	- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
27	- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
28
29	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.
30
31	### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report
32
33	Write 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.
34
35	The 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.
36
37	For each candidate, render a card with:
38
39	- Files — which files/modules are involved
40	- Problem — why the current architecture is causing friction
41	- Solution — plain English description of what would change
42	- Benefits — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
43	- Before / After diagram — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
44	- Recommendation strength — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge
45
46	End the report with a Top recommendation section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
47
48	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."
49
50	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.
51
52	See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
53
54	Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
55
56	### 3. Grilling loop
57
58	Once the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the decision tree with them —

tt-a1iPublisher · 26 listings

Preview

tt-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal

# Improve Codebase Architecture

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

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

- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and

Repott-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal

LicenseMIT

TypeSkills

CategoryCoding

UpdatedJul 2026

Repo stars16

First seenJul 22, 2026

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

improve-codebase-architecture

16stars3forks

View on GitHub

How to install improve-codebase-architecture?

tt-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal/improve-codebase-architecture

$npx -y skills add tt-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal --skill improve-codebase-architecture

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Scan a codebase for deepening opportunities, present them as a visual HTML report, then grill through whichever one you pick.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Improve Codebase Architecture
2
3	Surface architectural friction and propose deepening opportunities — refactors that turn shallow modules into deep ones. The aim is testability and AI-navigability.
4
5	This command is _informed_ by the project's domain model and built on a shared design vocabulary:
6
7	- 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."
8	- The domain language in `CONTEXT.md` gives names to good seams; ADRs in `docs/adr/` record decisions this command should not re-litigate.
9
10	## Process
11
12	### 1. Explore
13
14	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:
15
16	- If the user named a direction — a module, a subsystem, a pain point — take it, and skip the inference below.
17	- 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.
18
19	Read the project's domain glossary (`CONTEXT.md`) and any ADRs in the area you're touching first.
20
21	Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't follow rigid heuristics — explore organically and note where you experience friction:
22
23	- Where does understanding one concept require bouncing between many small modules?
24	- Where are modules shallow — interface nearly as complex as the implementation?
25	- Where have pure functions been extracted just for testability, but the real bugs hide in how they're called (no locality)?
26	- Where do tightly-coupled modules leak across their seams?
27	- Which parts of the codebase are untested, or hard to test through their current interface?
28
29	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.
30
31	### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report
32
33	Write 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.
34
35	The 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.
36
37	For each candidate, render a card with:
38
39	- Files — which files/modules are involved
40	- Problem — why the current architecture is causing friction
41	- Solution — plain English description of what would change
42	- Benefits — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
43	- Before / After diagram — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
44	- Recommendation strength — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge
45
46	End the report with a Top recommendation section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
47
48	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."
49
50	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.
51
52	See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
53
54	Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
55
56	### 3. Grilling loop
57
58	Once the user picks a candidate, run the `/grilling` skill to walk the decision tree with them —

tt-a1iPublisher · 26 listings

Preview

tt-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal

# Improve Codebase Architecture

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

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

- Run the `/codebase-design` skill for the architecture vocabulary (**module**, **interface**, **depth**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**, **locality**) and

Repott-a1i/matt-skills-with-to-goal

LicenseMIT

TypeSkills

CategoryCoding

UpdatedJul 2026

Repo stars16

First seenJul 22, 2026

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type