arda/skills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Updated ICA

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Matt Pocock 2026-05-20 09:46:51 +01:00
parent e74f0061bb
commit a36584e09e
2 changed files with 138 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

20
skills/engineering/improve-codebase-architecture/SKILL.md
View file

@ -44,20 +44,30 @@ Then use the Agent tool with `subagent_type=Explore` to walk the codebase. Don't
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.
### 2. Present candidates
### 2. Present candidates as an HTML report
Present a numbered list of deepening opportunities. For each candidate:
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.
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.
For each candidate, the same template as before, but rendered as a card:
- **Files** — which files/modules are involved
- **Problem** — why the current architecture is causing friction
- **Solution** — plain English description of what would change
- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and also in how tests would improve
- **Benefits** — explained in terms of locality and leverage, and how tests would improve
- **Before / After diagram** — side-by-side, custom-drawn, illustrating the shallowness and the deepening
- **Recommendation strength** — one of `Strong`, `Worth exploring`, `Speculative`, rendered as a badge
End the report with a **Top recommendation** section: which candidate you'd tackle first and why.
**Use CONTEXT.md vocabulary for the domain, and [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary for the architecture.** If `CONTEXT.md` defines "Order," talk about "the Order intake module" — not "the FooBarHandler," and not "the Order service."
**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 (e.g. _"contradicts ADR-0007 — but worth reopening because…"_). Don't list every theoretical refactor an ADR forbids.
**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.
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. Ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
See [HTML-REPORT.md](HTML-REPORT.md) for the full HTML scaffold, diagram patterns, and styling guidance.
Do NOT propose interfaces yet. After the file is written, ask the user: "Which of these would you like to explore?"
### 3. Grilling loop