Architecture Code Review

Perform a comprehensive architecture review of: $ARGUMENTS

Framework

This review uses C4-inspired zoom levels to evaluate architecture from code structure through to ecosystem integration:

Landscape  ─── Between systems      ─── EIP, Context Maps, ADRs
  System   ─── Between services     ─── Release It!, API Contracts
  Service  ─── Inside a deployable  ─── DDD, Clean Architecture
  Code     ─── Inside a module      ─── SOLID, Testability

Process

Step 1: Identify Scope

First, identify what code needs to be reviewed:

• •If $ARGUMENTS is a file or directory, review that directly
• •If $ARGUMENTS is empty or ".", review recent changes (git diff) or prompt for scope
• •Determine which zoom levels are relevant (monolith may only need Code + Service)

Step 2: Run Parallel Reviews

Spawn 4 subagents in parallel to analyze different zoom levels:

1. •

   arch-code - Code & Component level

   • •SOLID principles, DDD tactical patterns, testability, coupling
2. •

   arch-service - Service / Application level

   • •Bounded context design, layering, deployability, error model
3. •

   arch-system - System level (inter-service)

   • •Stability patterns (Release It!), API contracts, service coupling
4. •

   arch-landscape - Landscape level (system of systems)

   • •Enterprise Integration Patterns, context maps, ADRs, fitness functions

Each agent should:

• •Read the base framework from .claude/prompts/architecture/_base.md
• •Read their specific checklist from .claude/prompts/architecture/[level].md
• •Review the code against their checklist
• •Return findings in standard table format
• •Note: Landscape level may return "no findings" for smaller projects - this is expected

Step 3: Synthesize Results

After all agents complete:

1. •Collect findings from all 4 zoom levels
2. •Deduplicate — Some issues may be flagged by multiple levels
3. •Aggregate maturity assessments — Merge criteria assessments from all subagents into one maturity view
4. •Determine maturity status per level:
   • •All criteria ✅ → pass (✅)
   • •Mix of ✅ and ❌ → partial (⚠️)
   • •All criteria ❌ → fail (❌)
   • •Previous level not passed → locked (🔒)
5. •Prioritize findings by maturity level (HYG first), then severity (HIGH → LOW)

Output Format

# Architecture Review — Maturity Assessment

## Maturity Status

| Level | Status | Summary |
|-------|--------|---------|
| Hygiene | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [one-line summary] |
| Level 1 — Foundations | ✅/⚠️/❌/🔒 | [one-line summary] |
| Level 2 — Operational Maturity | ✅/⚠️/❌/🔒 | [one-line summary] |
| Level 3 — Excellence | ✅/⚠️/❌/🔒 | [one-line summary] |

**Immediate Action:** [Top hygiene failure if hygiene not passed, else top action from next achievable level]

---

## Hygiene

[If any failures: list them with severity, zoom level, location, finding, recommendation]
[If all pass: ✅ All hygiene criteria met]

## [Next Achievable Level] — Detailed Assessment

For each criterion:
- ✅ **[Criterion]** — Evidence: `file:line` description
- ❌ **[Criterion]** — Missing: what should exist
- ⚠️ **[Criterion]** — Partial: what's there and what's missing

## Higher Levels — Preview

> **Level [N+1]**: [Brief list of criteria — not yet assessed in detail]
> **Level [N+2]**: [Brief list of criteria]

---

## Detailed Findings

| Priority | Severity | Maturity | Zoom Level | Location | Finding | Recommendation |
|----------|----------|----------|------------|----------|---------|----------------|

## What's Good

[Positive architectural patterns observed]

Relationship to Other Reviews

This architecture review focuses on design-time decisions. It complements:

• •SRE Review (/review-sre): Focuses on run-time reliability
• •Security Review (/review-security): Focuses on threat modeling
• •Data Review (/review-data): Focuses on data products and governance