KeiSeiKit-1.0/skills/architecture/SKILL.md

name	description	argument-hint
architecture	Multi-agent architectural analysis following the Holographic Development Chain. Use when user asks to design architecture, plan implementation, analyze system structure, or says "архитектура", "план", "спроектируй", "как лучше сделать".	<system or feature description>

Holographic Architecture Analysis

When to use

• Designing the architecture for a new system or feature ("архитектура", "план", "спроектируй").
• Analysing an existing codebase structure for patterns, antipatterns, and dependency issues.
• Making a cross-cutting architectural decision that spans multiple modules or services.

Task: $ARGUMENTS

Phase 0: Load Architecture Rules

BEFORE any analysis, read the rules database:

1. ~/.claude/skills/architecture-rules/references/checklist.md — pre-implementation checklist
2. ~/.claude/skills/architecture-rules/references/patterns.md — pattern selection guide
3. ~/.claude/skills/architecture-rules/references/antipatterns.md — what to detect and avoid
4. ~/.claude/skills/architecture-rules/references/stack-compat.md — technology compatibility
5. ~/.claude/skills/architecture-rules/references/duplication.md — duplication thresholds

Apply these rules throughout ALL subsequent phases.

Phase 1: Base Agents (Parallel)

Launch 3 agents simultaneously:

Agent 1: Architect

Analyze structure, dependencies, patterns. If codebase exists — use Explore agent to map:

• Directory structure and module boundaries
• Data flow and control flow
• Existing patterns and conventions
• Integration points and APIs
• Return list of 5-10 key files to read

Agent 2: Critic

Search for problems, vulnerabilities, anti-patterns:

• OWASP top 10 relevant issues
• Performance bottlenecks
• Scalability concerns
• Technical debt indicators
• Over-engineering or missing abstractions
• Return specific file:line references

Agent 3: Validator

Verify facts and check for hallucinations:

• Do the proposed technologies actually work together?
• Are version compatibilities correct?
• Do the APIs referenced actually exist?
• Cross-check with official documentation
• Return verified facts vs unverified assumptions

Phase 2: Arbitration

After all 3 agents return:

1. Read all key files identified by Architect
2. Compare findings — where do agents agree/disagree?
3. Resolve conflicts — pick best path with reasoning
4. Rate confidence: X% for the chosen approach

Present as:

## Arbitration Result

### Agents Agree On:
- [Point] — all 3 confirm

### Disagreements:
- [Point] — Architect says X, Critic says Y
- Resolution: [chosen path + why]

### Confidence: X%

Phase 3: Design Options (2-3 Parallel Agents)

Launch architecture design agents with different philosophies:

Option A: Minimal Changes

Smallest possible change, maximum reuse of existing code

Option B: Clean Architecture

Optimal maintainability, elegant abstractions, proper separation

Option C: Pragmatic Balance

Speed + quality trade-off, ship fast but don't accumulate debt

Phase 4: Present & Recommend

For each option show:

• Component diagram (text-based)
• Files to create/modify
• Data flow
• Implementation phases (ordered steps)
• Estimated complexity
• Trade-offs

Your recommendation with reasoning and confidence %.

Phase 5: Implementation Blueprint

After user picks an option:

1. Detailed file-by-file changes
2. Build sequence (what first, what depends on what)
3. Test strategy
4. Checkpoint plan (when to verify)

Rules

• Architecture FIRST, code SECOND
• Find root cause, not symptoms
• Simple > clever
• 3 repeating lines > premature abstraction
• Dead code = delete, don't comment
• Each logic in separate file — defragmentation
• Checkpoints after each phase