Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/architecture-review/SKILL.md

name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, context, agent

name	description	argument-hint	user-invocable	allowed-tools	context	agent
architecture-review	Validates completeness and consistency of the project architecture against all GDDs. Builds a traceability matrix mapping every GDD technical requirement to ADRs, identifies coverage gaps, detects cross-ADR conflicts, verifies engine compatibility consistency across all decisions, and produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict. The architecture equivalent of /design-review.	[focus: full | coverage | consistency | engine | single-gdd path/to/gdd.md]	true	Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Task	fork	technical-director

Architecture Review

The architecture review validates that the complete body of architectural decisions covers all game design requirements, is internally consistent, and correctly targets the project's pinned engine version. It is the quality gate between Technical Setup and Pre-Production.

Argument modes:

• No argument / full: Full review — all phases
• coverage: Traceability only — which GDD requirements have no ADR
• consistency: Cross-ADR conflict detection only
• engine: Engine compatibility audit only
• single-gdd [path]: Review architecture coverage for one specific GDD

---

Phase 1: Load Everything

Read all inputs before analysis:

Design Documents

• All GDDs in design/gdd/ — read every file completely
• design/gdd/systems-index.md — the authoritative list of systems

Architecture Documents

• All ADRs in docs/architecture/ — read every file completely
• docs/architecture/architecture.md if it exists

Engine Reference

• docs/engine-reference/[engine]/VERSION.md
• docs/engine-reference/[engine]/breaking-changes.md
• docs/engine-reference/[engine]/deprecated-apis.md
• All files in docs/engine-reference/[engine]/modules/

Project Standards

• .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md

Report a count: "Loaded [N] GDDs, [M] ADRs, engine: [name + version]."

---

Phase 2: Extract Technical Requirements from Every GDD

Pre-load the TR Registry

Before extracting any requirements, read docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml if it exists. Index existing entries by id and by normalized requirement text (lowercase, trimmed). This prevents ID renumbering across review runs.

For each requirement you extract, the matching rule is:

1. Exact/near match to an existing registry entry for the same system → reuse that entry's TR-ID unchanged. Update the requirement text in the registry only if the GDD wording changed (same intent, clearer phrasing) — add a revised: [date] field.
2. No match → assign a new ID: next available TR-[system]-NNN for that system, starting from the highest existing sequence + 1.
3. Ambiguous (partial match, intent unclear) → ask the user:

   "Does '[new requirement text]' refer to the same requirement as TR-[system]-NNN: [existing text]', or is it a new requirement?" User answers: "Same requirement" (reuse ID) or "New requirement" (new ID).

For any requirement with status: deprecated in the registry — skip it. It was removed from the GDD intentionally.

For each GDD, read it and extract all technical requirements — things the architecture must provide for the system to work. A technical requirement is any statement that implies a specific architectural decision.

Categories to extract:

Category	Example
Data structures	"Each entity has health, max health, status effects" → needs a component/data schema
Performance constraints	"Collision detection must run at 60fps with 200 entities" → physics budget ADR
Engine capability	"Inverse kinematics for character animation" → IK system ADR
Cross-system communication	"Damage system notifies UI and audio simultaneously" → event/signal architecture ADR
State persistence	"Player progress persists between sessions" → save system ADR
Threading/timing	"AI decisions happen off the main thread" → concurrency ADR
Platform requirements	"Supports keyboard, gamepad, touch" → input system ADR

For each GDD, produce a structured list:

GDD: [filename]
System: [system name]
Technical Requirements:
  TR-[GDD]-001: [requirement text] → Domain: [Physics/Rendering/etc]
  TR-[GDD]-002: [requirement text] → Domain: [...]

This becomes the requirements baseline — the complete set of what the architecture must cover.

---

Phase 3: Build the Traceability Matrix

For each technical requirement extracted in Phase 2, search the ADRs:

1. Read every ADR's "GDD Requirements Addressed" section
2. Check if it explicitly references the requirement or its GDD
3. Check if the ADR's decision text implicitly covers the requirement
4. Mark coverage status:

Status	Meaning
✅ Covered	An ADR explicitly addresses this requirement
⚠️ Partial	An ADR partially covers this, or coverage is ambiguous
❌ Gap	No ADR addresses this requirement

Build the full matrix:

## Traceability Matrix

| Requirement ID | GDD | System | Requirement | ADR Coverage | Status |
|---------------|-----|--------|-------------|--------------|--------|
| TR-combat-001 | combat.md | Combat | Hitbox detection < 1 frame | ADR-0003 | ✅ |
| TR-combat-002 | combat.md | Combat | Combo window timing | — | ❌ GAP |
| TR-inventory-001 | inventory.md | Inventory | Persistent item storage | ADR-0005 | ✅ |

Count the totals: X covered, Y partial, Z gaps.

---

Phase 4: Cross-ADR Conflict Detection

Compare every ADR against every other ADR to detect contradictions. A conflict exists when:

• Data ownership conflict: Two ADRs claim exclusive ownership of the same data
• Integration contract conflict: ADR-A assumes System X has interface Y, but ADR-B defines System X with a different interface
• Performance budget conflict: ADR-A allocates N ms to physics, ADR-B allocates N ms to AI, together they exceed the total frame budget
• Dependency cycle: ADR-A says System X initialises before Y; ADR-B says Y initialises before X
• Architecture pattern conflict: ADR-A uses event-driven communication for a subsystem; ADR-B uses direct function calls to the same subsystem
• State management conflict: Two ADRs define authority over the same game state (e.g. both Combat ADR and Character ADR claim to own the health value)

For each conflict found:

## Conflict: [ADR-NNNN] vs [ADR-MMMM]
Type: [Data ownership / Integration / Performance / Dependency / Pattern / State]
ADR-NNNN claims: [...]
ADR-MMMM claims: [...]
Impact: [What breaks if both are implemented as written]
Resolution options:
  1. [Option A]
  2. [Option B]

ADR Dependency Ordering

After conflict detection, analyse the dependency graph across all ADRs:

1. Collect all Depends On fields from every ADR's "ADR Dependencies" section
2. Topological sort: Determine the correct implementation order — ADRs with no dependencies come first (Foundation), ADRs that depend on those come next, etc.
3. Flag unresolved dependencies: If ADR-A's "Depends On" field references an ADR that is still Proposed or does not exist, flag it:

   ⚠️  ADR-0005 depends on ADR-0002 — but ADR-0002 is still Proposed.
       ADR-0005 cannot be safely implemented until ADR-0002 is Accepted.
   

4. Cycle detection: If ADR-A depends on ADR-B and ADR-B depends on ADR-A (directly or transitively), flag it as a DEPENDENCY CYCLE:

   🔴 DEPENDENCY CYCLE: ADR-0003 → ADR-0006 → ADR-0003
      This cycle must be broken before either can be implemented.
   

5. Output recommended implementation order:

   ### Recommended ADR Implementation Order (topologically sorted)
   Foundation (no dependencies):
     1. ADR-0001: [title]
     2. ADR-0003: [title]
   Depends on Foundation:
     3. ADR-0002: [title] (requires ADR-0001)
     4. ADR-0005: [title] (requires ADR-0003)
   Feature layer:
     5. ADR-0004: [title] (requires ADR-0002, ADR-0005)
   

---

Phase 5: Engine Compatibility Cross-Check

Across all ADRs, check for engine consistency:

Version Consistency

• Do all ADRs that mention an engine version agree on the same version?
• If any ADR was written for an older engine version, flag it as potentially stale

Post-Cutoff API Consistency

• Collect all "Post-Cutoff APIs Used" fields from all ADRs
• For each, verify against the relevant module reference doc
• Check that no two ADRs make contradictory assumptions about the same post-cutoff API

Deprecated API Check

• Grep all ADRs for API names listed in deprecated-apis.md
• Flag any ADR referencing a deprecated API

Missing Engine Compatibility Sections

• List all ADRs that are missing the Engine Compatibility section entirely
• These are blind spots — their engine assumptions are unknown

Output format:

### Engine Audit Results
Engine: [name + version]
ADRs with Engine Compatibility section: X / Y total

Deprecated API References:
  - ADR-0002: uses [deprecated API] — deprecated since [version]

Stale Version References:
  - ADR-0001: written for [older version] — current project version is [version]

Post-Cutoff API Conflicts:
  - ADR-0004 and ADR-0007 both use [API] with incompatible assumptions

---

Engine Specialist Consultation

After completing the engine audit above, spawn the primary engine specialist via Task for a domain-expert second opinion:

• Read .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md Engine Specialists section to get the primary specialist
• If no engine is configured, skip this consultation
• Spawn subagent_type: [primary specialist] with: all ADRs that contain engine-specific decisions or Post-Cutoff APIs Used fields, the engine reference docs, and the Phase 5 audit findings. Ask them to:
  1. Confirm or challenge each audit finding — specialists may know of engine nuances not captured in the reference docs
  2. Identify engine-specific anti-patterns in the ADRs that the audit may have missed (e.g., using the wrong Godot node type, Unity component coupling, Unreal subsystem misuse)
  3. Flag ADRs that make assumptions about engine behaviour that differ from the actual pinned version

Incorporate additional findings under ### Engine Specialist Findings in the Phase 5 output. These feed into the final verdict — specialist-identified issues carry the same weight as audit-identified issues.

---

Phase 5b: Design Revision Flags (Architecture → GDD Feedback)

For each HIGH RISK engine finding from Phase 5, check whether any GDD makes an assumption that the verified engine reality contradicts.

Specific cases to check:

1. Post-cutoff API behaviour differs from training-data assumptions: If an ADR records a verified API behaviour that differs from the default LLM assumption, check all GDDs that reference the related system. Look for design rules written around the old (assumed) behaviour.

2. Known engine limitations in ADRs: If an ADR records a known engine limitation (e.g. "Jolt ignores HingeJoint3D damp", "D3D12 is now the default backend"), check GDDs that design mechanics around the affected feature.

3. Deprecated API conflicts: If Phase 5 flagged a deprecated API used in an ADR, check whether any GDD contains mechanics that assume the deprecated API's behaviour.

For each conflict found, record it in the GDD Revision Flags table:

### GDD Revision Flags (Architecture → Design Feedback)
These GDD assumptions conflict with verified engine behaviour or accepted ADRs.
The GDD should be revised before its system enters implementation.

| GDD | Assumption | Reality (from ADR/engine-reference) | Action |
|-----|-----------|--------------------------------------|--------|
| combat.md | "Use HingeJoint3D damp for weapon recoil" | Jolt ignores damp — ADR-0003 | Revise GDD |

If no revision flags are found, write: "No GDD revision flags — all GDD assumptions are consistent with verified engine behaviour."

Ask: "Should I flag these GDDs for revision in the systems index?"

• If yes: update the relevant systems' Status field to "Needs Revision" and add a short inline note in the adjacent Notes/Description column explaining the conflict. Ask for approval before writing. (Do NOT use parentheticals like "Needs Revision (Architecture Feedback)" — other skills match the exact string "Needs Revision" and parentheticals break that match.)

---

Phase 6: Architecture Document Coverage

If docs/architecture/architecture.md exists, validate it against GDDs:

• Does every system from systems-index.md appear in the architecture layers?
• Does the data flow section cover all cross-system communication defined in GDDs?
• Do the API boundaries support all integration requirements from GDDs?
• Are there systems in the architecture doc that have no corresponding GDD (orphaned architecture)?

---

Phase 7: Output the Review Report

## Architecture Review Report
Date: [date]
Engine: [name + version]
GDDs Reviewed: [N]
ADRs Reviewed: [M]

---

### Traceability Summary
Total requirements: [N]
✅ Covered: [X]
⚠️ Partial: [Y]
❌ Gaps: [Z]

### Coverage Gaps (no ADR exists)
For each gap:
  ❌ TR-[id]: [GDD] → [system] → [requirement]
     Suggested ADR: "/architecture-decision [suggested title]"
     Domain: [Physics/Rendering/etc]
     Engine Risk: [LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH]

### Cross-ADR Conflicts
[List all conflicts from Phase 4]

### ADR Dependency Order
[Topologically sorted implementation order from Phase 4 — dependency ordering section]
[Unresolved dependencies and cycles if any]

### GDD Revision Flags
[GDD assumptions that conflict with verified engine behaviour — from Phase 5b]
[Or: "None — all GDD assumptions consistent with verified engine behaviour"]

### Engine Compatibility Issues
[List all engine issues from Phase 5]

### Architecture Document Coverage
[List missing systems and orphaned architecture from Phase 6]

---

### Verdict: [PASS / CONCERNS / FAIL]

PASS: All requirements covered, no conflicts, engine consistent
CONCERNS: Some gaps or partial coverage, but no blocking conflicts
FAIL: Critical gaps (Foundation/Core layer requirements uncovered),
      or blocking cross-ADR conflicts detected

### Blocking Issues (must resolve before PASS)
[List items that must be resolved — FAIL verdict only]

### Required ADRs
[Prioritised list of ADRs to create, most foundational first]

---

Phase 8: Write and Update Traceability Index

Ask: "May I write this review to docs/architecture/architecture-review-[date].md?"

Also ask: "May I update docs/architecture/architecture-traceability.md with the current matrix? This is the living index that future reviews update incrementally."

TR Registry Update

Also ask: "May I update docs/architecture/tr-registry.yaml with new requirement IDs from this review?"

If yes:

• Append any new TR-IDs that weren't in the registry before this review
• Update requirement text and revised date for any entries whose GDD wording changed (ID stays the same)
• Mark status: deprecated for any registry entries whose GDD requirement no longer exists (confirm with user before marking deprecated)
• Never renumber or delete existing entries
• Update the last_updated and version fields at the top

This ensures all future story files can reference stable TR-IDs that persist across every subsequent architecture review.

The traceability index format:

# Architecture Traceability Index
Last Updated: [date]
Engine: [name + version]

## Coverage Summary
- Total requirements: [N]
- Covered: [X] ([%])
- Partial: [Y]
- Gaps: [Z]

## Full Matrix
[Complete traceability matrix from Phase 3]

## Known Gaps
[All ❌ items with suggested ADRs]

## Superseded Requirements
[Requirements whose GDD was changed after the ADR was written]

---

Phase 9: Handoff

After completing the review:

1. Immediate actions: List the top 3 ADRs to create (highest-impact gaps first, Foundation layer before Feature layer)
2. Gate guidance: "When all blocking issues are resolved, run /gate-check pre-production to advance"
3. Rerun trigger: "Re-run /architecture-review after each new ADR is written to verify coverage improves"

---

Collaborative Protocol

1. Read silently — do not narrate every file read
2. Show the matrix — present the full traceability matrix before asking for anything; let the user see the state
3. Don't guess — if a requirement is ambiguous, ask: "Is [X] a technical requirement or a design preference?"
4. Ask before writing — always confirm before writing the report file
5. Non-blocking — the verdict is advisory; the user decides whether to continue despite CONCERNS or even FAIL findings