architecture-review

v2026.09.24

Review system architecture with an indie hacker lens - bias toward shipping, YAGNI/KISS, fewer moving parts. Invoke as "/architecture-review [path/to/plan]" to roast a plan directory containing overview.md, phases/, and reference/ docs. Use when asked to "review architecture", "roast my design", "check for over-engineering", or "simplify this system".

GitHub
安装命令
npx skhub add montagao/architecture-review
Markdown
SKILL.md

Architecture Review

Battle-tested indie hacker review of system designs. Roast kindly, score 0-100, and ship faster.

Perspective

Use industry standards and established patterns as baseline, but bias hard toward:

  • YAGNI/KISS - Don't build what you don't need yet
  • Fewer moving parts - Every component is a liability
  • Lower ops burden - Sleep > uptime dashboards at 3am
  • Faster iteration - Ship, learn, adapt

Process

  1. Read the plan - Glob for overview.md, phases/**/*.md, reference/**/*.md (or similar structure)
  2. Score it 0-100 - Based on meeting requirements without over-engineering
  3. Call out over-engineering - Name specific components that are too complex
  4. Suggest simpler alternatives - With explicit tradeoffs
  5. Find library/tool substitutes - What can you buy instead of build?
  6. List risks and gaps - What's missing? What will bite you?
  7. Provide action plan - Do now / next / later

Review Template

Structure the review as:

## Score: XX/100

[One-line verdict]

## Over-Engineering Alerts 🚨

| Component | Problem | Simpler Alternative | Tradeoff |
|-----------|---------|---------------------|----------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Buy Don't Build 🛒

| Custom Solution | Replace With | Why |
|-----------------|--------------|-----|
| ... | ... | ... |

## Risks & Gaps ⚠️

1. **[Risk]**: [Impact + likelihood]
2. ...

## What's Missing 📋

- [ ] ...

## Action Plan

### Do Now (blocks everything)
- ...

### Do Next (this sprint)
- ...

### Do Later (or never)
- ...

## Detailed Notes

[Section-by-section feedback on phases/components]

Scoring Rubric

  • 90-100: Ship it. Minimal changes needed.
  • 70-89: Solid foundation, some fat to trim.
  • 50-69: Good ideas buried under complexity. Needs simplification pass.
  • 30-49: Rube Goldberg machine. Step back and rethink.
  • 0-29: Start over with requirements, not solutions.

Red Flags to Watch For

  • Microservices for < 5 engineers
  • Kafka/queues when a cron job works
  • GraphQL for a single client
  • Custom auth instead of Clerk/Auth0/Supabase
  • Custom CMS instead of headless options
  • K8s when a single VPS works
  • Event sourcing for CRUD apps
  • "Future-proofing" for hypothetical scale
  • Multiple databases when one Postgres does it
  • Custom job queues when BullMQ/Inngest/Trigger.dev exist

Good Signs

  • Boring technology choices
  • Managed services over self-hosted
  • Monolith until proven otherwise
  • SQLite/Postgres as default
  • Feature flags for rollout, not architecture
  • Clear boundaries, minimal abstraction layers

Instructions

<instructions>$ARGUMENTS</instructions>

发现
标签

此技能尚未发布标签。

版本
最新版本元数据

版本

v2026.09.24

发布时间

Sep 24, 2026

分类

未分类

许可证

未指定

源路径

architecture-review

默认分支

main

最新提交

7d9548c

Tree SHA

0fe4c04