architecture-review

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".

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "architecture-review" with this command: npx skills add montagao/skills/montagao-skills-architecture-review

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>

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

General

library-ebooks

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

plane-api

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

clean-history

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
General

llm-seo

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review