Source profileQuality 93/100

first-fluke/oh-my-agent/.agents/skills/oma-architecture/SKILL.md

oma-architecture

Architecture specialist for software/system design, module and service boundaries, tradeoff analysis, and stakeholder synthesis. Uses context-aware methods such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, CBAM-style prioritization, and ADR-style decision records.

Source repository stars
1,212
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-06
Source checked
2026-08-06

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Architecture specialist for software/system design, module and service boundaries, tradeoff analysis, and stakeholder synthesis. Uses context-aware methods such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, CBAM-style prioritization, and ADR-style decision records.

Best for

    Not for

    • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
    • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

    Compatibility matrix

    Platform support, with evidence labels

    PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
    CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Open the compatibility checker

    Installation

    Inspect first. Install second.

    The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

    Source-detected install commandSource
    npx skills add https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agent --skill ".agents/skills/oma-architecture"
    Safe inspection promptEditorial

    Inspect the Agent Skill "oma-architecture" from https://github.com/first-fluke/oh-my-agent/blob/548f8b330a4a2e806e49eee6b67852578fc4dda8/.agents/skills/oma-architecture/SKILL.md at commit 548f8b330a4a2e806e49eee6b67852578fc4dda8. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

    Workflow

    What the source asks the agent to do

    1. 01

      Canonical workflow path

      Prefer symbol-aware tools (serena MCP) when available: getsymbolsoverview for structure, findsymbol / findreferencingsymbols for ownership and coupling, searchforpattern for integration points. Fall back to plain search only when serena is unavailable:

      Prefer symbol-aware tools (serena MCP) when available: getsymbolsoverview for structure, findsymbol / findreferencingsymbols for ownership and coupling, searchforpattern for integration points. Fall back to plain search…Then choose Diagnostic, Recommendation, Design-Twice, ATAM-style, CBAM-style, or ADR mode before writing the artifact.
    2. 02

      Scheduling

      Analyze, compare, and document software architecture decisions with explicit tradeoffs, risks, stakeholder concerns, and validation steps.

      User asks for architecture, system design, module/service boundaries, ADRs, or design tradeoffs.User needs a decision method such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, or CBAM-style prioritization.User reports architecture pain such as change amplification, hidden dependencies, unclear ownership, or awkward APIs.
    3. 03

      Goal

      Analyze, compare, and document software architecture decisions with explicit tradeoffs, risks, stakeholder concerns, and validation steps.

      Analyze, compare, and document software architecture decisions with explicit tradeoffs, risks, stakeholder concerns, and validation steps.
    4. 04

      Intent signature

      User asks for architecture, system design, module/service boundaries, ADRs, or design tradeoffs.

      User asks for architecture, system design, module/service boundaries, ADRs, or design tradeoffs.User needs a decision method such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, or CBAM-style prioritization.User reports architecture pain such as change amplification, hidden dependencies, unclear ownership, or awkward APIs.
    5. 05

      When to use

      Choosing or reviewing system architecture

      Choosing or reviewing system architectureDefining module, service, or ownership boundariesComparing architectural options with explicit tradeoffs

    Permission review

    Static risk signals and limitations

    No configured static risk pattern was detected

    This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

    Evidence record

    Why each signal appears

    EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
    SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
    Quality score93/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
    Repository stars1,212SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
    Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
    Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

    Pinned source

    Provenance and original SKILL.md

    Repository
    first-fluke/oh-my-agent
    Skill path
    .agents/skills/oma-architecture/SKILL.md
    Commit
    548f8b330a4a2e806e49eee6b67852578fc4dda8
    License
    MIT
    Collected
    2026-08-06
    Default branch
    main
    View the original SKILL.md

    Architecture Agent - Software Architecture Specialist

    Scheduling

    Goal

    Analyze, compare, and document software architecture decisions with explicit tradeoffs, risks, stakeholder concerns, and validation steps.

    Intent signature

    • User asks for architecture, system design, module/service boundaries, ADRs, or design tradeoffs.
    • User needs a decision method such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, or CBAM-style prioritization.
    • User reports architecture pain such as change amplification, hidden dependencies, unclear ownership, or awkward APIs.
    • User needs an API versioning, deprecation, or published-contract evolution strategy.

    When to use

    • Choosing or reviewing system architecture
    • Defining module, service, or ownership boundaries
    • Comparing architectural options with explicit tradeoffs
    • Investigating architectural pain: change amplification, hidden dependencies, awkward APIs
    • Prioritizing architecture investments or refactors
    • Writing architecture recommendations or ADRs
    • Deciding API versioning, deprecation windows, and published-contract evolution strategy

    When NOT to use

    • Visual design, design systems, branding, or landing pages -> use oma-design
    • Feature planning and task decomposition -> use oma-pm
    • Infrastructure provisioning or Terraform implementation -> use oma-tf-infra
    • Bug diagnosis and code fixes -> use oma-debug
    • Security/performance/accessibility review -> use oma-qa

    Expected inputs

    • Architecture question, pain point, or decision context
    • Existing codebase, diagrams, docs, constraints, or stakeholder concerns
    • Quality attributes such as scalability, reliability, security, operability, cost, and delivery speed
    • Optional target artifact type such as recommendation, option comparison, or ADR

    Expected outputs

    • Architecture diagnosis, recommendation, comparison, prioritization, or ADR
    • Assumptions, tradeoffs, risks, and validation steps
    • A Mermaid context/container diagram when the decision changes structure (boundaries, dependencies, data flow)
    • Saved architecture artifacts under .agents/results/architecture/ when producing durable outputs
    outputs:
      - name: architecture-artifact
        description: ADR, comparison, or recommendation written to durable storage when the run is meant to persist
        artifact: ".agents/results/architecture/*.md"
        required: false
    

    Dependencies

    • resources/execution-protocol.md for workflow
    • resources/methodology-selection.md for method choice
    • resources/stakeholder-synthesis.md when cross-cutting stakeholder consultation is justified
    • resources/output-templates.md for final artifact shapes
    • resources/api-evolution.md for published-contract versioning/deprecation decisions (MAP evolution patterns)
    • resources/migration-patterns.md for transition plans when the chosen architecture requires restructuring a live system

    Control-flow features

    • Branches by request clarity, decision materiality, risk level, and need for stakeholder consultation
    • May compare multiple options before recommending one
    • Produces source-grounded docs rather than directly changing implementation

    Structural Flow

    Entry

    1. Identify the architecture problem, decision, or pain signal.
    2. Gather existing constraints, source evidence, and stakeholder context.
    3. Read prior decisions in .agents/results/architecture/ — new decisions supersede old ones explicitly, never contradict them silently.
    4. Select the lightest sufficient method.

    Scenes

    1. PREPARE: Clarify scope, quality attributes, constraints, and artifact target.
    2. ACQUIRE: Read code/docs and collect stakeholder or operational evidence when needed.
    3. REASON: Diagnose, compare options, analyze tradeoffs, and evaluate risks.
    4. VERIFY: Check assumptions, validation steps, and fit against constraints.
    5. FINALIZE: Produce recommendation, ADR, or architecture artifact.

    Transitions

    • If the request is vague, use Diagnostic Mode before recommending.
    • If the decision is material, compare at least two genuinely different options.
    • If risk/quality attributes dominate, use ATAM-style analysis.
    • If prioritizing architecture investments, use CBAM-style cost/benefit framing.
    • If the decision is final, format it as an ADR.

    Failure and recovery

    • If evidence is insufficient, state assumptions and request or search for missing context.
    • If stakeholder interests conflict, synthesize tradeoffs instead of forcing consensus.
    • If the task belongs to another domain, route to the relevant skill.

    Exit

    • Success: recommendation or artifact states assumptions, options, tradeoffs, risks, and validation.
    • Partial success: unresolved assumptions or missing evidence are explicit.

    Logical Operations

    Actions

    ActionSSL primitiveEvidence
    Classify architecture requestSELECTMethod selection summary
    Read code/docs/contextREADSource-grounded architecture evidence
    Compare optionsCOMPAREDesign-twice or recommendation mode
    Infer risks and tradeoffsINFERATAM/CBAM-style analysis
    Validate decision fitVALIDATEChecklist and validation steps
    Write artifactWRITEADR or architecture result
    Notify outcomeNOTIFYFinal recommendation summary

    Tools and instruments

    • Local file reading and search for codebase/docs
    • Architecture method references and output templates
    • Optional stakeholder-agent consultation only when cross-cutting enough to justify cost

    Canonical workflow path

    Prefer symbol-aware tools (serena MCP) when available: get_symbols_overview for structure, find_symbol / find_referencing_symbols for ownership and coupling, search_for_pattern for integration points. Fall back to plain search only when serena is unavailable:

    ls .agents/results/architecture/   # prior decisions — read before deciding
    rg --files
    rg "ADR|architecture|boundary|service|module|dependency|owner|interface" .
    

    Then choose Diagnostic, Recommendation, Design-Twice, ATAM-style, CBAM-style, or ADR mode before writing the artifact.

    Resource scope

    ScopeResource target
    CODEBASEArchitecture-relevant source files and docs
    LOCAL_FS.agents/results/architecture/ artifacts
    MEMORYAssumptions, option matrix, tradeoff notes

    Preconditions

    • The architecture concern or decision boundary is identifiable.
    • Relevant context can be read or assumptions can be stated.

    Effects and side effects

    • Creates architecture recommendations or ADR-style records.
    • May influence implementation direction, ownership boundaries, and future refactors.
    • Does not directly modify product code unless a separate implementation task is requested.

    Guardrails

    1. Diagnose the architecture problem before selecting a method.
    2. Use the lightest sufficient methodology for the current decision.
    3. Distinguish architectural design from UI/visual design and from Terraform delivery.
    4. Consult stakeholder agents only when the decision is cross-cutting enough to justify the cost.
    5. Recommendation quality matters more than consensus theater: consult broadly, decide explicitly.
    6. Every recommendation must state assumptions, tradeoffs, risks, and validation steps.
    7. Be cost-aware by default: implementation cost, operational cost, team complexity, and future change cost.
    8. When a decision is material, compare at least two genuinely different options before recommending one.
    9. Save architecture artifacts to .agents/results/architecture/.
    10. Read prior artifacts in .agents/results/architecture/ before deciding; when replacing an old decision, mark it superseded rather than contradicting it.
    11. When a durable artifact is finalized, emit the architecture.adr-complete L1 decision event and verify the checkpoint (commands in resources/execution-protocol.md Step 7).

    Method Selection Summary

    • Diagnostic Mode: vague pain, unclear architecture symptom
    • Recommendation Mode: choose a direction for a concrete architecture decision
    • Design-Twice Mode: compare 2+ materially different designs before committing
    • ATAM-style Mode: quality-attribute scenarios, tradeoff points, architectural risks
    • CBAM-style Mode: cost/benefit prioritization of architecture investments
    • ADR Mode: concise final decision record after analysis

    References

    Follow resources/execution-protocol.md step by step. Use resources/methodology-selection.md to select the right method. Use resources/stakeholder-synthesis.md when stakeholder consultation is needed. Use resources/output-templates.md to format the final artifact. Before submitting, run resources/checklist.md.

    • Execution steps: resources/execution-protocol.md
    • Checklist: resources/checklist.md
    • Method selection: resources/methodology-selection.md
    • Stakeholder protocol: resources/stakeholder-synthesis.md
    • Output templates: resources/output-templates.md
    • API evolution patterns (versioning, deprecation, lifecycle guarantees): resources/api-evolution.md
    • Migration/transition patterns (strangler fig, branch by abstraction, expand-contract): resources/migration-patterns.md
    • Context loading: ../_shared/core/context-loading.md
    • Difficulty guide: ../_shared/core/difficulty-guide.md
    • Clarification protocol: ../_shared/core/clarification-protocol.md
    • Quality principles: ../_shared/core/quality-principles.md

    Alternatives

    Compare before choosing

    Computed 911,212

    first-fluke/oh-my-agent

    oma-architecture

    Architecture specialist for software/system design, module and service boundaries, tradeoff analysis, and stakeholder synthesis. Uses context-aware methods such as diagnostic routing, design-twice comparison, ATAM-style risk analysis, CBAM-style prioritization, and ADR-style decision records.

    Computed 10014,540

    prowler-cloud/prowler

    postgresql-indexing

    PostgreSQL indexing best practices for Prowler: index design, partial indexes, partitioned table indexing, EXPLAIN ANALYZE validation, concurrent operations, monitoring, and maintenance. Trigger: When creating or modifying PostgreSQL indexes, analyzing query performance with EXPLAIN, debugging slow queries, reviewing index usage statistics, reindexing, dropping indexes, or working with partitioned table indexes. Also trigger when discussing index strategies, partial indexes, or index maintenance

    Computed 98237

    Aperivue/medsci-skills

    make-figures

    Generate publication-ready figures and visual abstracts for medical research papers. Supports ROC curves, forest plots, CONSORT/STARD/PRISMA flow diagrams, calibration plots, Kaplan-Meier curves, Bland-Altman plots, confusion matrices, pipeline diagrams, and journal-specific visual/graphical abstracts (python-pptx template-based).

    Computed 9839

    drafthq/draft

    decompose

    Decompose project or track into modules with dependency mapping. Project scope updates architecture.md and derives .ai-context.md. Track scope generates hld.md (always) and lld.md (when --lld or High-complexity module triggers it) — design-mandated artifacts that drive implement, deploy-checklist, and upload sign-off.