BF software-architecture
Design and review software architectures from business drivers through system boundaries, tradeoffs, runtime behavior, evolution, and architecture practice. Use when choosing a greenfield or target architecture, comparing modular-monolith and service shapes, designing distributed consistency, replication, partitioning, coordination, ordering, transaction isolation, or failure behavior, defining architecture fitness evidence, or facilitating a consequential architecture review. Do not use for reverse engineering, API contract semantics, data-platform design, implementation, infrastructure operations, security lifecycle, or migration execution; route those to the named specialist skills.
Design and review software architectures from business drivers through system boundaries, tradeoffs, runtime behavior, evolution, and architecture practice.
As a process F 55/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: ../programming-principles/references/designing-data-intensive-apps.mini.md, ../programming-principles/references/designing-data-intensive-apps.full.md
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 13. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../programming-principles/references/designing-data-intensive-apps.mini.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../programming-principles/references/designing-data-intensive-apps.full.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 55/100
- 0Tools and files. 2 referenced file(s) missing: ../programming-principles/references/designing-data-intensive-apps.mini.md, ../programming-principles/references/designing-data-intensive-apps.full.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Steps. 20 steps
- 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1657 tokens
- low No test case covers injection arriving through data
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4No input/output examples
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 694: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 7 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 20 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (8 of 8)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.