Architecture evaluator
Skill morning-start/agent-skills/process/software-design/skills/architecture-evaluator
现有架构评估与改进建议子技能。当用户需要审查现有代码/系统、检测反模式、评估技术债务、提出重构或改进建议时调用。From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add morning-start/agent-skills --skill architecture-evaluatorAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
4.8 KB, ~1.9k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
架构评估与改进 (Architecture Evaluator)
任务目标
本子技能帮助用户评估现有系统架构的质量,识别问题根因,并提供可执行的重构或改进建议。覆盖反模式检测、质量指标打分、技术债务评估和演进路线图制定。
四阶段评估流程
数据收集 → 多维评分 → 问题诊断 → [用户确认] → 改进方案 → 路线图
阶段 1: 数据收集
必填信息:
- 当前系统的核心业务目标(原始文档或口头描述)
- 代码库概况(语言、框架、代码行数、模块数量)
- 当前遇到的具体痛点(性能瓶颈?维护困难?bug 频发?)
选填信息(缺失则基于代码分析推断):
- 架构文档 / 设计文档(如有)
- 测试覆盖率数据
- 线上监控数据(延迟、错误率、资源使用)
- 团队规模和开发流程
阶段 2: 多维评分
按 P0-P4 优先级对现有架构进行评分(1-10 分):
| 维度 | 权重 | 评分 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 业务对齐度 | P0 | ?/10 | 代码是否仍反映原始业务目标? |
| 可维护性 | P1 | ?/10 | 模块独立性、重复代码、圈复杂度 |
| 可扩展性 | P1 | ?/10 | 新增需求是否需要大改?OCP 遵从度 |
| 性能 | P2 | ?/10 | 慢查询、资源瓶颈、缓存命中率 |
| 安全性 | P3 | ?/10 | OWASP Top 10 风险 |
| 成本效率 | P4 | ?/10 | 资源利用率、云成本 |
评分说明:
- 1-3:严重问题,需立即处理
- 4-6:需改进,计划内修复
- 7-8:较好,有优化空间
- 9-10:优秀
阶段 3: 问题诊断
3.1 反模式检测清单
| 类别 | 反模式 | 检测线索 | 严重度 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 架构级 | 上帝类 (God Class) | 单个类 > 1000 行 | 🔴 P0 |
| 架构级 | 循环依赖 | A→B→A 的模块依赖链 | 🔴 P0 |
| 架构级 | 散弹式修改 | 改一个需求需要改 N 个文件 | 🟠 P1 |
| 架构级 | 依恋情结 | 一个方法过度依赖另一个类的数据 | 🟡 P2 |
| 代码级 | 过长函数 | 单个函数 > 50 行 | 🟡 P2 |
| 代码级 | 过多参数 | 函数参数 > 4 个 | 🟢 P3 |
| 代码级 | 魔法数字 | 硬编码 0.8、3600 等无解释常量 | 🟢 P3 |
| 代码级 | 重复代码 | 相同逻辑出现 3+ 处 | 🟠 P1 |
3.2 技术债务评估
graph LR
subgraph "技术债务分布"
A[架构债务 45%] --> D[Total]
B[代码债务 30%] --> D
C[测试债务 15%] --> D
E[文档债务 10%] --> D
end
评估维度:
- 修复所需人天:估算
- 风险等级:低 / 中 / 高 / 危急
- 对业务的影响:阻塞新功能?降低开发速度?
阶段 4: 改进方案与路线图
4.1 改进建议(每个建议必须包含权衡分析)
示例:
| 建议 | 将 God Class 拆分为多个单一职责类 |
|---|---|
| 优点 | 可维护性提升 60%,新增功能无需修改核心类 |
| 缺点 / 成本 | 需要 3-5 人天,可能影响现有功能稳定性 |
| 前置条件 | 需要有足够的测试覆盖(当前覆盖率 30%,建议先补测试) |
| 不适用场景 | 系统即将重写或废弃时,不值得投入 |
4.2 分阶段演进路线图
gantt
title 架构改进路线图
dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
section Phase 1 (Quick Wins)
添加缺失的测试覆盖 :a1, 2026-07-01, 5d
提取魔法数字为常量 :a2, after a1, 3d
section Phase 2 (核心重构)
拆分 God Class :b1, after a2, 10d
打破循环依赖 :b2, after b1, 7d
section Phase 3 (架构演进)
引入消息队列解耦 :c1, after b2, 14d
模块化拆分 :c2, after c1, 21d
输出模板
高层执行摘要(默认必显)
# 架构评估报告:{项目名称}
## 总体评分
可维护性: 5/10 | 性能: 7/10 | 安全性: 6/10 | 成本: 8/10
## 核心发现
🔴 严重: God Class `OrderManager` 1200 行,修改风险极高
🟠 警告: 模块间存在循环依赖 (A→B→C→A)
🟢 建议: 多处魔法数字需提取
## 推荐动作
1. [立即] 拆分 OrderManager (5 人天)
2. [短期] 打破循环依赖 (7 人天)
3. [中期] 补测试覆盖至 80% (10 人天)
## 风险提示
如果不对 God Class 进行处理,每新增一个功能将增加 2-3 天的修改成本。
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most architecture codebase skills give in ~1.9k tokens
Counted across 811 of the 1,134 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Ask the user which candidate to explorein 45 of 811, across 15 files
- Apply the deletion test to suspected shallow modulesin 43 of 811, across 15 files
- Read any relevant architecture decision records firstin 31 of 811, across 8 files
- Use exact glossary terms in every suggestionin 30 of 811, across 10 files
- Accept dependencies instead of creating themin 24 of 811, across 5 files
- Include before and after visualisations for each candidatein 24 of 811, across 5 files
- Read the domain glossary before exploringin 24 of 811, across 6 files
- Return results instead of producing side effectsin 23 of 811, across 4 files
- Explore the codebase for shallow modules and frictionin 23 of 811, across 3 files
- Introduce seams only where things varyin 22 of 811, across 3 files
- Reduce the number of methodsin 21 of 811, across 2 files
- Design deep modules with small interfacesin 21 of 811, across 3 files
Said here and by no other author read
- collect business goals codebase details and pain points
- score architecture across six dimensions using one to ten scale
- assess technical debt across four areas
- estimate required person-days and risk levels for technical debt
- include trade-off analysis for each improvement suggestion
- include pros cons prerequisites and exclusions for each suggestion
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.