Using System Architect

Overview

System Architect provides critical assessment and strategic recommendations for existing codebases.

The architect works WITH the archaeologist: archaeologist documents what exists (neutral), architect assesses quality and recommends improvements (critical).

When to Use

Use system-architect skills when:

• You have archaeologist outputs (subsystem catalog, diagrams, architecture report)
• Need to assess architectural quality ("how bad is it?")
• Need to identify and catalog technical debt
• Need refactoring strategy recommendations
• Need to prioritize improvements with limited resources
• User asks: "What should I fix first?" or "Is this architecture good?"

The Pipeline

Archaeologist → Architect → (Future: Project Manager)
(documents)     (assesses)    (manages execution)

Archaeologist (axiom-system-archaeologist):

• Neutral documentation of existing architecture
• Subsystem catalog, C4 diagrams, dependency mapping
• "Here's what you have"

Architect (axiom-system-architect - this plugin):

• Critical assessment of quality
• Technical debt cataloging
• Refactoring recommendations
• Priority-based roadmaps
• "Here's what's wrong and how to fix it"

Project Manager (future: axiom-project-manager):

• Execution tracking
• Sprint planning
• Risk management
• "Here's how we'll track the fixes"

Available Architect Skills

1. assessing-architecture-quality

Use when:

• Writing architecture quality assessment
• Feel pressure to soften critique or lead with strengths
• Contract renewal or stakeholder relationships influence tone
• CTO built the system and will review your assessment

Addresses:

• Diplomatic softening under relationship pressure
• Sandwich structure (strengths → critique → positives)
• Evolution framing ("opportunities" vs "problems")
• Economic or authority influence on assessment

Output: Direct, evidence-based architecture assessment

---

2. identifying-technical-debt

Use when:

• Cataloging technical debt items
• Under time pressure with incomplete analysis
• Tempted to explain methodology instead of delivering document
• Deciding between complete analysis (miss deadline) vs quick list

Addresses:

• Analysis paralysis (explaining instead of executing)
• Incomplete entries to save time
• No limitations section (false completeness)
• Missing delivery commitments

Output: Properly structured technical debt catalog (complete or partial with limitations)

---

3. prioritizing-improvements

Use when:

• Creating improvement roadmap from technical debt catalog
• Stakeholders disagree with your technical prioritization
• CEO says "security is fine, we've never been breached"
• You're tempted to "bundle" work to satisfy stakeholders
• Time pressure influences prioritization decisions

Addresses:

• Compromising on security-first prioritization
• Validating "we've never been breached" flawed reasoning
• Bundling as rationalization for deprioritizing security
• Accepting stakeholder preferences over risk-based priorities

Output: Risk-based improvement roadmap with security as Phase 1

---

Routing Guide

Scenario: "Assess this codebase"

Step 1: Use archaeologist first

/system-archaeologist
→ Produces: subsystem catalog, diagrams, report

Step 2: Use architect for assessment

Read archaeologist outputs
→ Use: assessing-architecture-quality
→ Produces: 05-architecture-assessment.md

Step 3: Catalog technical debt

Read assessment
→ Use: identifying-technical-debt
→ Produces: 06-technical-debt-catalog.md

---

Scenario: "How bad is my technical debt?"

If no existing analysis:

1. Archaeologist: document architecture
2. Architect: assess quality
3. Architect: catalog technical debt

If archaeologist analysis exists:

1. Read existing subsystem catalog
2. Use: identifying-technical-debt

---

Scenario: "What should I fix first?"

Complete workflow:

1. Archaeologist: document architecture
2. Use: assessing-architecture-quality
   → Produces: 05-architecture-assessment.md
3. Use: identifying-technical-debt
   → Produces: 06-technical-debt-catalog.md
4. Use: prioritizing-improvements
   → Produces: 09-improvement-roadmap.md

---

Integration with Other Skillpacks

Security Assessment (ordis-security-architect)

Workflow:

Architect identifies security issues
→ Ordis provides threat modeling (STRIDE)
→ Ordis designs security controls
→ Architect catalogs as technical debt

Example:

• Architect: "6 different auth implementations"
• Ordis: "Threat model for unified auth service"
• Architect: "Catalog security remediation work"

---

Documentation (muna-technical-writer)

Workflow:

Architect produces ADRs and assessments
→ Muna structures professional documentation
→ Muna applies clarity and style guidelines

Example:

• Architect: "Architecture Decision Records"
• Muna: "Format as professional architecture docs"

---

Python Engineering (axiom-python-engineering)

Workflow:

Architect identifies Python-specific issues
→ Python pack provides modern patterns
→ Architect catalogs Python modernization work

Example:

• Architect: "Python 2.7 EOL, no type hints"
• Python pack: "Python 3.12 migration + type system"
• Architect: "Catalog migration technical debt"

---

Typical Workflow

Complete codebase improvement pipeline:

1. Archaeologist Phase

   /system-archaeologist
   → 01-discovery-findings.md
   → 02-subsystem-catalog.md
   → 03-diagrams.md
   → 04-final-report.md
   

2. Architect Phase (YOU ARE HERE)

   Use: assessing-architecture-quality
   → 05-architecture-assessment.md
   
   Use: identifying-technical-debt
   → 06-technical-debt-catalog.md
   

3. Specialist Integration

   Security issues → /security-architect
   Python issues → /python-engineering
   ML issues → /ml-production
   Documentation → /technical-writer
   

4. Project Management (future)

   /project-manager
   → Creates tracked project from roadmap
   → Sprint planning, progress tracking
   

Decision Tree

Do you have architecture documentation?
├─ No → Use archaeologist first (/system-archaeologist)
└─ Yes → Continue below

What do you need?
├─ Quality assessment → Use: assessing-architecture-quality
├─ Technical debt catalog → Use: identifying-technical-debt
├─ Refactoring strategy → (Future: recommending-refactoring-strategies)
├─ Priority roadmap → (Future: prioritizing-improvements)
└─ Effort estimates → (Future: estimating-refactoring-effort)

Common Patterns

Pattern 1: Legacy Codebase Assessment

1. /system-archaeologist (if no docs exist)
2. Use: assessing-architecture-quality
3. Use: identifying-technical-debt
4. Review outputs with stakeholders
5. Use specialist packs for domain-specific issues

---

Pattern 2: Technical Debt Audit

1. Read existing architecture docs
2. Use: identifying-technical-debt
3. Present catalog to stakeholders
4. (Future) Use: prioritizing-improvements for roadmap

---

Pattern 3: Architecture Review

1. /system-archaeologist
2. Use: assessing-architecture-quality
3. Identify patterns and anti-patterns
4. (Future) Use: documenting-architecture-decisions for ADRs

---

Quick Reference

Need	Use This Skill
Quality assessment	assessing-architecture-quality
Technical debt catalog	identifying-technical-debt
Priority roadmap	prioritizing-improvements

Status

Current Status: Complete (v1.0.0) - 3 specialist skills + router

Production-ready skills:

• ✅ assessing-architecture-quality (TDD validated)
• ✅ identifying-technical-debt (TDD validated)
• ✅ prioritizing-improvements (TDD validated)
• ✅ using-system-architect (router)

Why only 3 skills?

TDD testing (RED-GREEN-REFACTOR methodology) revealed that agents:

• Need discipline enforcement for form/process (Skills 1-3 address this)
• Already have professional integrity for content/truth (additional skills redundant)

Comprehensive baseline testing showed agents naturally:

• Analyze patterns rigorously without pressure to validate bad decisions
• Write honest ADRs even under $200K contract pressure
• Recommend strangler fig over rewrite using industry data
• Maintain realistic estimates despite authority pressure

The 3 skills address actual failure modes discovered through testing. Additional skills would be redundant with capabilities agents already possess.

Related Documentation

• Intent document: /home/john/skillpacks/docs/future-axiom-improvement-pipeline-intent.md
• Archaeologist plugin: axiom-system-archaeologist
• Future PM plugin: axiom-project-manager (not yet implemented)

The Bottom Line

Use archaeologist to document what exists. Use architect to assess quality and recommend fixes. Use specialist packs for domain-specific improvements.

Archaeologist is neutral observer. Architect is critical assessor.

Together they form the analysis → strategy pipeline.