Run an evidence-grounded software architecture audit workflow that builds a repo brief, selects single-auditor or specialist-panel mode, inspects boundary, layering, dependency, composition, cohesion, and testability risks, writes required finding blocks, and sequences incremental refactors. Use when asked for an architecture audit, architecture review, repo-structure review, software architecture report, audit_report.md, structural issue findings, or specialist-panel synthesis across multi-module systems.
100
100%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.85xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Correct report section structure and finding format
Section: Repo Brief
0%
100%
Section: Highest-Leverage Issues
0%
100%
Section: Boundary and Layering
0%
100%
Section: Dependency and Composition
0%
100%
Section: Testability and Change Friction
0%
100%
Section: Improvement Sequence
0%
100%
Section: Open Evidence Gaps
0%
100%
Section order
0%
100%
Highest-Leverage as summary
0%
100%
Finding block: Severity field
0%
100%
Finding block: Evidence field
0%
100%
Finding block: Why it matters
0%
100%
Finding block: Recommended improvement
0%
100%
Finding block: Likely refactor surface
0%
100%
Improvement Sequence format
0%
100%
No scorecards
50%
100%
No strengths section
100%
100%
Audit mode selection and repo brief completeness
Single-auditor mode
50%
100%
Repo brief: product name
100%
100%
Repo brief: language/framework
80%
100%
Repo brief: audit scope
100%
100%
Repo brief: docs checked
100%
100%
Repo brief: code surfaces checked
100%
100%
Repo brief: module map
100%
100%
Repo brief: test layout
100%
100%
Severity levels used
100%
100%
Evidence from actual files
100%
100%
Open Evidence Gaps section present
50%
100%
Ambiguous items in Open Evidence Gaps
80%
100%
Incremental recommendations
100%
100%
Specialist-panel synthesis, deduplication, and forbidden recommendations
Specialist-panel mode
0%
100%
No scorecards
100%
100%
No strengths section
100%
100%
No heavyweight pattern prescription
100%
100%
Root cause deduplication
100%
100%
Findings in one section only
70%
100%
Evidence from actual files
100%
100%
Improvement Sequence: Goal field
0%
100%
Improvement Sequence: Why first field
0%
100%
Incremental first moves
100%
100%
Open Evidence Gaps present
0%
100%