design-review

star 289

Review a technical design / migration AgDR / feature spec for architectural soundness BEFORE the Build phase. Invokes the Solution Architect agent (Tariq) — the non-code analog of /code-review.

me2resh By me2resh schedule Updated 6/4/2026

name: design-review description: Review a technical design / migration AgDR / feature spec for architectural soundness BEFORE the Build phase. Invokes the Solution Architect agent (Tariq) — the non-code analog of /code-review. disable-model-invocation: true argument-hint: " [repo]" allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Grep, Glob

/design-review — Solution Architecture Review

Review a design artifact — a technical design doc, a migration AgDR, or a feature spec / PRD — for architectural soundness before any code is built against it. This is the non-code analog of /code-review: where Rex reviews a code PR, Tariq (the Solution Architect) reviews the design.

The Tech Lead authors the design; Tariq reviews it. Authoring and reviewing are deliberately separate — an author reviewing their own design is the gap this role closes.

Activated agent + role

When /design-review runs:

  1. Primary reviewer: the Solution Architect agent (Tariq) at .claude/agents/solution-architect.md — reviews the design against the architecture review lens (NFRs, patterns, tech debt, AgDR linkage, risk, trade-offs, traceability, migration safety) and discovers + applies adopter handbooks exactly as Rex does.
  2. Escalation: the Head of Engineering — for enterprise / cross-project / new-tech-stack concerns that exceed the Solution Architect's remit.
  3. Conditional Security Auditor: if the design touches auth / crypto / secrets / user data, chain /security-review for the deeper pass.

See .claude/rules/role-triggers.md for the full activation protocol. Per the role's isolated-work-class, the reviewer runs as a spawned sub-agent.

Usage

/design-review 42                         # review the design in PR #42
/design-review 42 your-org/your-repo      # specify the repo
/design-review docs/designs/checkout.md   # doc-only review (no PR yet)

Process

  1. Resolve the target — a PR number (preferred: gives a diff + a place to post the verdict + a marker key) or a path to a design artifact. Also resolve the repo: the optional second arg (/design-review 42 owner/repo), or the owner/repo#N form. In split-portfolio v2 the PR lives in a sibling repo, so a bare gh pr view 42 resolved against the ops-fork cwd hits the WRONG repo — pass the resolved repo as --repo to every gh pr view / gh pr diff / gh pr review call, and thread it into Tariq's spawn so his <owner>__<repo>__<pr>-architecture.approved marker is keyed on the PR's real repo. This is the slug the require-architecture-review.sh gate derives from the merge command's cd-target (me2resh/apexyard#687). If only a bare number is given and gh pr view <N> can't resolve the PR from the current cwd, STOP and ask for the owner/repo#N form — never write the marker under a guessed qualifier.
  2. Fetch PR details and the latest commit SHA (when reviewing a PR).
  3. Read the design artifact(s).
  4. Review against the architecture review lens (below) plus discovered handbooks.
  5. Submit a GitHub review via gh pr review (when reviewing a PR).
  6. On APPROVED only: write the sign-off marker so the Design→Build gate passes (see /approve-architecture — Tariq writes the marker himself on an APPROVED verdict; /approve-architecture is the human/operator path to record the same marker).

Review Lens

Quality attributes / NFRs

  • NFRs stated and addressed; targets concrete, not vague.

Design patterns & structure

  • Pattern fits the problem; fits the established architecture; dependencies point the right way.

Technical debt

  • Incurred debt is explicit, justified, and has a paydown path — no silent debt.

Decisions (AgDR linkage) — BLOCKING

  • Every significant technical decision (library, framework, storage, integration, pattern) is captured in an AgDR.
  • A real decision with no AgDR → REQUEST CHANGES (run /decide first).

Risk

  • Failure modes, blast radius, and rollback addressed.

Trade-off analysis

  • Alternatives genuinely considered; trade-offs of the chosen path stated.

Requirements traceability

  • Design satisfies the PRD / acceptance criteria; no scope creep, no uncovered requirement.

Migration safety (migration AgDRs)

  • Data-loss risk, downtime, lock contention, cross-service consumers, observability, reversible cutover.

Adopter Handbooks

  • Discover + apply the public handbooks/** tree and the private custom-handbooks/** layer (framework defaults unless overridden in the sibling portfolio repo). Blocking handbooks turn a finding into a required change.

Output

Posts a GitHub review comment with:

  • Commit SHA reviewed
  • Review-lens results
  • Blocking findings + handbook findings
  • Verdict: APPROVED / CHANGES REQUESTED / COMMENT

On APPROVED, Tariq writes <owner>__<repo>__<pr>-architecture.approved (repo-qualified, see AgDR-0060) so the require-architecture-review.sh gate lets the design PR merge.

Invokes: Solution Architect Agent (Tariq)

Relationship to other review skills

Skill Reviewer Reviews Gate
/code-review Rex (Code Reviewer) code PRs block-unreviewed-merge.sh (Rex marker)
/security-review Hakim (Security Auditor) security-sensitive diffs auto-fire on auth/crypto/secrets
/design-review Tariq (Solution Architect) technical designs / migration AgDRs / feature specs require-architecture-review.sh (architecture marker)

Part of ApexYard — multi-project SDLC framework for Claude Code · MIT.

Install via CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/me2resh/apexyard --skill design-review
Repository Details
star Stars 289
call_split Forks 174
navigation Branch main
article Path SKILL.md
More from Creator