Architecture
Create or evaluate an architecture decision record (ADR). Use when choosing between technologies (e.g., Kafka vs SQS), documenting a design decision with trade-offs and consequences, reviewing a system design proposal, or designing a new component from requirements and constraints.
$ npx promptcreek add architectureAuto-detects your installed agents and installs the skill to each one.
What This Skill Does
This skill assists in creating Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) and evaluating system designs. It helps teams document architectural decisions and analyze trade-offs. It's useful for software architects, engineers, and technical leads making key technology choices.
When to Use
- Create an Architecture Decision Record (ADR).
- Evaluate a system design proposal.
- Design a system architecture.
- Document architectural decisions.
- Analyze trade-offs between technology options.
- Assess the consequences of architectural choices.
Key Features
Installation
$ npx promptcreek add architectureAuto-detects your installed agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, etc.) and installs the skill to each one.
View Full Skill Content
/architecture
> If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Create an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) or evaluate a system design.
Usage
/architecture $ARGUMENTS
Modes
Create an ADR: "Should we use Kafka or SQS for our event bus?"
Evaluate a design: "Review this microservices proposal"
System design: "Design the notification system for our app"
See the system-design skill for detailed frameworks on requirements gathering, scalability analysis, and trade-off evaluation.
Output — ADR Format
# ADR-[number]: [Title]
Status: Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded
Date: [Date]
Deciders: [Who needs to sign off]
Context
[What is the situation? What forces are at play?]
Decision
[What is the change we're proposing?]
Options Considered
Option A: [Name]
| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Complexity | [Low/Med/High] |
| Cost | [Assessment] |
| Scalability | [Assessment] |
| Team familiarity | [Assessment] |
Pros: [List]
Cons: [List]
Option B: [Name]
[Same format]
Trade-off Analysis
[Key trade-offs between options with clear reasoning]
Consequences
- [What becomes easier]
- [What becomes harder]
- [What we'll need to revisit]
Action Items
- [ ] [Implementation step]
- [ ] [Follow-up]
If Connectors Available
If ~~knowledge base is connected:
- Search for prior ADRs and design docs
- Find relevant technical context
If ~~project tracker is connected:
- Link to related epics and tickets
- Create implementation tasks
Tips
- State constraints upfront — "We need to ship in 2 weeks" or "Must handle 10K rps" shapes the answer.
- Name your options — Even if you're leaning one way, I'll give a more balanced analysis with explicit alternatives.
- Include non-functional requirements — Latency, cost, team expertise, and maintenance burden matter as much as features.
Supported Agents
Attribution
Details
- License
- MIT
- Source
- admin
- Published
- 3/18/2026
Tags
Related Skills
Agent Protocol
Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
CTO Advisor
Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy. Use when assessing technical debt, scaling engineering teams, evaluating technologies, making architecture decisions, establishing engineering metrics, or when user mentions CTO, tech debt, technical debt, team scaling, architecture decisions, technology evaluation, engineering metrics, DORA metrics, or technology strategy.
Agent Workflow Designer
Agent Workflow Designer