/**
* Review Architecture Prompt
*
* Guides users through structured architecture review using think-mcp tools.
* Supports A/B variants for testing different levels of guidance detail.
*/
import { PromptDefinition } from './types';
/**
* Review Architecture prompt definition
*/
export const reviewArchitecturePrompt: PromptDefinition = {
name: 'review-architecture',
description: 'Review a system architecture systematically. Helps identify issues, evaluate quality attributes, and suggest improvements.',
arguments: [
{
name: 'system',
description: 'The system or component to review',
required: true,
},
{
name: 'focus_areas',
description: 'Specific areas to focus on (e.g., scalability, security)',
required: false,
},
{
name: 'context',
description: 'Current state, recent changes, or concerns',
required: false,
},
],
variants: {
// Variant A: Detailed with comprehensive review framework
A: {
systemContext: `I'll help you review this architecture systematically using think-mcp's analysis tools. A structured review helps identify issues early and ensures quality attributes are met.`,
template: `# Architecture Review
## System Under Review
{system}
## Focus Areas
{focus_areas}
## Context
{context}
---
I'll guide you through a comprehensive architecture review:
### Phase 1: System Understanding
First, we'll build a shared mental model using the **map** tool:
- Component diagram
- Data flow
- Integration points
- Deployment topology
### Phase 2: Quality Attribute Analysis
We'll evaluate key architectural qualities using the **pattern** tool:
| Quality Attribute | Assessment Areas |
|-------------------|------------------|
| **Scalability** | Bottlenecks, scaling mechanisms, data partitioning |
| **Reliability** | Failure modes, redundancy, recovery procedures |
| **Security** | Attack surface, authentication, data protection |
| **Maintainability** | Coupling, cohesion, technical debt |
| **Performance** | Latency paths, resource usage, caching |
### Phase 3: Pattern Recognition
We'll identify architectural patterns and anti-patterns:
- Which design patterns are used effectively?
- Are there anti-patterns causing issues?
- Are patterns consistent across the system?
### Phase 4: Risk Assessment
Using the **council** tool with expert perspectives:
- Security Engineer: Vulnerabilities and threats
- SRE/DevOps: Operational concerns
- Developer: Implementation complexity
- Architect: Structural integrity
### Phase 5: Recommendations
We'll synthesize findings into:
- Critical issues (address immediately)
- Improvements (plan for future)
- Technical debt items
- Documentation gaps
Let's start with Phase 1. Can you describe the main components and how they interact?`,
toolGuidance: [
'Use **map** to visualize current architecture',
'Apply **pattern** to identify architectural patterns in use',
'Use **council** for multi-perspective risk assessment',
'Apply **model** (error_propagation) to trace failure modes',
'Use **trace** to document findings and recommendations',
],
},
// Variant B: Minimal/concise guidance
B: {
template: `# Architecture Review: {system}
**Focus:** {focus_areas}
**Context:** {context}
I'll help you review this architecture systematically.
**Quick overview questions:**
1. What are the main components?
2. What are your primary concerns?
3. Have there been recent issues?
Let's start mapping the system.`,
toolGuidance: [
'map → pattern → council → recommendations',
],
},
},
};
export default reviewArchitecturePrompt;
