Agent skill

Architectural Code Review

by Donchitos in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

Performs an architectural review of code against coding standards, SOLID, testability and performance, and reports no verdict when the inputs are missing.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Architectural Code Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill code-review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios code-review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/code-review .claude/skills/code-review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
code-review
GitHub stars
26k
Token cost
~3.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,697 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
73
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Performs an architectural review of code against coding standards, SOLID, testability and performance, and reports no verdict when the inputs are missing.

  • Works in 9 steps: Load Target Files → Identify Engine Specialists → ADR Compliance Check → …
  • Reviewing a module's structure against the project's coding standards
  • SKILL.md covers Insufficient input — check…, Phase 1: Load Target Files, Phase 2: Identify Engine… and Phase 3: ADR Compliance Check, plus 6 more sections
  • Calls bash and git

What it does

This is an architectural review of one or more target files, judged against the project's coding standards in CLAUDE.md, SOLID principles, testability and performance concerns. The agent reads the target files in full, then identifies engine specialists from the specialists block in project.yaml or a technical preferences document, with a primary specialist such as godot-specialist chosen from the engine name.

A distinctive rule comes first: if the inputs a section needs are missing, the result is not a filled-in report but a NOT ASSESSED, NO DATA verdict for that section, or for the whole review if everything is absent. The skill treats that as a correct outcome, because templates without a could-not-run state have produced false clean passes, and absence of evidence is never evidence of absence.

Questions to you follow the automation mode setting, so collaborative, guided and autonomous modes ask more or less often. The skill comes from a game studio agent set, and its supplied text ends during the specialist step, so later phases are not described here.

When your agent uses it

  • Reviewing a module's structure against the project's coding standards
  • Checking a change for SOLID violations and poor testability
  • Flagging performance concerns in game or engine code

Example prompts

  • “Do an architectural review of src/gameplay/inventory.gd against our coding standards.”
  • “Review this class for SOLID problems and anything that makes it hard to test.”
  • “Run the code review skill on the combat system and tell me if any section could not be assessed.”

Requirements

  • The target source files and a CLAUDE.md with the project's coding standards
  • A project.yaml specialists block or technical preferences document for engine specialists
  • Pre-approved tools (allowed-tools): Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git log *), Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/code-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)

Workflow steps

9 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Load Target Files
  2. Identify Engine Specialists
  3. ADR Compliance Check
  4. Standards Compliance
  5. Architecture and SOLID
  6. Game-Specific Concerns
  7. Specialist Reviews (Parallel)
  8. Output Review
  9. Next Steps

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit b21fa0f. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves these tools, so the agent can use them without asking each time:

    • Read
    • Glob
    • Grep
    • Bash(git log *)
    • Agent
    • AskUserQuestion
    • Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/code-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • bash
    • git

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Architectural Code Review loads about 3.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 25 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,697 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~25
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios at commit b21fa0f, republished under its MIT licence (© Donchitos). 1,697 words, ~3,483 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/code-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
code-review
description
Architectural code review — coding standards, SOLID, testability, performance concerns.
allowed-tools
Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git log *), Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/code-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
argument-hint
[path-to-file-or-directory]
user-invocable
true
model
sonnet

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Insufficient input — check this before producing any report

If the inputs this skill needs do not exist, the answer is "could not run" — not a filled-in report. Check first, and stop if the check fails.

  1. List the inputs this skill reads (data files, prior reports, profiler output, test results, registries, source code).
  2. For each, record FOUND or ABSENT — not "assumed present".
  3. If any input required for a section is ABSENT, that section is NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA. Do not estimate it, do not infer it from an adjacent artifact, and do not leave a mandated cell to be filled by whoever reads the template next.
  4. If every required input is ABSENT, stop and report NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA as the whole verdict, naming what was missing and which skill produces it.

A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success. It is the correct, useful answer to "what does the data say?" when there is no data. The failure mode this prevents is specific and has been observed in practice: report templates whose verdict enum had no "could not run" state produced false clean passes — an asset audit returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets and no standards, and a performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget" with zero profiler data and no budget ever set.

Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. A scan that finds no matches because there are no files to scan has not verified anything. Say which of the two happened — a reader cannot tell from a green result.


Phase 1: Load Target Files

Read the target file(s) in full. Read CLAUDE.md for project coding standards.


Phase 2: Identify Engine Specialists

Read the specialists block from project.yaml; if it is absent, fall back to the ## Engine Specialists section of .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md. Note:

  • The Primary specialist — <engine>-specialist derived from engine.name (Godot→godot-specialist, Unity→unity-specialist, Unreal→unreal-specialist); used for architecture and broad engine concerns
  • The Language/Code Specialist — specialists.code — used when reviewing the project's primary language files
  • The Shader Specialist — specialists.shader — used when reviewing shader files
  • The UI Specialist — specialists.ui — used when reviewing UI code

A value of null means UNSET — treat that key as absent and skip its specialist. Never spawn it as an agent name. The v1.0 migration writes null for any specialist the legacy file did not name, and it writes the whole block whenever one member is set — so a project that configured only its code specialist carries shader: null and ui: null. The config reader returns the four-character string "null" for these, which is not empty and therefore reads as configured. null, empty, and missing are the same state here.

If no engine is configured (no engine.name in project.yaml, and technical-preferences.md reads [TO BE CONFIGURED] or is missing), skip engine specialist steps. Record Engine validation: NOT ASSESSED — no engine configured (`engine.name` unset in `project.yaml`) in this run's output. A skipped check that says nothing is indistinguishable from a check that passed; the reader cannot tell engine guidance was never sought.


Phase 3: ADR Compliance Check

Argument: /code-review [file(s)] may optionally include a story file path as the last argument (e.g., /code-review Assets/Scripts/Combat/Attack.cs production/epics/combat/story-001.md). If a story path is provided, read it to extract the governing ADR reference.

Search for ADR references in, in priority order:

  1. The story file (if provided as argument)
  2. Header comments at the top of the implementation files
  3. Commit messages referencing these files (git log --oneline -- [file])

Look for patterns like ADR-NNNN or docs/architecture/adr- (either case).

If no ADR references found, note: "No ADR references found — ADR compliance check skipped. For full ADR compliance review, provide the story path: /code-review [files] [story-path]."

For each referenced ADR, load only the sections this check needs — never an unbounded full read. A substantial ADR exceeds the 25k-token Read cap, and a capped read's only recovery is paging the remainder — the most expensive way to read a file. Use the same pattern as /dev-story and /create-stories:

  1. Map the headings (cheap — line numbers only): Grep pattern="^## " path="[adr-file]" output_mode="content" -n
  2. Bounded-read only ## Decision and ## Consequences, using the line numbers to set Read(offset, limit) spans that end where the next heading begins. If the heading map is empty (a nonstandard ADR predating the template), fall back to one full Read; if that truncates at the cap, grep for the decision/consequence content directly rather than paging the remainder.

A referenced ADR whose file is missing, or that cannot be read, makes ADR Compliance NOT ASSESSED — [ADR] could not be read: name it. No reference at all is NO ADRS FOUND, a different result.

From those two sections, classify any deviation:

  • ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION (BLOCKING): Uses a pattern explicitly rejected in the ADR
  • ADR DRIFT (WARNING): Meaningfully diverges from the chosen approach without using a forbidden pattern
  • MINOR DEVIATION (INFO): Small difference from ADR guidance that doesn't affect overall architecture

Phase 4: Standards Compliance

Identify the system category (engine, gameplay, AI, networking, UI, tools) and evaluate:

  • Public methods and classes have doc comments
  • Cyclomatic complexity under 10 per method
  • No method exceeds 40 lines (excluding data declarations)
  • Dependencies are injected (no static singletons for game state)
  • Configuration values loaded from data files
  • Systems expose interfaces (not concrete class dependencies)

Phase 5: Architecture and SOLID

Architecture:

  • Correct dependency direction (engine <- gameplay, not reverse)
  • No circular dependencies between modules
  • Proper layer separation (UI does not own game state)
  • Events/signals used for cross-system communication
  • Consistent with established patterns in the codebase

SOLID:

  • Single Responsibility: Each class has one reason to change
  • Open/Closed: Extendable without modification
  • Liskov Substitution: Subtypes substitutable for base types
  • Interface Segregation: No fat interfaces
  • Dependency Inversion: Depends on abstractions, not concretions

Phase 6: Game-Specific Concerns

  • Frame-rate independence (delta time usage)
  • No allocations in hot paths (update loops)
  • Proper null/empty state handling
  • Thread safety where required
  • Resource cleanup (no leaks)

Show full SKILL.md (707 more words)Show less

Phase 7: Specialist Reviews (Parallel)

Spawn all applicable specialists simultaneously via Agent — do not wait for one before starting the next.

Verify every specialist finding before reporting it. Do not pass findings through unchecked. For each finding, record in the report:

  • File and line it refers to.
  • Evidence — the quoted code, or the concrete input/state that triggers it.
  • Confidence — VERIFIED (you checked it yourself) or UNVERIFIED — specialist claim (you could not).

A finding you could not verify is reported as unverified or dropped, never promoted to a defect on the strength of confident phrasing.

Why this is mandatory. Agents are reliable when deriving and unreliable when diagnosing existing code. In practice, three separate agents produced three different wrong claims about the same six-line function, every one fluent enough to pass a skim — including a spawned specialist here alleging a float-precision bug that enumerating the inputs disproves. Without this step the parent review is a laundering channel: a guess enters as a specialist finding and leaves as a reviewed defect.

Engine Specialists

If an engine is configured, determine which specialist applies to each file and spawn in parallel:

  • Primary language files (.gd, .cs, .cpp) → Language/Code Specialist
  • Shader files (.gdshader, .hlsl, shader graph) → Shader Specialist
  • UI screen/widget code → UI Specialist
  • Cross-cutting or unclear → Primary Specialist

Also spawn the Primary Specialist for any file touching engine architecture (scene structure, node hierarchy, lifecycle hooks).

QA Testability Review

For Logic and Integration stories, also spawn qa-tester via Agent in parallel with the engine specialists. Pass:

  • The implementation files being reviewed
  • The story's ## QA Test Cases section (the pre-written test specs from qa-lead)
  • The story's ## Acceptance Criteria

Ask the qa-tester to evaluate:

  • Are all test hooks and interfaces exposed (not hidden behind private/internal access)?
  • Do the QA test cases from the story's ## QA Test Cases section map to testable code paths?
  • Are any acceptance criteria untestable as implemented (e.g., hardcoded values, no seam for injection)?
  • Does the implementation introduce any new edge cases not covered by the existing QA test cases?
  • Are there any observable side effects that should have a test but don't?

For Visual/Feel and UI stories: qa-tester reviews whether the manual verification steps in ## QA Test Cases are achievable with the implementation as written — e.g., "is the state the manual checker needs to reach actually reachable?"

Collect all specialist findings before producing output.


Phase 8: Output Review

## Code Review: [File/System Name]

### Engine Specialist Findings: [N/A — no engine configured / CLEAN / ISSUES FOUND]
[Findings from engine specialist(s), or "No engine configured." if skipped]

### Testability: [N/A — no story path given / N/A — Visual/Feel or Config story / TESTABLE / GAPS / BLOCKING]
[qa-tester findings: test hooks, coverage gaps, untestable paths, new edge cases]
[If BLOCKING: implementation must expose [X] before tests in ## QA Test Cases can run]

### ADR Compliance: [NOT ASSESSED / NO ADRS FOUND / COMPLIANT / DRIFT / VIOLATION]
[List each ADR checked, result, and any deviations with severity]

### Standards Compliance: [X/6 passing]
[List failures with line references; a missing doc comment names the method or class]

### Architecture: [NOT ASSESSED / CLEAN / MINOR ISSUES / VIOLATIONS FOUND]
[List specific architectural concerns]

### SOLID: [NOT ASSESSED / COMPLIANT / ISSUES FOUND]
[List specific violations]

### Game-Specific Concerns
[List game development specific issues]

### Positive Observations
[What is done well -- always include this section]

### Required Changes
[Must-fix items before approval — ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATIONs always appear here]

### Suggestions
[Nice-to-have improvements]

### Verdict: [NOT ASSESSED / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]

Choose the verdict, first match wins:

  • CHANGES REQUIRED — anything under Required Changes
  • NOT ASSESSED — nothing to review (the no-data path above), the engine specialist review did not run — no engine configured, or a specialist that could not be spawned — or any report section reads NOT ASSESSED (ADR Compliance with a referenced ADR that could not be read, Architecture, SOLID); name which. NOT ASSESSED ranks below CHANGES REQUIRED, because a known defect is more actionable than a skipped check, and above both approvals: a review that skipped the engine check has not approved the code. (NO ADRS FOUND is not NOT ASSESSED: with no ADR to check, it does not stop an approval.)
  • APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS — only Suggestions
  • APPROVED — no required changes and no suggestions

This skill is read-only — no files are written.


Phase 9: Next Steps

Use AskUserQuestion:

  • Prompt: "Code review complete — verdict: [NOT ASSESSED / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS / CHANGES REQUIRED]. How would you like to proceed?" (the Phase 8 verdict, word for word)
  • Options (adjust based on verdict):
    • If APPROVED:
      • [A] Run /story-done to mark the story complete
      • [B] Stop here
    • If APPROVED WITH SUGGESTIONS:
      • [A] Apply the suggestions, then run /story-done
      • [B] Run /story-done now — suggestions noted for later
      • [C] Stop here
    • If CHANGES REQUIRED:
      • [A] Fix the issues and re-run /code-review
      • [B] Run /story-done anyway with noted exceptions
      • [C] Stop here
    • If NOT ASSESSED:
      • [A] Fix what stopped the review (point me at the code, run /setup-engine, or fix the unreadable ADR reference), then re-run /code-review
      • [B] Stop here

If an ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATION is found:

  • If the violation contradicts an existing ADR: fix the implementation to comply with docs/architecture/[adr-file].md. If the design has legitimately changed, run /architecture-decision to formally revise the existing ADR — do not create a competing one.
  • If no ADR exists for the pattern that was violated: run /architecture-decision to document the correct approach before fixing the code.

© Donchitos, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in .claude/skills/code-review of Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit b21fa0f

Compare with similar skills

Architectural Code Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Architectural Code Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Architectural Code Review this skillDonchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios26k—~3.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Brooks Reviewhyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5k1 repos~430Automated safety check: PassMIT
Uncle Bob Craftsickn33/agentic-awesome-skills47k2 repos~2.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Code ReviewThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agents665—~697Automated safety check: NotesMIT
Expert Code ReviewerGulajavaMinistudio/Mayukai-Theme139—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Reviewing Changesbitwarden/ios694—~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassGPL-3.0

Similar skills

  • Brooks Review

    hyhmrright/brooks-lint

    PR code review that surfaces decay risks, design smells, and maintainability issues with concrete Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy findings, drawing on twelve classic engineering books.

    1.5k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~430 tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Uncle Bob Craft

    sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills

    A skill your agent uses when performing code review, writing or refactoring code, or discussing architecture; complements clean-code and does not replace project linter/formatter.

    47k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~2.6k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Review

    ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agents

    Analyzes Rails code quality, architecture, and patterns without modifying code.

    665 GitHub stars~697 tokensUpdated 4 mo ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check: notes
  • Expert Code Reviewer

    GulajavaMinistudio/Mayukai-Theme

    Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

    139 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 3 mo ago
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Reviewing Changes

    bitwarden/ios

    Official

    Performs comprehensive code reviews for Bitwarden iOS projects, verifying architecture compliance, style guidelines, compilation safety, test coverage, and security requirements.

    694 GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Reviewer

    aiskillstore/marketplace

    Automated code review with security scanning, quality metrics, and best practices analysis.

    430 GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

All 73 skills in this repo
  • Game Asset Audit

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Audits game assets against naming conventions, file size budgets and format standards, and finds orphaned assets and missing references.

    26k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Game Asset Spec Writer

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Writes per-asset visual specs and AI image-generation prompts for a game's characters, enemies and screens, driven by the GDD, art bible and an entity inventory.

    26k GitHub stars~5k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Game Balance Check

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Checks game data and formulas for balance outliers, broken progression, degenerate strategies and economy problems, and answers 'could not run' when the data is missing.

    26k GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Structured Bug Reports

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Turns a description into a structured bug report, or scans code for likely bugs, then verifies and closes reports through four modes.

    26k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check: notes
  • Bug Triage

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Reviews the open bug backlog, separates severity from priority, assigns fixes to sprints and reports systemic trends, writing a dated triage file.

    26k GitHub stars~2.3k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Changelog Generator for Games

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Generates an internal or player-facing changelog from git commits and sprint data, filtering out framework maintenance commits so that only work on the game itself reaches release copy.

    26k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 8 days ago
    Auto-check: notes

Works with

Categories

Questions about Architectural Code Review

What does Architectural Code Review do?

Performs an architectural review of code against coding standards, SOLID, testability and performance, and reports no verdict when the inputs are missing. md, SOLID principles, testability and performance concerns.yaml or a technical preferences document, with a primary specialist such as godot-specialist chosen from the engine name.

When should I use Architectural Code Review?

Architectural Code Review fits situations like: reviewing a module's structure against the project's coding standards; checking a change for SOLID violations and poor testability; flagging performance concerns in game or engine code.

How do I install Architectural Code Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill code-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/code-review in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios) into .claude/skills/code-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Architectural Code Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill code-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/code-review in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios) into .agents/skills/code-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Architectural Code Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill code-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/code-review, .gemini/skills/code-review, .github/skills/code-review and .opencode/skills/code-review in your project.

What does Architectural Code Review need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Architectural Code Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (bash and git). Our summary lists: The target source files and a CLAUDE.md with the project's coding standards; A project.yaml specialists block or technical preferences document for engine specialists. Its frontmatter pre-approves these tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git log *), Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/code-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *).

Does Architectural Code Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Architectural Code Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Architectural Code Review use?

Architectural Code Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Architectural Code Review use?

About 3.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 14k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Architectural Code Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Architectural Code Review: Brooks Review (hyhmrright/brooks-lint, 1.5k stars), Uncle Bob Craft (sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills, 47k stars), Code Review (ThibautBaissac/rails_ai_agents, 665 stars) and Expert Code Reviewer (GulajavaMinistudio/Mayukai-Theme, 139 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Architectural Code Review?

Donchitos (a GitHub user) maintains it in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios, which has 25,834 GitHub stars. The repository holds 73 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on September 29, 2026.

Source: Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.