architect-review

To critique a system design document against well-architected standards, submit your RFCs or design docs for a rubric-based evaluation. The review identifies missing trust boundaries and ungrounded load-bearing claims, returning severity-tagged findings and actionable improvement plans.

Reviewing C4 and sequence diagrams for operational risks is best handled through genre-aware rubrics. The analysis applies specific evaluation criteria for each artifact type to detect structural viability issues and tag mechanical or judgment-based risks.

Yes, you can use an automated architecture review for design docs and RFCs. The process validates load-bearing claims against internal knowledge surfaces, evaluates reliability and security pillars, and ensures structural integrity before implementation begins.

Architecture critiques identify missing trust boundaries by applying rigorous rubric-based analysis to the submitted design. The review evaluates the structural viability of the workload class, flags ungrounded claims, and provides a clear verdict on the system's design.

Rubric-based architecture reviews are limited by the artifact types provided, focusing strictly on design documents, C4 diagrams, and sequence diagrams. The evaluation relies on validating load-bearing claims against available internal knowledge surfaces.

You need a well-architected lens review when submitting a new system design to prevent costly flaws. It evaluates your specific workload class against pillar-based standards like Reliability, Security, and Cost to ensure structural viability before implementation.