Install
openclaw skills install @agenticweb4/software-concept-architect-reviewFind Design Gaps and Code Drift
openclaw skills install @agenticweb4/software-concept-architect-reviewFocus: can the concept and application designs fulfill their respective purposes, and does the
implementation conform? Run only on explicit $software-concept-architect-review invocation and remain read-only.
Design can be reviewed without code; without specifications, review only observable code properties.
Mark conclusions unsupported by missing material as unverified.
A concept is a behavioral unit designed for one purpose. A concept argument connects its purpose to its operational principle (OP), state, and actions. An application argument connects the application purpose to concept selection, synchronizations, and end-to-end scenarios. Conformance to an unsuitable model does not establish fitness; successful OP tests do not prove the purpose, and locally sound concepts do not prove the application purpose.
Review five dimensions:
Evidence means a fact supported by inspected requirements, models, code, or tests. Missing evidence is not evidence of absence.
references/spec-format.md, requirements, concept and synchronization
specifications, the overall PRD, and staged links. With code, trace real entry points, calls,
state/schema, migrations, and tests. Record versions, terms, facts, inferences, coverage, and
gaps.references/drift-checklist.md to compare
signatures, outputs, invariants, state, and dependencies, including public calls, shared mutable
state, private access, and DTO/protocol leakage. Same-named local type parameters are not
semantic dependencies.references/composition-checklist.md to trace each action and
synchronization from the application purpose. Check each concept's composed behavior sequences,
then completions, bindings, isolation, failure, replay, loops, and under-/over-synchronization.# Audit Report <date>
Scope: <requirements/spec/code versions; verified and unverified material> Summary: <coverage,
finding count, severity>
| Proposition or finding | Scenario and evidence | Failed relation or assumption | Impact/severity | Fix route |
| ---------------------- | --------------------- | ----------------------------- | --------------- | --------- |
Coverage: <five dimensions and every concept, entry point, or rule group> Fix order: <merged root
causes, affected locations, current fix, dependencies>
Medium or higher severity needs current specification or code evidence; pure design review is a specification-level projection. Separate missing OP tests from purpose failure. Without implementation, do not report implementation violations. Attach a scenario to every under- or over-synchronization claim.
Route model defects to software-concept-architect-design, transcription/index errors to software-concept-architect-prd, and code
violations to software-concept-architect-build. Read references/sources.md when source definitions or
criteria must be verified. Do not write specifications, code, or history.