architect

/architect — Implementation Architecture from PRD

Identity

/architect converts a PRD into a buildable plan. It decides HOW to implement what the PRD describes. Its output is a campaign-ready architecture document that Archon reads and executes.

When to Use

• After /prd produces an approved PRD (greenfield or feature mode)
• When the user has a clear direction + existing codebase (no PRD needed)
• When /do routes a build request
• When the user has a spec and wants a build plan

Inputs

One of:

1. A PRD file path (from /prd) — preferred, contains structured requirements
2. A user-provided spec or description + an existing codebase — sufficient
3. Neither — suggest /prd first, but don't hard-gate. If the user has a clear direction ("add auth to my app"), that + the existing code IS the input.

Mode Detection

Greenfield mode: PRD exists with Mode: greenfield, or no existing source files. Produces a complete architecture from scratch.

Feature mode: PRD exists with Mode: feature, OR the user describes a feature and the project has existing source files. The architecture describes changes to existing code, not a standalone system.

In feature mode:

• Read the existing file tree FIRST — understand the current architecture before planning changes
• Read key files (package.json, tsconfig, main entry points, existing patterns)
• The File Tree section shows ONLY new and modified files, not the entire project
• Phases include a Phase 0: "Baseline" that records current typecheck/test state
• Every phase's end conditions include "no new typecheck errors" and "existing tests pass"
• The Risk Register includes "regression in existing functionality" as a default risk

Protocol

Step 1: READ

If PRD exists, read it. Extract:

• Core features (the numbered list)
• Technical decisions (stack choices)
• End conditions (what "done" looks like)
• Out of scope (what NOT to build)
• Integration points (feature mode)

If no PRD, read the codebase instead:

• Scan the file tree for structure and conventions
• Read package.json / equivalent for dependencies and scripts
• Read the main entry point(s) to understand the architecture
• Use the user's description as the feature spec
• Infer end conditions from the description ("add auth" → "protected routes return 401 without token")

Step 2: EVALUATE OPTIONS (for non-trivial decisions)

For any architectural decision where multiple valid approaches exist:

1. Generate 2-3 candidate approaches
2. For each candidate, assess:
   • Complexity to implement (how many files, how many concepts)
   • Risk (what could go wrong, what's the failure mode)
   • Maintainability (how easy to modify later)
   • LLM-friendliness (how well can an agent implement this without confusion)
3. Pick the winner. Document why in the architecture doc.

This is based on AlphaCodium's finding that multi-candidate evaluation outperforms single-candidate refinement. Don't commit to the first idea.

Key decisions that warrant multi-candidate evaluation:

• State management approach
• API structure (REST vs tRPC vs GraphQL)
• Auth implementation pattern
• Database schema design
• Routing strategy

Simple decisions (file naming, folder structure, CSS approach) don't need this. Use the PRD's stack choices and move on.

Step 3: PRODUCE

Write to .planning/architecture-{slug}.md:

# Architecture: {App Name}

> PRD: .planning/prd-{slug}.md
> Date: {ISO date}

## File Tree
{Greenfield: The complete file tree of the finished v1. Every file listed.
Feature mode: ONLY new and modified files. Prefix modified files with ~.
Example: ~ src/routes/index.ts (modified), + src/auth/middleware.ts (new)}

## Component Breakdown
{For each core feature from the PRD:}
### Feature: {name}
- Files: {list of files this feature touches}
- Dependencies: {what must exist before this can be built}
- Complexity: {low/medium/high}

## Data Model
{If the app has a database:}
### {Entity name}
- Fields: {name: type}
- Relationships: {how it connects to other entities}

{If no database: skip this section}

## Key Decisions
{Architecture decisions that were evaluated:}
### {Decision}: {What was chosen}
- **Chosen**: {approach} — because {reasoning}
- **Rejected**: {alternative} — because {why not}

## Build Phases
{Ordered phases that Archon will execute. Each phase has:}

### Phase 1: {name}
- **Goal**: {one sentence}
- **Files**: {files created or modified}
- **Dependencies**: {what must exist first, or "none"}
- **End Conditions**:
  - [ ] {machine-verifiable condition}
  - [ ] {machine-verifiable condition}

### Phase 2: {name}
...

## Phase Dependency Graph
{Which phases depend on which. Simple text format:}
Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3
                  → Phase 4 (parallel with 3)
Phase 3 + 4 → Phase 5

## Risk Register
{Top 3 things most likely to go wrong:}
1. {risk}: {mitigation}
2. {risk}: {mitigation}
3. {risk}: {mitigation}

## Deployment Strategy
{If the PRD specifies a deployment target. Skip if "deploy later" or static-only.}
- **Platform**: {from PRD Technical Decisions — see .planning/_templates/deploy/}
- **Method**: {deployment command}
- **Environment variables**: {list required env vars, reference .env.example}
- **Pre-deploy checks**: {typecheck, test, build all pass}

{The final build phase should be "Deploy" when a platform is specified:}
### Phase N (Final): Deploy
- **Goal**: Deploy the verified app to {platform}
- **Dependencies**: All previous phases complete and verified
- **End Conditions**:
  - [ ] App deployed successfully (no build errors)
  - [ ] Production URL accessible and returns expected content

{A failed deploy does NOT fail the campaign. The app works locally. Deploy is bonus.
If the user says "don't deploy" or "I'll deploy later", omit this phase entirely.}

Step 4: CONNECT TO CAMPAIGN

Convert the architecture into a campaign-ready format:

1. Each build phase becomes a campaign phase
2. End conditions from the architecture become Phase End Conditions in the campaign
3. The dependency graph determines phase ordering
4. Parallel-safe phases get flagged for potential Fleet execution

Present the architecture summary to the user:

• File count and structure
• Number of phases
• Key decisions made and why
• Estimated complexity

Ask: "Ready to build? This will create an Archon campaign."

If approved: write the campaign file using the architecture as the direction.

Step 5: HANDOFF

---HANDOFF---
- Architecture: {app name}
- Document: .planning/architecture-{slug}.md
- Phases: {count}
- Estimated complexity: {low/medium/high}
- Next: Archon campaign ready to execute
---

What /architect Does NOT Do

• Build anything (produces the plan, not the code)
• Skip multi-candidate evaluation for key decisions
• Create phases without end conditions
• Ignore the PRD's "out of scope" section
• Produce a file tree without knowing what each file does

Quality Gates

• Every phase has at least one machine-verifiable end condition
• Every key decision documents what was rejected and why
• File tree is complete (no "etc." or "..." placeholders)
• Phase dependencies are explicit (no implicit ordering)
• Risk register has at least 2 entries

Fringe Cases

No PRD exists: Treat the user's description + the existing codebase as the spec. Read the file tree and package.json to infer context. Proceed without requiring a PRD — see "If no PRD" in Step 1.

Project already has code: Use feature mode. Read the existing architecture first. The file tree shows only new/modified files. Phase 0 must record the baseline typecheck and test state.

Vague description: If the user's description is too vague to produce verifiable end conditions, ask at most 2 clarifying questions before proceeding. Don't block on perfect clarity.

If .planning/ does not exist: Create it before writing the architecture document. If creation is not possible, present the architecture document inline and instruct the user to save it.

Exit Protocol

---HANDOFF---
- Architecture: {app name}
- Document: .planning/architecture-{slug}.md
- Phases: {count}
- Estimated complexity: {low/medium/high}
- Next: Archon campaign ready to execute
---