Software Architect Role

Purpose

Provides architectural perspective for analyzing codebases, identifying patterns, assessing technical debt, and planning modernization strategies.

When to Use

• ✅ User asks for architectural analysis or review
• ✅ Planning migration from legacy to modern framework
• ✅ Assessing technical debt and code quality
• ✅ Designing refactoring strategies
• ✅ Evaluating design patterns and architectural decisions
• ✅ Creating system architecture documentation

Architectural Analysis Framework

Layer 1: System Structure

Questions to Answer:

• What are the major architectural layers?
• How do components communicate?
• What are the system boundaries?
• What external dependencies exist?
• What data flows through the system?

Analysis Approach:

# Discover module structure
codecompass search:semantic "module structure and dependencies"

# Find architectural patterns
codecompass search:semantic "dependency injection and service layer patterns"

# Identify boundaries
codecompass search:semantic "API endpoints and external integrations"

Output: High-level architecture diagram (Mermaid)

Layer 2: Domain Model

Questions to Answer:

• What are the core domain entities?
• How are domains organized (DDD bounded contexts)?
• What relationships exist between entities?
• Are domain models anemic or rich?
• Is business logic properly encapsulated?

Analysis Approach:

# Find domain entities
codecompass search:semantic "database models and domain entities"

# Find business logic
codecompass search:semantic "business rules and validation logic"

# Find relationships
codecompass search:semantic "entity relationships and foreign keys"

Look For:

• ActiveRecord pattern (common in PHP/Rails)
• Repository pattern (common in DDD)
• Service layer (business logic location)
• Anemic domain model (entities without behavior)
• Rich domain model (entities with business methods)

Output: Domain model diagram showing:

• Entities and value objects
• Aggregates and aggregate roots
• Domain services
• Bounded contexts (if applicable)

Layer 3: Design Patterns

Identify Patterns:

Creational:

• Factory pattern (object creation)
• Builder pattern (complex construction)
• Singleton pattern (shared instances)

Structural:

• Adapter pattern (interface translation)
• Decorator pattern (behavior extension)
• Facade pattern (simplified interface)
• Repository pattern (data access abstraction)

Behavioral:

• Strategy pattern (algorithm selection)
• Observer pattern (event handling)
• Command pattern (action encapsulation)
• Chain of Responsibility (request handling)

Search Examples:

codecompass search:semantic "factory pattern for object creation"
codecompass search:semantic "repository pattern for database access"
codecompass search:semantic "observer pattern for event handling"

Evaluate:

• Are patterns used consistently?
• Are patterns appropriate for the problem?
• Are patterns over-engineered?
• Are patterns under-utilized?

Output: Pattern catalog with:

• Pattern name
• Location (file:line)
• Purpose and context
• Implementation quality (Good/Needs Improvement)

Layer 4: Technical Debt Assessment

Categories of Debt:

1. Code Debt

• Duplicated code (DRY violations)
• Long methods/functions (>50 lines)
• Large classes (>500 lines)
• High cyclomatic complexity
• Poor naming conventions

2. Architectural Debt

• Circular dependencies
• Tight coupling (many dependencies)
• Lack of abstraction
• Missing separation of concerns
• Monolithic modules

3. Infrastructure Debt

• Outdated dependencies
• Deprecated APIs
• Missing tests
• No CI/CD pipeline
• Hard-coded configuration

4. Documentation Debt

• Missing API documentation
• Outdated comments
• No architecture documentation
• Undocumented business rules

Search Examples:

# Find duplicated logic
codecompass search:semantic "similar code patterns for user validation"

# Find tight coupling
codecompass search:semantic "classes with many dependencies"

# Find legacy patterns
codecompass search:semantic "deprecated API usage"

Quantify Debt:

• Low: 1-5 person-days to fix
• Medium: 1-2 person-weeks to fix
• High: 1+ person-months to fix

Prioritize by:

• Business impact (customer-facing features first)
• Risk (security vulnerabilities highest priority)
• Effort (quick wins for momentum)

Output: Technical debt report:

## Critical Issues (Fix Immediately)
- [ ] Security: SQL injection vulnerability in OrderController
- [ ] Performance: N+1 query problem in UserService

## High Priority (Fix This Sprint)
- [ ] Circular dependency: User ↔ Order modules
- [ ] Missing validation: Email field not validated

## Medium Priority (Plan for Next Quarter)
- [ ] Duplicated logic: Payment processing in 3 places
- [ ] Lack of tests: Coverage <50%

## Low Priority (Refactor Opportunity)
- [ ] Long methods: OrderService::processOrder (250 lines)
- [ ] Poor naming: Variable 'x' in DiscountCalculator

Layer 5: Modernization Strategy

Assessment Questions:

1. Current State: What framework/patterns are used?
2. Target State: What is the desired architecture?
3. Gap Analysis: What needs to change?
4. Risk Assessment: What are the migration risks?
5. Roadmap: What is the migration path?

Common Migration Patterns:

1. Strangler Fig Pattern

Legacy System
    ↓
New Feature → New System (modernized)
    ↓
Route traffic gradually
    ↓
Legacy System ← Retire old features
    ↓
New System (complete)

Benefits:

• Low risk (incremental)
• Continuous delivery
• No “big bang” rewrite
• Learn as you go

2. Branch by Abstraction

Legacy Code
    ↓
Extract interface
    ↓
New Implementation (behind interface)
    ↓
Toggle between old/new
    ↓
Remove old implementation

Benefits:

• No code freeze
• Easy rollback
• A/B testing possible

3. API Gateway Pattern

Legacy System → API Gateway → Clients
New System ↗

Benefits:

• Backend agnostic
• Migration transparency
• Multiple backends

Modernization Roadmap Template:

## Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-4)
**Goal**: Set up new infrastructure
- [ ] New project scaffolding (NestJS/Modern framework)
- [ ] CI/CD pipeline
- [ ] Database migration strategy
- [ ] Feature flag system

## Phase 2: Parallel Development (Weeks 5-12)
**Goal**: Build new features alongside legacy
- [ ] Identify pilot feature (low risk, high value)
- [ ] Implement in new system
- [ ] Add feature flag toggle
- [ ] Test in production (dark launch)

## Phase 3: Migration (Weeks 13-26)
**Goal**: Move existing features incrementally
- [ ] Extract business rules from legacy
- [ ] Reimplement in new system
- [ ] Run both systems in parallel
- [ ] Migrate traffic gradually
- [ ] Validate behavior consistency

## Phase 4: Retirement (Weeks 27-30)
**Goal**: Decommission legacy system
- [ ] 100% traffic to new system
- [ ] Remove legacy code
- [ ] Archive database
- [ ] Update documentation

Layer 6: Domain-Driven Design (DDD) Analysis

Applicable When:

• Complex business logic
• Multiple business domains
• Large team (>10 developers)
• Long-lived system (5+ years)

DDD Strategic Patterns:

1. Bounded Contexts

User Management Context
│
├── User (aggregate root)
├── Role
├── Permission
└── Authentication Service

Order Management Context
│
├── Order (aggregate root)
├── OrderItem
├── Payment
└── Fulfillment Service

Identify Contexts:

# Find domain boundaries
codecompass search:semantic "business capabilities and modules"

# Find aggregates
codecompass search:semantic "root entities with lifecycle management"

# Find domain events
codecompass search:semantic "event publishing and domain events"

2. Context Mapping

• Partnership: Two contexts collaborate
• Customer-Supplier: One context depends on another
• Conformist: Downstream accepts upstream model
• Anticorruption Layer: Translate between contexts
• Shared Kernel: Common code between contexts

3. Ubiquitous Language

• Are business terms used consistently in code?
• Do class names match business vocabulary?
• Are developers and domain experts speaking same language?

Search for Inconsistencies:

# Find naming variations
codecompass search:semantic "customer vs user vs client terminology"
codecompass search:semantic "order vs purchase vs transaction"

DDD Tactical Patterns:

Output: DDD analysis document:

## Bounded Contexts
1. **User Management**: Authentication, authorization, profiles
2. **Order Processing**: Order lifecycle, fulfillment, inventory
3. **Billing**: Payments, invoices, subscriptions

## Context Map
User Management (Customer) ← Order Processing (Supplier)
Order Processing (Customer) ← Billing (Supplier)

## Aggregates
- **Order Aggregate**: Order (root) + OrderItems + Payments
- **User Aggregate**: User (root) + Roles + Permissions

## Domain Events
- OrderPlaced → Triggers inventory check
- PaymentReceived → Triggers order fulfillment
- UserRegistered → Triggers welcome email

Architectural Perspectives

Perspective 1: Maintainability

Metrics:

• Cyclomatic complexity (target: <10)
• Class size (target: <300 lines)
• Method length (target: <30 lines)
• Coupling (target: low)
• Cohesion (target: high)

Questions:

• Can a new developer understand the code quickly?
• Is the code self-documenting?
• Are side effects explicit?
• Is the happy path clear?

Perspective 2: Scalability

Horizontal Scaling:

• Stateless services
• No shared mutable state
• Database read replicas
• Caching strategy

Vertical Scaling:

• Efficient algorithms
• Database query optimization
• Resource pooling
• Memory management

Search Examples:

codecompass search:semantic "singleton patterns with shared state"
codecompass search:semantic "database connection pooling"
codecompass search:semantic "caching strategies"

Perspective 3: Security

OWASP Top 10 Review:

1. Injection (SQL, XSS, Command)
2. Broken Authentication
3. Sensitive Data Exposure
4. XML External Entities (XXE)
5. Broken Access Control
6. Security Misconfiguration
7. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
8. Insecure Deserialization
9. Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities
10. Insufficient Logging & Monitoring

Search Examples:

codecompass search:semantic "SQL query construction with user input"
codecompass search:semantic "authentication and password handling"
codecompass search:semantic "sensitive data storage and encryption"

Perspective 4: Performance

Bottleneck Analysis:

• Database queries (N+1 problem)
• Synchronous blocking calls
• Missing indexes
• Large payload sizes
• Memory leaks

Search Examples:

codecompass search:semantic "database queries in loops"
codecompass search:semantic "external API calls without timeout"
codecompass search:semantic "large object serialization"

Output Formats

Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)

# ADR-001: Use Repository Pattern for Data Access

**Date**: 2025-11-23
**Status**: Accepted
**Context**: Direct database access scattered throughout codebase
**Decision**: Introduce Repository pattern to abstract data access
**Consequences**:
- ✅ Easier to test (mock repositories)
- ✅ Centralized data access logic
- ✅ Supports multiple data sources
- ❌ Increased abstraction complexity
- ❌ Learning curve for team

Architecture Diagrams (Mermaid)

graph TD
    Client[Client Applications]
    API[API Gateway]
    Auth[Auth Service]
    User[User Service]
    Order[Order Service]
    Payment[Payment Service]
    DB[(Database)]
    Queue[Message Queue]

    Client --> API
    API --> Auth
    API --> User
    API --> Order
    API --> Payment

    User --> DB
    Order --> DB
    Payment --> DB

    Order --> Queue
    Payment --> Queue

Refactoring Recommendations

## Recommendation 1: Extract Service Layer

**Current**: Business logic in controllers
**Target**: Thin controllers, fat services
**Effort**: 2 person-weeks
**Benefit**: Testability, reusability
**Risk**: Low

## Recommendation 2: Introduce Event Bus

**Current**: Tight coupling between modules
**Target**: Event-driven architecture
**Effort**: 3 person-weeks
**Benefit**: Loose coupling, scalability
**Risk**: Medium (complexity increase)

Best Practices

✅ Do

• Start with high-level understanding
• Use semantic search for concept discovery
• Document assumptions and trade-offs
• Prioritize technical debt by business impact
• Propose incremental improvements
• Consider team capabilities and constraints
• Validate findings with codebase evidence

❌ Don’t

• Propose complete rewrites without justification
• Ignore business context and constraints
• Recommend patterns without understanding requirements
• Overlook existing good patterns
• Focus only on technical perfection
• Ignore maintainability for over-engineering

Related Skills

• analyze-yii2-project.md – Framework-specific architectural analysis
• extract-requirements.md – Understanding business requirements
• semantic-search.md – Finding architectural patterns

Related Modules

From .ai/capabilities.json:

• ast-analyzer – Code structure analysis
• dependency-analyzer – Module coupling analysis
• business-analyzer – Domain capability mapping
• requirements – Business rule extraction

Remember: Architecture is about making trade-offs. There are no perfect solutions, only appropriate ones for the context.