name: architecture-doc-auditor version: "2.0" description: > Systematic completeness audit of Architecture Documentation using 188-item viewpoint-based checklist, severity-classified gap detection, technical debt indicators, and architecture anti-pattern scanning. Supports TOGAF, C4, arc42, and IEEE 42010 frameworks. PROACTIVELY activate for: (1) Architecture review gates, (2) ADR validation before implementation, (3) C4 diagram completeness check, (4) Technical debt assessment, (5) Pre-implementation validation, (6) Governance compliance audit, (7) Design doc handoff review. Triggers: "audit architecture", "review ADR", "check architecture doc", "validate design doc", "architecture review", "audit C4 diagrams", "check system context", "technical debt assessment", "architecture health check", "governance review", "architecture completeness"

Architecture Documentation Auditor

A systematic audit system that evaluates Architecture Documentation against a comprehensive 188-item viewpoint-based checklist, detecting gaps, classifying severity, identifying technical debt signals, scanning for architecture anti-patterns, and generating actionable remediation roadmaps. Implements the GAP-AUDIT pattern (PATTERN-08) to produce CONTRACT-07 compliant GAP-INVENTORY output with Architecture Health Score extensions.

1. Purpose

This skill provides 12 core capabilities:

2. When to Use

Ideal for:

• Architecture review gates before implementation
• ADR validation before development starts
• C4 diagram completeness verification
• Technical debt assessment and tracking
• Pre-implementation readiness check
• Governance and compliance audits
• Design document handoff to development teams
• Architecture decision board preparation
• System modernization planning
• Security architecture review

Avoid when:

• Document is code, not architecture (use code review)
• Operational runbook review (use operations auditor)
• Early ideation phase (architecture not yet defined)
• Quick clarifying questions (formal audit adds overhead)
• Infrastructure-as-Code review (use IaC auditor)
• API specification only (use API spec auditor)

3. Parameters

Document Type Effects

Audit Depth Effects

Governance Context Effects

4. Six-Phase Workflow

Phase 1: Document Intake & Framework Detection

Purpose: Load document and establish audit context.

Steps:

1. Receive architecture document (inline or file reference)
2. Detect architecture framework:
   • C4: Look for Context/Container/Component/Code levels
   • arc42: Look for 12-section template structure
   • TOGAF: Look for ADM phase artifacts
   • IEEE 42010: Look for formal viewpoint definitions
3. Load architecture-checklist.md reference
4. Calibrate checklist based on document_type:
   • Filter items by viewpoint applicability
   • Adjust severity levels for document type
   • Set critical items that must be present
5. Parse document to identify structure:
   • Extract section headers and hierarchy
   • Identify diagram references and types
   • Note ADRs (Architecture Decision Records)
   • Detect technology stack references
6. Load viewpoint-catalog.md for structural validation
7. Initialize gap tracking structure with empty findings

Techniques Used:

• document_structure_extraction - Parse document hierarchy
• framework_detection - Identify architecture methodology
• checklist_calibration - Adjust criteria for context

Quality Gate: Framework identified; checklist calibrated for document type; structure parsed with sections identified

Output: Calibrated checklist (N items) + Document structure map + Detected framework

Phase 2: Viewpoint Mapping & Scope Definition

Purpose: Map document sections to architecture viewpoints and identify structural gaps.

Steps:

1. Load viewpoint framework from viewpoint-catalog.md:

   Core Viewpoints (Always Assess):

   • V1: Context & Scope (system boundary, external actors)
   • V2: Container Architecture (major components, technology choices)
   • V3: Component Design (internal structure, interfaces)
   • V4: Deployment Topology (infrastructure, scaling)
   • V5: Data Architecture (data stores, flows, ownership)
   • V6: Integration & APIs (contracts, protocols, versioning)
   • V7: Security Architecture (auth, encryption, compliance)
   • V8: Operational Concerns (monitoring, SLOs, runbooks)
   • V9: Cross-Cutting Concerns (logging, caching, config)
   • V10: Decision Record (ADRs, rationale, consequences)

   Conditional Viewpoints (If Applicable):

   • V11: Multi-tenancy (SaaS/multi-tenant systems)
   • V12: Event Architecture (event-driven systems)
   • V13: Migration Path (legacy modernization)
   • V14: Compliance Matrix (regulated industries)

2. Map each document section to viewpoints:

   • Assign based on content, not just header
   • Flag orphan sections (don't fit any viewpoint)
   • Flag missing viewpoints (no sections mapped)

3. Identify structural gaps:

   • Core viewpoint with no coverage = CRITICAL structural gap
   • Core viewpoint with partial coverage = HIGH structural gap
   • Conditional viewpoint missing when applicable = MEDIUM gap

4. Check for applicable conditional viewpoints:

   • Multi-tenancy: Evidence of tenant-based requirements
   • Event architecture: Event-driven patterns mentioned
   • Migration: Legacy system references
   • Compliance: Regulatory requirements mentioned

5. Calculate initial coverage score per viewpoint

Techniques Used:

• completeness_verification (CAT-PR-GA) - Verify all viewpoints addressed
• viewpoint_mapping - Map sections to architectural concerns

Quality Gate: All applicable viewpoints assessed; structural gaps flagged

Output: Viewpoint coverage map with scores and structural gap list

Phase 3: Systematic Coverage Verification

Purpose: Verify each checklist item against document content.

Steps:

For each checklist item (V1-01 through V10-20):

1. LOCATE RELEVANT SECTION
   └─ Based on viewpoint mapping from Phase 2

2. ASSESS PRESENCE
   ├─ PRESENT: Item clearly addressed
   ├─ PARTIAL: Item mentioned but incomplete
   └─ ABSENT: No evidence of item

3. EVALUATE QUALITY (if present)
   ├─ CLEAR: Unambiguous and actionable
   ├─ AMBIGUOUS: Multiple interpretations possible
   ├─ INCONSISTENT: Contradicts other content
   ├─ INCOMPLETE: Missing key details
   └─ OUTDATED: Stale or deprecated references

4. RECORD EVIDENCE
   ├─ Location: Section/diagram reference
   ├─ Quote: Supporting text from document
   └─ Assessment: Pass/fail with rationale

5. FLAG FOR GAP CLASSIFICATION (if needed)
   └─ Any non-PRESENT or non-CLEAR items

Verification Rules by Viewpoint:

Techniques Used:

• completeness_verification (CAT-PR-GA) - Check presence of each item
• negative_space_analysis (CAT-PR-GA) - Identify what's NOT documented
• consistency_check (CAT-PR-ECR) - Cross-reference between viewpoints

Quality Gate: 100% of applicable checklist items evaluated

Output: Verification matrix with item-level results and evidence

Phase 4: Quality Attribute Validation

Purpose: Validate coverage of ISO 25010 quality attributes.

Steps:

4.1 Quality Attribute Mapping

Map document content to quality attributes from quality-attributes.md:

4.2 Coverage Assessment

For each quality attribute:

1. Identify explicit coverage in primary viewpoints
2. Check for implicit coverage in secondary viewpoints
3. Assess coverage level: EXPLICIT / IMPLICIT / MISSING
4. Note measurement approaches if present

4.3 Gap Identification

Flag quality attribute gaps:

• MISSING in primary viewpoint = HIGH gap
• MISSING in all viewpoints = CRITICAL gap for regulated contexts

Techniques Used:

• quality_attribute_validation - Map concerns to ISO 25010
• coverage_assessment - Evaluate attribute coverage

Quality Gate: All quality attributes assessed with coverage level

Output: Quality attribute coverage matrix

Phase 5: Technical Debt & Anti-Pattern Detection

Purpose: Identify technical debt signals and architecture anti-patterns.

Steps:

5.1 Gap Classification

For each gap identified in Phases 3-4, apply gap taxonomy (from gap-taxonomy.md):

IS ELEMENT PRESENT?
├─ NO → MISSING
└─ YES
    ├─ IS IT COMPLETE?
    │   ├─ NO → INCOMPLETE
    │   └─ YES
    │       ├─ DOES IT CONTRADICT OTHER CONTENT?
    │       │   ├─ YES → INCONSISTENT
    │       │   └─ NO
    │       │       ├─ IS IT CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS?
    │       │       │   ├─ NO → AMBIGUOUS
    │       │       │   └─ YES
    │       │       │       ├─ IS IT TECHNICALLY CORRECT?
    │       │       │       │   ├─ NO → INCORRECT
    │       │       │       │   └─ YES
    │       │       │       │       └─ IS IT CURRENT?
    │       │       │       │           ├─ NO → OUTDATED
    │       │       │       │           └─ YES → No gap

5.2 Severity Scoring

Apply SEVERITY-SCORING (RUBRIC-07) with three dimensions:

Calculation:

severity_score = (impact × 0.5) + (likelihood × 0.3) + (detectability × 0.2)

CRITICAL: score >= 3.5
HIGH: 2.5 <= score < 3.5
MEDIUM: 1.5 <= score < 2.5
LOW: score < 1.5

5.3 Architecture Anti-Pattern Scan

If include_anti_patterns is true, scan for 25 patterns from anti-patterns-catalog.md:

Structural Anti-Patterns:

Documentation Anti-Patterns:

Operational Anti-Patterns:

Security Anti-Patterns:

5.4 Technical Debt Detection

If include_debt_assessment is true, scan for indicators from technical-debt-indicators.md:

5.5 Remediation Matching

Match each gap to remediation pattern:

Effort Estimation:

Techniques Used:

• severity_scoring (RUBRIC-07) - Score gaps by impact
• full_consistency_matrix (CAT-PR-ECR) - Cross-reference for inconsistencies
• anti_pattern_detection - Match known failure patterns
• debt_signal_detection - Identify technical debt indicators

Quality Gate: All gaps classified with type and severity; anti-patterns and debt signals detected

Output: Classified gap list + Anti-pattern findings + Debt indicators

Phase 6: Synthesis & Governance Reporting

Purpose: Produce final GAP-INVENTORY artifact with Architecture Health Score.

Steps:

6.1 GAP-INVENTORY Compilation

Compile all findings into CONTRACT-07 compliant structure:

• Populate source_reference with document identifier
• Set source_type to "architecture"
• Build audit_criteria with viewpoint-based checklist
• Compile gaps array with all classified gaps
• Add anti_patterns array if detected
• Add technical_debt section with indicators
• Calculate summary statistics

6.2 Architecture Health Score

Calculate overall architecture health:

<architecture_health>
  <overall_score>[0-100]</overall_score>
  <by_viewpoint>
    <!-- Score per viewpoint -->
  </by_viewpoint>
  <by_quality_attribute>
    <!-- Coverage per ISO 25010 attribute -->
  </by_quality_attribute>
  <technical_debt_summary>
    <!-- Debt indicator counts by category -->
  </technical_debt_summary>
  <c4_maturity>
    <!-- Completeness of C4 levels if applicable -->
  </c4_maturity>
</architecture_health>

Health Score Calculation:

viewpoint_score = (items_passed / items_total) × 100 per viewpoint
overall_score = weighted_average(viewpoint_scores) - severity_penalties

Severity Penalties:
- CRITICAL gap: -10 points
- HIGH gap: -5 points
- Anti-pattern: -3 points
- Debt indicator: -2 points

Health Status Thresholds:

6.3 Summary Statistics

Generate:

• total_gaps: Count of all gaps
• by_severity: {critical: N, high: N, medium: N, low: N}
• by_category: {missing: N, incomplete: N, inconsistent: N, ...}
• by_viewpoint: Gap count per viewpoint
• overall_assessment: Based on health score
• blocking_issues: List of gap IDs that must be fixed
• coverage_score: Percentage of checklist items passed

Assessment Thresholds:

6.4 Executive Summary (if requested)

Generate stakeholder-friendly summary:

• At-a-glance metrics table
• Viewpoint coverage spider chart data
• Quality attribute coverage radar chart data
• Top 3 strengths
• Top 3 critical issues
• Risk heat map data
• Recommended next actions

6.5 Debt Remediation Roadmap (if requested)

Generate prioritized technical debt paydown plan:

• Priority 1: Immediate (blocking issues)
• Priority 2: Short-term (before implementation)
• Priority 3: Medium-term (during implementation)
• Priority 4: Long-term (continuous improvement)
• Effort/impact quadrant
• Quick wins identification
• Strategic investments

6.6 Output Selection

Based on output_format parameter:

• full: GAP-INVENTORY + Health Report + Debt Roadmap
• executive: Executive Summary only
• debt_roadmap_only: Technical Debt Roadmap only

Techniques Used:

• artifact_synthesis - Compile structured output
• health_score_calculation - Compute architecture health
• stakeholder_communication - Tailor for audience

Quality Gate: Output validates against CONTRACT-07 schema with architecture extensions

Output: GAP-INVENTORY artifact + Architecture Health Score + requested summaries

5. Gap Taxonomy

The 6 Gap Types

Reference: See references/architecture-checklist.md for detailed detection heuristics per checklist item.

6. Output Specifications

6.1 GAP-INVENTORY Format

Aligns with CONTRACT-07 from artifact-contracts.yaml with architecture extensions.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<gap_inventory contract="CONTRACT-07" version="1.0">

  <metadata>
    <artifact_id>GI-ARCH-[YYYY-MM-DD]-[5-char-hash]</artifact_id>
    <contract_type>GAP-INVENTORY</contract_type>
    <created_at>[ISO 8601]</created_at>
    <created_by>architecture-doc-auditor</created_by>
    <confidence>[0.0-1.0]</confidence>
    <provenance>
      <source_artifact>[Document identifier]</source_artifact>
      <audit_date>[ISO 8601 date]</audit_date>
      <audit_depth>[surface|standard|exhaustive]</audit_depth>
      <document_type>[adr|design_doc|system_context|...]</document_type>
      <framework_detected>[togaf|c4|arc42|ieee_42010|custom]</framework_detected>
      <checklist_version>1.0</checklist_version>
      <items_checked>[N]</items_checked>
      <viewpoints_assessed>[list]</viewpoints_assessed>
    </provenance>
  </metadata>

  <source_reference>[Document identifier]</source_reference>
  <source_type>architecture</source_type>

  <audit_criteria>
    <checklist_reference>architecture-checklist.md v1.0</checklist_reference>
    <viewpoint_framework>viewpoint-catalog.md v1.0</viewpoint_framework>
    <criteria_list>
      <criterion id="[V1-01]" viewpoint="V1">[Item description]</criterion>
      <!-- All checked items -->
    </criteria_list>
    <coverage_scope>[What this audit covered]</coverage_scope>
  </audit_criteria>

  <gaps>
    <gap id="GAP-001">
      <category>[missing|incomplete|inconsistent|ambiguous|incorrect|outdated]</category>
      <severity>[critical|high|medium|low]</severity>
      <severity_score>
        <impact>[1-4]</impact>
        <likelihood>[1-4]</likelihood>
        <detectability>[1-4]</detectability>
        <composite>[calculated]</composite>
      </severity_score>
      <viewpoint>[V1-V14]</viewpoint>
      <checklist_ref>[V1-01]</checklist_ref>
      <location>[Document section/diagram]</location>
      <description>[Gap description]</description>
      <evidence>[What indicates this gap]</evidence>
      <impact>[Consequence if not addressed]</impact>
      <remediation>
        <recommendation>[How to fix]</recommendation>
        <effort>[trivial|small|medium|large]</effort>
        <priority>[immediate|short_term|medium_term|long_term]</priority>
      </remediation>
    </gap>
  </gaps>

  <anti_patterns>
    <pattern id="AA-02">
      <name>Distributed Monolith</name>
      <severity>CRITICAL</severity>
      <instances>
        <instance location="[section]">[Evidence quote]</instance>
      </instances>
      <remediation>[How to address]</remediation>
    </pattern>
  </anti_patterns>

  <technical_debt>
    <indicator id="TD-A01">
      <category>architectural</category>
      <name>Shared database between services</name>
      <severity>HIGH</severity>
      <evidence>[Where detected]</evidence>
      <remediation_cost>large</remediation_cost>
    </indicator>
  </technical_debt>

  <architecture_health>
    <overall_score>[0-100]</overall_score>
    <overall_status>[HEALTHY|ADEQUATE|AT_RISK|CRITICAL]</overall_status>
    <by_viewpoint>
      <viewpoint id="V1" name="Context & Scope" score="[0-100]" status="[status]"/>
      <viewpoint id="V2" name="Container" score="[0-100]" status="[status]"/>
      <!-- All assessed viewpoints -->
    </by_viewpoint>
    <by_quality_attribute>
      <attribute name="Performance" coverage="[EXPLICIT|IMPLICIT|MISSING]"/>
      <attribute name="Security" coverage="[EXPLICIT|IMPLICIT|MISSING]"/>
      <!-- All quality attributes -->
    </by_quality_attribute>
    <technical_debt_summary>
      <total_indicators>[N]</total_indicators>
      <by_category>
        <architectural>[N]</architectural>
        <documentation>[N]</documentation>
        <infrastructure>[N]</infrastructure>
        <security>[N]</security>
        <api>[N]</api>
      </by_category>
    </technical_debt_summary>
    <c4_maturity>
      <level_1_complete>[true|false]</level_1_complete>
      <level_2_complete>[true|false]</level_2_complete>
      <level_3_complete>[true|false]</level_3_complete>
      <level_4_complete>[true|false]</level_4_complete>
    </c4_maturity>
  </architecture_health>

  <summary>
    <total_gaps>[N]</total_gaps>
    <by_severity>
      <critical>[N]</critical>
      <high>[N]</high>
      <medium>[N]</medium>
      <low>[N]</low>
    </by_severity>
    <by_category>
      <missing>[N]</missing>
      <incomplete>[N]</incomplete>
      <inconsistent>[N]</inconsistent>
      <ambiguous>[N]</ambiguous>
      <incorrect>[N]</incorrect>
      <outdated>[N]</outdated>
    </by_category>
    <by_viewpoint>
      <v1>[N]</v1>
      <v2>[N]</v2>
      <!-- Gap count per viewpoint -->
    </by_viewpoint>
    <anti_patterns_detected>[N]</anti_patterns_detected>
    <debt_indicators_detected>[N]</debt_indicators_detected>
    <overall_assessment>[critical_issues|significant_gaps|minor_issues|acceptable|excellent]</overall_assessment>
    <blocking_issues>
      <issue ref="GAP-001">[Brief description]</issue>
    </blocking_issues>
    <coverage_score>
      <items_passed>[N]</items_passed>
      <items_total>[N]</items_total>
      <percentage>[X%]</percentage>
    </coverage_score>
  </summary>

</gap_inventory>

6.2 Executive Summary Format

See templates/architecture-health-report.md for complete template.

6.3 Debt Remediation Roadmap Format

See templates/debt-remediation-roadmap.md for complete template.

7. Quality Gates

8. Workflow Integration

This skill serves as a quality gate in the architecture development workflow:

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│   ARCHITECTURE DOC AUDITOR          │  ◀── THIS SKILL
│                                     │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 │ Input: Architecture Document
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 1: Intake & Framework        │
│  • Detect framework (C4/arc42/...)  │
│  • Load architecture-checklist      │
│  • Parse document structure         │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 2: Viewpoint Mapping         │
│  • Apply 14-viewpoint framework     │
│  • Map sections to viewpoints       │
│  • Flag structural gaps             │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 3: Coverage Verification     │  ◀── Perfect Recall techniques
│  • Check 188 checklist items        │      completeness_verification
│  • Record presence and quality      │      consistency_check
│  • Cite evidence locations          │      negative_space_analysis
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 4: Quality Attributes        │  ◀── ISO 25010 validation
│  • Map to 8 quality attributes      │
│  • Assess coverage level            │
│  • Flag quality gaps                │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 5: Debt & Anti-Patterns      │  ◀── RUBRIC-07 severity scoring
│  • Classify gaps (6 types)          │
│  • Score severity (3 dimensions)    │
│  • Scan 25 anti-patterns            │
│  • Detect 25+ debt indicators       │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Phase 6: Synthesis                 │  ◀── CONTRACT-07 + Health Score
│  • Compile GAP-INVENTORY            │
│  • Calculate Architecture Health    │
│  • Generate remediation roadmap     │
└────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                 │
                 ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│  OUTPUT: GAP-INVENTORY              │
│  + Architecture Health Score        │
│  + Technical Debt Roadmap           │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘

Artifact Flow

Integration Points

9. Behavioral Guidelines

• Systematic not judgmental: Report gaps objectively, not as criticism
• Evidence-based: Every gap must have cited evidence from the document
• Constructive: Focus on remediation, not just problems
• Calibrated: Severity reflects actual implementation impact
• Complete: Check every applicable item, don't skip viewpoints
• Framework-aware: Respect the architecture methodology being used
• Debt-conscious: Surface technical debt signals for proactive management
• Actionable: Every gap should have a clear path to resolution

10. References

External References

11. Templates

12. Examples

Example 1: ADR Audit

input:
  document: "[ADR-047: Adopt Event-Driven Architecture for Order Processing]"
  document_type: adr
  framework: auto
  audit_depth: standard
  include_anti_patterns: true

flow:
  phase_1:
    - Framework: Custom (MADR-like structure detected)
    - Loaded ADR-focused checklist (V10: 20 items)
    - Parsed: Title, Status, Context, Decision, Consequences
  phase_2:
    - Primary viewpoint: V10 (Decision Record)
    - Secondary viewpoints assessed: V2 (Container), V6 (Integration)
    - Structural gap: No explicit alternatives section
  phase_3:
    - Verified 20 ADR items + 15 related items
    - 28 PRESENT + CLEAR
    - 4 PARTIAL
    - 3 ABSENT
  phase_4:
    - Quality attributes: Performance EXPLICIT, Scalability IMPLICIT, Reliability MISSING
  phase_5:
    - 7 gaps classified
    - 0 CRITICAL
    - 2 HIGH: Missing rollback strategy (V10-15), No SLO impact assessment (V10-18)
    - 3 MEDIUM: Vague consequences (V10-10), Missing stakeholder sign-off (V10-20)
    - 2 LOW: No review date (V10-19)
    - Anti-patterns: AA-10 (partial - alternatives not documented)
  phase_6:
    - Architecture Health Score: 72 (ADEQUATE)
    - ADR ready with minor gaps

output:
  total_gaps: 7
  by_severity: { critical: 0, high: 2, medium: 3, low: 2 }
  health_score: 72
  health_status: ADEQUATE
  overall_assessment: minor_issues
  recommendation: "Address rollback strategy and SLO impact before implementation."

Example 2: C4 System Context Audit

input:
  document: "[System Context Diagram + Description for Payment Gateway]"
  document_type: system_context
  framework: c4
  audit_depth: standard
  viewpoints: [V1, V6, V7]

flow:
  phase_1:
    - Framework: C4 (Level 1 - System Context)
    - Loaded Context-focused checklist (52 items)
    - Parsed: Diagram, external actors, integrations
  phase_2:
    - V1 (Context): Full coverage
    - V6 (Integration): Partial coverage
    - V7 (Security): Minimal coverage
    - Structural gap: Trust boundaries not defined
  phase_3:
    - Verified 52 items
    - 38 PRESENT
    - 8 PARTIAL
    - 6 ABSENT
  phase_4:
    - Security: MISSING (trust boundaries undefined)
    - Interoperability: EXPLICIT
    - Reliability: IMPLICIT
  phase_5:
    - 14 gaps classified
    - 2 CRITICAL: No trust boundaries (V1-09), External auth flow missing (V7-01)
    - 4 HIGH: SLA dependencies undocumented (V1-13), API versioning unclear (V6-05)
    - 5 MEDIUM
    - 3 LOW
    - Anti-patterns: AA-22 (Trust Assumption)
  phase_6:
    - Architecture Health Score: 58 (AT_RISK)
    - C4 Level 1 incomplete for security context

output:
  total_gaps: 14
  by_severity: { critical: 2, high: 4, medium: 5, low: 3 }
  health_score: 58
  health_status: AT_RISK
  c4_maturity: { level_1_complete: false }
  blocking_issues: 2
  overall_assessment: significant_gaps
  recommendation: "CRITICAL: Define trust boundaries and external auth flows before container design."

Example 3: Comprehensive Design Document Audit

input:
  document: "[Design Doc: Inventory Management Service Redesign - 12,000 words]"
  document_type: design_doc
  framework: arc42
  audit_depth: exhaustive
  include_debt_assessment: true
  governance_context: enterprise

flow:
  phase_1:
    - Framework: arc42 (11 of 12 sections present)
    - Loaded full checklist (188 items)
    - Parsed: 24 sections, 8 diagrams, 5 ADRs inline
  phase_2:
    - All 10 core viewpoints assessed
    - Conditional V11 (Multi-tenancy) applicable
    - V8 (Operations) weakest coverage
    - V10 (Decisions) strong with 5 ADRs
  phase_3:
    - Verified 188 items
    - 142 PRESENT
    - 28 PARTIAL
    - 18 ABSENT
  phase_4:
    - All 8 quality attributes assessed
    - Security: EXPLICIT
    - Performance: EXPLICIT
    - Reliability: IMPLICIT (needs SLOs)
    - Operability: MISSING
  phase_5:
    - 46 gaps classified
    - 1 CRITICAL: No disaster recovery strategy (V4-20)
    - 8 HIGH: Missing monitoring strategy (V8-01), SLOs undefined (V8-05)
    - 22 MEDIUM
    - 15 LOW
    - Anti-patterns: AA-17 (Observability Omission), AA-18 (SLO Silence)
    - Technical debt: 8 indicators detected
      - TD-D01: Diagrams >6 months stale
      - TD-A03: No bounded contexts defined
      - TD-I02: Manual deployment steps
  phase_6:
    - Architecture Health Score: 64 (ADEQUATE)
    - Compliance gap: SOC2 monitoring requirements not met

output:
  total_gaps: 46
  by_severity: { critical: 1, high: 8, medium: 22, low: 15 }
  anti_patterns_detected: 2
  debt_indicators_detected: 8
  health_score: 64
  health_status: ADEQUATE
  by_viewpoint:
    V1: 2 gaps, V2: 4 gaps, V3: 3 gaps, V4: 6 gaps
    V5: 4 gaps, V6: 5 gaps, V7: 3 gaps, V8: 12 gaps
    V9: 4 gaps, V10: 2 gaps, V11: 1 gap
  blocking_issues: 1
  overall_assessment: significant_gaps
  recommendation: "Address DR strategy (CRITICAL) and operability gaps before architecture review board."
  debt_remediation:
    immediate: ["DR strategy", "Monitoring strategy"]
    short_term: ["SLO definition", "Deployment automation"]
    medium_term: ["Diagram refresh", "Bounded context documentation"]

Quick Start

/architecture-doc-auditor
document: "[Paste architecture document or provide file path]"
document_type: design_doc
audit_depth: standard