SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Architecture · Version 1.4.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Repository Architecture Map Generator

Make a defensible decision about module boundary mapping and runtime dependency tracing with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Maps modules, runtime entry points, dependency direction, data stores, external systems, and deployment boundaries into a source-cited architecture view.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • Module boundary mapping
  • Runtime dependency tracing
  • Deployment topology summary

How Repository Architecture Map Generator works

You provide

Requirements, constraints, and the current topology

It inspects

Critical path and failure boundaries for module boundary mapping

It decides

A runtime dependency tracing decision with consequences recorded

You verify

Rollout stages with the signal that gates each one

What it checks first

Repository Architecture Map Generator maps modules, runtime entry points, dependency direction, data stores, external systems, and deployment boundaries into a source-cited architecture view. Use it when the work involves Module boundary mapping, Runtime dependency tracing, Deployment topology summary.

  1. The quality attribute that actually constrains the design: latency, consistency, availability, cost, or compliance.
  2. The critical path and the number of network hops on it.
  3. Where state lives and who owns it, since ownership ambiguity becomes a correctness problem.
  4. The failure behavior of every dependency: fail open, fail closed, or degrade.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Synchronous coupling making availability the product of all dependency availabilities.
  • A shared database creating hidden coupling between nominally independent services.
  • A component with no clear owner, so its failure has no defined response.
  • Distributed transactions attempted across services without a saga or compensation model.

Answers it will reject

  • Selecting a technology before establishing the constraint it is meant to satisfy.
  • Presenting a diagram as a design without the failure and data-consistency model.
  • Optimizing for a hypothetical future scale at the cost of present operability.

Decision rules it applies

  • Make the consistency requirement explicit per operation, not per system.
  • Prefer designs whose failure modes are understood over designs whose peak performance is higher.
  • Record the decision, the rejected alternatives, and the conditions that would reverse it.

Evidence it asks for

  • Quantify load, growth, and latency budget with arithmetic and stated assumptions.
  • Define the rollout stages and the signal that gates each one.
  • Name the reversal path for the decision.

The method inside

  1. Extract decisions, facts, and unresolved questions needed for module boundary mapping.
  2. Organize runtime dependency tracing around the reader's next decision or action rather than the source order.
  3. Draft deployment topology summary with source traceability and no invented behavior.
  4. Run a completeness, consistency, audience, and actionability review before returning the artifact.

Deliverables

  • Module boundary mapping assessment
  • Runtime dependency tracing decision and action plan
  • Deployment topology summary verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Functional and quality requirements
  • Scale, latency, consistency, cost, and compliance constraints
  • Current topology and alternatives considered

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Map the architecture of this repository from source and configuration, including where requests enter, where state changes, and what gets deployed.

Expected output

Identify executable entry points and manifests first, then trace one representative flow across module and process boundaries. The map distinguishes compile-time imports from runtime calls, cites each node and edge, labels inferred relationships, and names the checks that would confirm any missing deployment detail...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Module boundary mapping: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Runtime dependency tracing: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Deployment topology summary: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Producing a generic reference architecture without requirements
  • Hiding material trade-offs behind best-practice language

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.