Agent skill
ix-architecture
Analyze system design — structure, coupling, code smells, and high-risk hotspots. Purely graph-based, no code reads.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin/tree/main/plugins/ix-memory/skills/ix-architecture
SKILL.md
Check command -v ix first. If unavailable, stop and say so — this skill requires a graph.
Goal
Answer: how healthy is this system's design, where are the weak boundaries, and what should be improved? Never reads source code — structural analysis only.
Phase 1 — Structure (always)
Run in parallel:
ix subsystems --format json
ix subsystems --list --format json
If $ARGUMENTS is provided, also run:
ix subsystems $ARGUMENTS --explain
ix subsystems $ARGUMENTS --format json
Extract:
- Region hierarchy (systems -> subsystems -> modules)
- Cohesion scores per region (higher = more self-contained)
- External coupling per region (lower = better)
crosscut_score> 0.1 -> cross-cutting concern (design smell)confidence< 0.6 -> fuzzy boundary (uncertain region)
Phase 2 — Smells
ix smells --format json
If $ARGUMENTS scopes to a path:
ix smells --path $ARGUMENTS --format json
Classify each finding: orphan / god-module / weak-component.
Phase 3 — Hotspots (only if smells are found or coupling is high)
Run only if Phase 1 or 2 revealed significant issues:
ix rank --by dependents --kind class --top 10 --exclude-path test --format json
ix rank --by dependents --kind function --top 10 --exclude-path test --format json
Correlate: are the most-depended-on entities also in poorly-bounded subsystems? These are the highest-risk components.
Output
## Architecture Analysis
### System Structure
[Region hierarchy with file counts. Flag: low-confidence boundaries, high-coupling regions, cross-cutting modules.]
### Health Scores
| Region | Cohesion | Ext. Coupling | Boundary Ratio | Flag |
|--------|----------|---------------|----------------|------|
| [name] | [0-1] | [0-1] | [ratio] | [⚠ if bad] |
### Code Smells
**High severity:**
- [smell type] in [file/module] — [why it matters]
**Medium severity:**
- ...
### Hotspots
[Top components where structural debt + centrality combine — highest risk for changes]
### Improvement Areas
1. [specific issue] — [concrete suggestion]
2. ...
### What's healthy
[Briefly note well-structured areas — not everything is a problem]
Evidence: All claims must cite graph data (cohesion scores, smell counts, rank positions). No speculative design advice without structural evidence.
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin
ix-understand
Build a mental model of a system, subsystem, or the whole repo. Graph-first, no code reads unless necessary.
ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin
ix-plan
Generate a risk-ordered implementation plan for a set of targets. Assesses blast radius per target, finds data flows between them, and produces a safe change sequence.
ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin
ix-investigate
Deep dive into a symbol, feature, or bug. Graph-first, minimal code reads, early stopping when sufficient evidence found.
ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin
ix-impact
Change risk analysis — blast radius, affected systems, and what to test. Depth scales with risk level; low-risk targets stop early.
ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin
ix-debug
Root cause analysis — trace execution path to a failure, narrow candidates, read minimal source only at suspected failure points.
ix-infrastructure/ix-codex-plugin
ix-docs
Generate narrative-first, importance-weighted documentation for a repo, system, or subsystem with a selective reference layer. Use --full for deeper module/class/method coverage.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?