Review RFC

Review the architecture RFC at $0 against the project's architecture standards.

If $0 is empty, ask the user for the RFC path. Suggest globbing docs/rfcs/*.md and docs/20-architecture/rfcs/*.md to find candidates.

Context Loading

1. Read the RFC document at $0
2. Discover architecture standards (check in order, use first found):
   • .arkhe/roadmap/architecture.md (arkhe convention)
   • docs/20-architecture/ directory (jd-docs convention)
   • docs/architecture.md or docs/architecture/ (generic)
   • If none found, review against general architecture best practices
3. Scan referenced modules/packages in the RFC to verify feasibility

Review Dimensions

Evaluate each dimension, noting concerns with severity (Critical/Major/Minor):

1. Problem Definition

Is the problem clearly stated? Are goals and non-goals explicit? Is the motivation compelling?

2. Architecture Quality

Does the design respect module boundaries? Is dependency direction correct? Does it follow established patterns from architecture.md?

3. Scalability

Will this scale with user growth? Are there bottlenecks? Does it handle multi-tenant scenarios?

4. Data Architecture

Is the data model sound? Are migrations safe? Are queries efficient? Does it maintain data integrity?

5. Infrastructure

Is the deployment strategy clear? Are there new infrastructure requirements? Is rollback possible?

6. Security

Are auth flows correct? Is input validated? Are there data privacy implications? Does it follow OWASP guidelines?

7. Project Fit

Does it align with the project's domain and existing patterns? Does it integrate well with the current architecture?

Output Format

# RFC Review: [RFC Title]
**Reviewer**: Claude | **Date**: [date] | **RFC**: [path]

## Verdict: [Approve | Approve with changes | Needs redesign]

## Summary
[2-3 sentence assessment]

## Strengths
- [strength with reference to RFC section]

## Concerns

### Critical
- [concern] — Section: [ref] | Impact: [description]

### Major
- [concern] — Section: [ref] | Impact: [description]

### Minor
- [concern] — Section: [ref] | Suggestion: [fix]

## Suggested Improvements
1. [improvement with rationale]

## Verdict Rationale
[Why this verdict was chosen. What must change before approval (if applicable).]

Verdict Criteria

• Approve: No critical concerns, minor issues only
• Approve with changes: No critical concerns, has major concerns with clear fixes
• Needs redesign: Has critical concerns or fundamental architecture issues

Notes

• Flag missing sections from the standard RFC template as Minor concerns
• After review, suggest related skills: create-rfc to draft new RFCs, list-rfcs to check the pipeline