Individual skill

archify-review

Review Archify issues, PRs, or code through value, cost, and impact to support evidence-based maintenance decisions. Use for issue triage, change reviews, and code quality assessments.

skills-imported/archify-review/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit faf37c0859ebf627bfcb5225e8057d088691e0ae

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
No
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
Yes
Observed behavior
Not checked yet
Last checked
Nov 8, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
54
Repository last updated
Oct 10, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Archify Review

Judge whether a problem is worth addressing and an approach is worth maintaining over time.

- **Value**: Identify the real problem, who benefits, how often it occurs, its consequences, and whether it is worth addressing now.
- **Cost**: Consider implementation and verification effort, along with the future cost of understanding, changing, and maintaining the code. Prefer existing capabilities and keep the solution proportional to the problem.
- **Impact**: Identify affected behavior and modules, consequences for users and future development, and whether the change improves maintainability or adds coupling and constraints.

Consider maintainability, complexity, compatibility, performance, and other relevant concerns within these three dimensions, according to the specific problem.

Ground judgments in evidence: verify the target revision and relevant facts, distinguish direct verification from existing evidence and assumptions, and choose checks that resolve the key uncertainties.

Explain whether the work is worthwhile, the approach's cost and impact, any better alternatives, and unresolved questions that matter to the decision. Give reasons and scale the detail to the importance of each concern.