/agent-architecture-analysis

name: agent-architecture-analysis
description: "Use when auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on \"analyze agent architecture\", \"12-factor audit\", \"how compliant is this agent\", or \"evaluate this LLM app\". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists \u2014 this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level evidence."

12-Factor Agents Compliance Analysis

> Reference: [12-Factor Agents](https://github.com/humanlayer/12-factor-agents)

Input Parameters

| Parameter | Description | Required | |-----------|-------------|----------| | `docs_path` | Path to documentation directory (for existing analyses) | Optional | | `codebase_path` | Root path of the codebase to analyze | Required |

Analysis Framework

The full per-factor rubric — principle, search patterns, file patterns, compliance criteria (Strong/Partial/Weak), and anti-patterns for each of the 13 factors — lives in [references/factors.md](references/factors.md). During the [Analysis Workflow](#analysis-workflow), read the relevant factor sections there for the search patterns to run and the criteria to score against.

| # | Factor | Focus | |---|--------|-------| | 1 | Natural Language to Tool Calls | Schema-validated structured outputs from LLM | | 2 | Own Your Prompts | Prompts as first-class, versioned, templated code | | 3 | Own Your Context Window | Custom formatting of history/state/tool results | | 4 | Tools Are Structured Outputs | Validated JSON triggers deterministic code | | 5 | Unify Execution State | Single state object merging execution + business state | | 6 | Launch/Pause/Resume | APIs to launch, pause anywhere, resume | | 7 | Contact Humans with Tools | Human contact as a structured tool call | | 8 | Own Your Control Flow | Custom routing/retries, not framework defaults | | 9 | Compact Errors into Context | Errors fed back for self-healing + escalation | | 10 | Small, Focused Agents | Narrow responsibility, 3-10 steps each | | 11 | Trigger from Anywhere | CLI/REST/WebSocket/chat/webhook entry points | | 12 | Stateless Reducer | Pure `(state, input) -> (state, output)` agents | | 13 | Pre-fetch Context | Fetch likely-needed data upfront |

See [references/factors.md](references/factors.md) for the complete rubric for every factor above.

---

Output Format

**Gate order:** Do not assign Strong / Partial / Weak or treat recommendations as observed facts until **Hard gates** (after [Analysis Workflow](#analysis-workflow)) are satisfied for the factors in scope.

Executive Summary Table

| Factor | Status | Notes |
|--------|--------|-------|
| 1. Natural Language -> Tool Calls | **Strong/Partial/Weak** | [Key finding] |
| 2. Own Your Prompts | **Strong/Partial/Weak** | [Key finding] |
| ... | ... | ... |
| 13. Pre-fetch Context | **Strong/Partial/Weak** | [Key finding] |

**Overall**: X Strong, Y Partial, Z Weak

Per-Factor Analysis

For each factor, provide:

1. **Current Implementation**

• Evidence with file:line references
• Code snippets showing patterns

2. **Compliance Level**

• Strong/Partial/Weak with justification

3. **Gaps**

• What's missing vs. 12-Factor ideal

4. **Recommendations**

• Actionable improvements with code examples

---

Analysis Workflow

1. **Initial Scan**

• Run search patterns for all factors
• Identify key files for each factor
• Note any existing compliance documentation

2. **Deep Dive** (per factor)

• Read identified files
• Evaluate against compliance criteria
• Document evidence with file paths

3. **Gap Analysis**

• Compare current vs. 12-Factor ideal
• Identify anti-patterns present
• Prioritize by impact

4. **Recommendations**

• Provide actionable improvements
• Include before/after code examples
• Reference roadmap if exists

5. **Summary**

• Compile executive summary table
• Highlight strengths and critical gaps
• Suggest priority order for improvements

---

Hard gates (evidence before scores)

Run these in order. Do not skip ahead: each **Pass** is an objective condition you can check (paths on disk, citations present), not internal certainty.

1. **Scan gate** — After the initial scan (workflow step 1), **Pass:** for every factor (1–13) you have either (a) ≥1 repo-relative path or glob hit to inspect, or (b) a one-line note with rationale (e.g. search command/output, or “no matches — codebase may omit this concern”). Empty hand-waving (“looks fine”) fails this gate. 2. **Evidence gate (per factor)** — Before writing Strong / Partial / Weak for that factor, **Pass:** “Current Implementation” includes ≥1 citation with **file path** plus **line range or short quoted snippet** from `codebase_path`, or an explicit **no evidence located** statement after targeted reads. If evidence is missing after search, default that factor to **Weak** unless the criterion is clearly N/A (say why). 3. **Synthesis gate** — Executive summary table and per-factor analysis sections, **Pass:** only after gates 1–2 are satisfied for the factors in scope. Recommendations may name new files or patterns only as proposals; they must not be presented as observed facts without matching citations from step 2.

---

Quick Reference: Compliance Scoring

| Score | Meaning | Action | |-------|---------|--------| | **Strong** | Fully implements principle | Maintain, minor optimizations | | **Partial** | Some implementation, significant gaps | Planned improvements | | **Weak** | Minimal or no implementation | High priority for roadmap |

When to Use This Skill

• Evaluating new LLM-powered systems
• Reviewing agent architecture decisions
• Auditing production agentic applications
• Planning improvements to existing agents
• Comparing frameworks or implementations