ix-infrastructure/ix-openclaw-plugin/ix-architecture

Run command -v ix to verify ix is on PATH. Never use tilde paths (~/...) or absolute paths — always invoke ix directly via PATH. If not found, 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:

timeout 60s ix subsystems --format llm
timeout 60s ix subsystems --list --format llm

If $ARGUMENTS is provided, also run:

timeout 60s ix subsystems $ARGUMENTS --explain
timeout 60s ix subsystems $ARGUMENTS --format llm

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

timeout 60s ix smells --format llm

ix smells always covers the whole graph (it has no path filter). If $ARGUMENTS scopes to a path, keep only the findings whose file falls under it.

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:

timeout 60s ix rank --by dependents --kind class    --top 10 --exclude-path test --format llm
timeout 60s ix rank --by dependents --kind function --top 10 --exclude-path test --format llm

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.