Repository navigation
Archive low quality patterns - August 2026 #424
Description
Across all five categories assessed (Requirements, Architecture, Design, Development, Operations — 65 patterns total), here are the ones that passed 4 or fewer of the 11 Core Quality Principles:
| Pattern | Passes | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| use-energy-efficient-hardware | 3 | Vendor marketing dressed as a pattern (links to a 2022 Ampere blog post, title borrows Ampere's own jargon); duplicates its own sibling evaluate-other-cpu-architectures. Recommend merging in, not fixing standalone. |
| optimize-impact-on-customer-equipment | 4 | Filed as Requirements but its Solution reads like a developer task list ("implement backwards-compatible code") — exactly the anti-pattern the skill's own guidance names. Needs reframing from the scoping angle, not a line-edit. |
| evaluate-using-a-service-mesh | 4 | Assumption ("no compliance requirements") is near-verbatim the skill's own textbook bad example. Same author (yelghali) repeats this exact template in evaluate-whether-to-use-TLS-termination — worth flagging to that contributor specifically. |
| reduce-network-traversal-between-VMs | 4 | Solution is one sentence + three bare vendor URLs standing in for actual guidance; no References section. Its one Consideration (multi-AZ vs. efficiency trade-off) is genuinely good and worth keeping. |
| energy-efficent-framework | 4 | Literal stub: Assumptions and Considerations both read "None." Needs a near-total rewrite. |
| energy-efficent-models | 4 | Same "None/None" stub problem, plus names dated 2020-era models (DistilBERT, GPT-J) instead of durable technique categories. Very likely superseded by right-sized-energy-efficient-ai-models (9/11) — recommend merging into that instead of revising. |
| minify-web-assets | 4 | Third "None/None" stub. Doesn't note that most modern build tools (Vite, webpack, Next.js) already minify by default — a real gap given how dated that omission makes it feel. Overlaps with remove-unused-css. |
Common thread: all seven are missing Cost Impact; five of seven fail on testable Assumptions (vague hedge, tautology, or literal "None").
Six of the seven are in Architecture — that category's technology-selection folder in particular (3 of its 5 patterns land here) is the weakest spot found across the whole review. Operations and Design had none at this threshold, despite Operations carrying the worst duplication problem — its individual patterns were generally thin/incomplete rather than fundamentally broken on this many fronts at once.
Common thread across all seven: every one of them fails Principle 5 (Complete Required Sections) and Principle 10 (Trade-off Visibility) — all seven are missing Cost Impact — plus most also fail Principle 8 (Testable Assumptions). Two of them (energy-efficent-framework, energy-efficent-models) are the literal "None"/"None" stub patterns flagged earlier. use-energy-efficient-hardware is the single weakest pattern found in this entire five-category review.
Activity
russelltrow commentedon Aug 14, 2026
@LiyaMath @franziska-warncke here are the list of patterns that score 4 or less from the skill assessment. Any objections to archiving these as discussed?
russelltrow commentedon Aug 25, 2026
@LiyaMath @franziska-warncke could you please review ahead of our project call this week
franziska-warncke commentedon Aug 25, 2026
@russelltrow Yes, please archive this patterns (so that we can work on these later one)
Archive low quality patterns
russelltrow commentedon Aug 27, 2026
Pull Request raised - #426
[-]Patterns to archive - August 2026[/-][+]Archive low quality patterns - August 2026[/+]