Arbtr
Back to blog
Guides10 min read

How to Run an Effective Architecture Review

Architecture reviews don't have to mean six weeks and a committee. Here's how to get the value without the overhead.

AM
Adam Marsh
Founder · September 16, 2025

"Architecture review" often conjures images of formal committees, lengthy documents, and multi-week processes. For most teams, that's overkill.

But skipping reviews entirely? That's how you end up with systems no one can change and decisions no one remembers making.

There's a middle ground. Here's how to find it.

Finding the right balance in architecture review

The Traditional Approach: ATAM

The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) is the gold standard for architecture evaluation. Developed at Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute, it has over 1,000 research citations.[1]

Traditional ATAM
6 weeks
+ extensive documentation
Maps decisions to quality attributes
Identifies tradeoffs explicitly
Engages stakeholders systematically
Lightweight ATAM[2]
< 6 hours
80% of the value
Critical quality attributes only
Known risk areas
Upcoming changes
The Research Says
Lighter methods work. They reduce cost, time, and effort by minimizing documentation and formality while preserving the core value: catching architectural risks before they become code.

The Right Cadence

Not every review needs the same depth. Match your review type to your situation:

Continuous
Every commit
Automated
Tool-based checks
Sprint-level
Sprint planning
30-60 min
Architectural implications
Quarterly
Every 3 months
Half-day
Health check
Pre-release
Major releases
1-2 days
Integration points
Annual
Yearly
Full ATAM
Mission-critical
Event-driven
As needed
Varies
Major decisions

Running a Sprint-Level Review

Here's a practical template for a 45-minute architecture review during sprint planning:

45-Minute Sprint Review

During sprint planning
10 min
1. Surface Architectural Work
  • •Which tickets have architectural implications?
  • •Any new integrations, services, or data stores?
  • •Changes to existing APIs or contracts?
15 min
2. Risk Assessment
  • •What could go wrong?
  • •What are the dependencies?
  • •What's the blast radius if this fails?
10 min
3. Decision Documentation
  • •What decisions are being made?
  • •Who is making them?
  • •What's the context?
10 min
4. Action Items
  • •Need a deeper review?
  • •Need stakeholder input?
  • •Need to document anything?

Running a Quarterly Health Check

A quarterly review is deeper but still lightweight. Here's a structure for a half-day session:

Half-Day Quarterly Health Check

Morning (3 hours)
1 hr
Current State Review
Changes, decisions made, overdue decisions
1.5 hr
Quality Attribute Assessment
Performance, Security, Maintainability, Scalability
30 min
Dependency Mapping
Current, new, deprecated dependencies
Afternoon (2 hours)
1 hr
Risk Prioritization
Top 5 risks, cost to address, cost of inaction
1 hr
Planning
Roadmap items, decisions needed, stakeholders

The Quality Attributes That Matter

Quality Attributes That Matter Most

Based on 15 years of ATAM evaluations across 31 projects[3]

1. Modifiability— Can we change this system?
2. Performance— Latency & throughput
3. Availability— Will it stay up?
4. Interoperability— Does it integrate cleanly?
5. Deployability— Can we ship it easily?

Key insight: Modifiability tops the list. The ability to change your system is more important than almost any other quality—because requirements always change.

Spotify's Approach to Lightweight Governance

Spotify operates with autonomous squads, but they still need architectural alignment:

Large changes
RFCs
  • Formalized process
  • Cross-squad review
  • Documented outcomes
Smaller changes
Pull Requests
  • Standard code review
  • Architecture context in PR
  • Chapter review for patterns
Cross-cutting concerns
Chapters
  • Regular specialist meetings
  • Share common solutions
  • Establish patterns organically

The key: different weight for different decisions

When to Use Full ATAM

Reserve heavy-weight reviews for high-stakes situations:

Mission-critical systems
Healthcare, finance, infrastructure
Major redesigns
Rewrites, major refactors
High cost of failure
Regulatory, security, reputational
Complex requirements
Many competing quality attributes
Multi-team coordination
Decisions affecting many teams

The ROI of Reviews

Architecture reviews reduce technical debt through early validation that catches problems before code is written, costing 10 times less than production fixes.

10×
cost reduction
A 4-hour quarterly review that prevents one major architectural mistake pays for itself many times over.

Making Reviews Stick

The hardest part isn't running reviews—it's making them habitual.

Schedule recurring blocks
Quarterly reviews that exist only in theory don't happen
Document outcomes
If decisions aren't recorded, they'll be revisited
Assign ownership
Someone must be responsible for following up
Start small
30-minute sprint reviews > quarterly reviews that never happen
Measure results
Track decisions made and followed through

Architecture reviews aren't about process.

They're about preventing the problems you don't see coming.

References

  1. [1]Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) - Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
  2. [2]Lightweight Architecture Evaluation - Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
  3. [3]A study on quality attributes commonly used in system design (15-year study across 31 ATAM evaluations) - Journal of Systems and Software

Ready to document your decisions?

Stop letting architectural knowledge walk out the door. Start capturing decisions today with Arbtr.

Get Started FreeSee How It Works

Continue Reading

Previous
Strategic Debt: Technical Debt's Invisible Cousin
Next
Building a Decision Culture in Your Engineering Team