Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
前端设计需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

architecture-pattern-selector架构模式选择器

Agent Skill

architecture-pattern-selector 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

222

周安装

9

GitHub Stars

85

下载量

70
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:architecture-pattern-selector(架构模式选择器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team
仓库路径:skills/architecture-pattern-selector
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team --skill architecture-pattern-selector
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-cto-team --skill architecture-pattern-selector

简介

该技能提供系统化框架以选择合适架构模式,基于实际需求而非流行趋势做决策。

  • 适用于新系统设计、单体向微服务迁移或技术选型评估等关键架构决策场景。
  • 通过对比单体、微服务、无服务器等模式的适用条件,输出匹配度分析与建议。
  • 安装需确认是否允许访问外部资源或生成可视化图表,建议先阅读原始文档理解判断逻辑。
  • 不提供自动代码生成,侧重原则性指导,适合在方案设计阶段辅助人工判断。

SKILL.md

Architecture Pattern Selector

Provides systematic framework for selecting the right architecture pattern based on real-world constraints rather than hype or resume-driven development.

When to Use

  • Designing a new system from scratch
  • Evaluating whether to migrate from monolith to microservices
  • Choosing between serverless vs container-based architecture
  • Assessing if current architecture matches actual needs

Architecture Patterns

1. Monolith

Best for: Early-stage products, small teams, rapid iteration

Characteristics:

  • Single deployable unit
  • Shared database
  • Simple deployment and debugging
  • Fastest time to market

Choose when:

  • Team < 10 engineers
  • < 100K users
  • Product-market fit not yet proven
  • Need to iterate quickly on features
  • Limited DevOps expertise

Avoid when:

  • Different components need independent scaling
  • Multiple teams need to deploy independently
  • Parts of system have very different reliability requirements

2. Modular Monolith

Best for: Growing products that need structure without microservices complexity

Characteristics:

  • Single deployable unit with clear module boundaries
  • Modules communicate through defined interfaces
  • Can evolve to microservices later
  • Best of both worlds for mid-size teams

Choose when:

  • Team 10-30 engineers
  • 100K-1M users
  • Need better code organization
  • Want microservices benefits without operational overhead
  • Planning future extraction to services

Avoid when:

  • Need independent deployment per module
  • Modules have fundamentally different scaling requirements
  • Already have microservices expertise and infrastructure

3. Microservices

Best for: Large organizations with mature DevOps practices

Characteristics:

  • Independent deployable services
  • Service-specific databases
  • Complex operational requirements
  • High organizational overhead

Choose when:

  • Team > 30 engineers with multiple squads
  • 1M users with varying load patterns
  • Different services need different scaling strategies
  • Strong DevOps/Platform team
  • Clear bounded contexts

Avoid when:

  • Team lacks Kubernetes/container orchestration experience
  • No dedicated platform/DevOps team
  • Bounded contexts are unclear
  • Chasing microservices for resume value

4. Serverless

Best for: Event-driven workloads, variable traffic, cost optimization

Characteristics:

  • Pay-per-execution pricing
  • Auto-scaling to zero
  • Vendor lock-in concerns
  • Cold start latency

Choose when:

  • Highly variable or spiky traffic
  • Event-driven processing (webhooks, queues)
  • Cost-sensitive with unpredictable load
  • Simple request-response patterns
  • Limited DevOps capacity

Avoid when:

  • Consistent high-volume traffic (cost inefficient)
  • Low-latency requirements (< 100ms consistently)
  • Long-running processes
  • Complex stateful workflows

5. Hybrid

Best for: Complex systems with varied requirements

Characteristics:

  • Mix of patterns for different components
  • Monolith core with serverless functions
  • Microservices for specific bounded contexts

Choose when:

  • Different parts of system have different characteristics
  • Migrating incrementally from monolith
  • Some components need independent scaling
  • Event-driven workflows alongside synchronous APIs

Selection Framework

Step 1: Assess Current State

Team Size:        [ ] < 10   [ ] 10-30   [ ] 30-100   [ ] > 100
User Scale:       [ ] < 100K [ ] 100K-1M [ ] 1M-10M   [ ] > 10M
DevOps Maturity:  [ ] None   [ ] Basic   [ ] Intermediate [ ] Advanced
Deployment Freq:  [ ] Monthly [ ] Weekly [ ] Daily    [ ] Multiple/day

Step 2: Evaluate Constraints

ConstraintImpact on Pattern Choice
Time to marketFavors monolith
Team autonomyFavors microservices
Cost sensitivityFavors serverless or monolith
Latency requirementsDisfavors serverless
Compliance/securityMay require isolation (microservices)

Step 3: Apply Decision Matrix

See decision-matrix.md for the scoring framework.

Step 4: Consider Migration Path

Every architecture should have a migration path:

  • Monolith → Modular Monolith → Microservices
  • Monolith → Hybrid (extract specific services)
  • Serverless → Containers (when scale justifies)

Output Format

When recommending an architecture pattern, provide:

## Architecture Recommendation

### Recommended Pattern: [Pattern Name]
**Confidence**: High / Medium / Low

### Why This Pattern
[2-3 specific reasons based on constraints]

### Trade-offs Accepted
- [Trade-off 1 and why it's acceptable]
- [Trade-off 2 and why it's acceptable]

### Migration Path
- **Current**: [Current state]
- **Phase 1**: [Near-term architecture]
- **Phase 2**: [If/when to evolve]
- **Trigger**: [What would cause migration to next phase]

### Patterns Rejected
| Pattern | Reason Not Selected |
|---------|---------------------|
| [Pattern] | [Specific reason] |

### Implementation Considerations
- [Key consideration 1]
- [Key consideration 2]
- [Key consideration 3]

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Resume-Driven Architecture

Choosing microservices because it looks good on resumes, not because the problem requires it.

Red flag: "We should use microservices because that's what Netflix uses." Reality check: You're not Netflix. What's your actual scale and team size?

Premature Distribution

Distributing a system before understanding the domain boundaries.

Red flag: "Let's start with microservices from day one." Reality check: You'll draw the wrong boundaries. Start monolith, extract when clear.

Complexity Worship

Equating complexity with sophistication.

Red flag: "Our architecture needs to be enterprise-grade." Reality check: Simple architectures that work beat complex ones that don't.


References

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

33.68%
按下载量换算24

Claude

32.16%
按下载量换算23

Cursor

18.31%
按下载量换算13

Gemini CLI

9.44%
按下载量换算7

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills