Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

architecture-design(建筑设计)

用于辅助界面设计、视觉规范、排版、配色、布局和交互体验优化。它适合让 Agent 根据产品场景整理页面结构、生成 UI 方案、检查视觉一致性或改进组件层级。使用时需要结合现有品牌、设计系统和用户任务,不应只堆装饰元素;涉及真实页面改动时,应通过截图或浏览器预览检查文本溢出、对齐和响应式表现。

architecture-design 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 60,816。

总安装 364周安装 15GitHub Stars 6下载 119核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

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-design(建筑设计)
来源仓库:https://github.com/duc01226/easyplatform
仓库路径:skills/architecture-design
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/duc01226/easyplatform --skill architecture-design
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/duc01226/easyplatform --skill architecture-design

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

architecture-design 提供系统化架构设计方法论,确保技术方案的结构合理性。适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中大型系统规划阶段的决策支持工具。要求严格按照预定顺序执行各步骤,禁止擅自调整流程顺序或跳过关键环节。

每完成一个子任务都必须更新进度状态,并提供简要证据说明完成情况。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/architecture-design

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/duc01226/easyplatform --skill architecture-des…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

architecture-design 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/duc01226/easyplatform --skill architecture-design。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

architecture-design 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

architecture-design 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。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。

architecture-design 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

architecture-design 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 364 次,近一周安装 15 次,下载 119 次,GitHub 6 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

architecture-design 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
architecture-design

建筑设计 · 本页

3646需要联网未明确有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

[BLOCKING] Execute skill steps in declared order. NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval. [BLOCKING] Before each step or sub-skill call, update task tracking: set in_progress when step starts, set completed when step ends. [BLOCKING] Every completed/skipped step MUST include brief evidence or explicit skip reason. [BLOCKING] If Task tools are unavailable, create and maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with the same status transitions.
Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task: - Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal. - Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing. - Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain. - Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path. - When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site. - Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code. - Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks. - Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis. - Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly. - Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion at EVERY decision point — never assume user preferences. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION research top 3 options per architecture concern, compare with evidence, present report with recommendation + confidence %.

External Memory: For complex or lengthy work (research, analysis, scan, review), write intermediate findings and final results to a report file in plans/reports/ — prevents context loss and serves as deliverable.
Evidence Gate: MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — every claim, finding, and recommendation requires file:line proof or traced evidence with confidence percentage (>80% to act, <80% must verify first).

Quick Summary

Goal: Act as a solution architect — research, critically analyze, and recommend the complete technical architecture for a project or feature. Cover ALL architecture concerns: backend, frontend, design patterns, library ecosystem, testing strategy, CI/CD, deployment, monitoring, code quality, and dependency management. Produce a comprehensive comparison report with actionable recommendations.

Workflow (12 steps):

  1. Load Context — Read domain model, tech stack, business evaluation, refined PBI
  2. Derive Architecture Requirements — Map business/domain complexity to architecture constraints
  3. Backend Architecture — Research top 3 backend architecture styles + design patterns
  4. Frontend Architecture — Research top 3 frontend architecture styles + design patterns
  5. Library Ecosystem Research — Best-practice libraries per concern (validation, caching, logging, utils, etc.)
  6. Testing Architecture — Unit, integration, E2E, performance testing frameworks + strategy
  7. CI/CD & Deployment — Pipeline design, containerization, orchestration, IaC
  8. Observability & Monitoring — Logging, metrics, tracing, alerting stack
  9. Code Quality & Clean Code — Linters, analyzers, formatters, enforcement tooling
  10. Dependency Risk Assessment — Package health, obsolescence risk, maintenance cost
  11. Generate Report — Full architecture decision report with all recommendations
  12. User Validation — Present findings, ask 8-12 questions, confirm all decisions

Key Rules:

  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION research minimum 3 options per architecture concern with web evidence
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include confidence % with evidence for every recommendation
  • MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION run user validation interview at end (never skip)
  • Delegate to solution-architect agent for complex architecture decisions
  • All claims must cite sources (URL, benchmark, case study, or codebase evidence)
  • Never recommend based on familiarity alone — evidence required

Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).


Step 1: Load Context

Read artifacts from prior workflow steps (search in plans/ and team-artifacts/):

  • Domain model / ERD (complexity, bounded contexts, aggregate count)
  • Tech stack decisions (confirmed languages, frameworks, databases)
  • Business evaluation (scale, constraints, compliance)
  • Refined PBI (scope, acceptance criteria)
  • Discovery interview (team skills, experience level)

Extract and summarize:

SignalValueSource
Bounded contexts...domain model
Aggregate count...domain model
Cross-context events...domain model
Confirmed tech stack...tech stack phase
Expected scale...business eval
Team architecture exp....discovery
Compliance requirements...business eval
Real-time needsYes/Norefined PBI
Integration complexityLow/Med/Highdomain model
Deployment target...business eval

Step 2: Derive Architecture Requirements

Map signals to architecture constraints:

SignalArchitecture RequirementPriority
Many bounded contextsClear module boundaries, context isolationMust
High scaleHorizontal scaling, stateless services, caching strategyMust
Complex domainRich domain model, separation of domain from infraMust
Cross-context eventsEvent-driven communication, eventual consistencyMust
Small teamLow ceremony, fewer layers, convention over configurationShould
ComplianceAudit trail, immutable events, access control layersMust
Real-timeEvent sourcing or pub/sub, WebSocket/SSE supportShould
High integration complexityAnti-corruption layers, adapter pattern, API gatewayShould

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate derived requirements with user via AskUserQuestion before proceeding.


Step 3: Backend Architecture

3A: Architecture Styles

WebSearch top 3 backend architecture styles. Candidates:

StyleBest ForResearch Focus
Clean ArchitectureComplex domains, long-lived projectsDependency rule, testability, flexibility
Hexagonal (Ports+Adapt)Integration-heavy, multiple I/O adaptersPort contracts, adapter isolation
Vertical SliceFeature-focused teams, rapid deliverySlice isolation, code locality
Modular MonolithStarting simple, eventual decompositionModule boundaries, migration path
MicroservicesLarge teams, independent deploymentService boundaries, operational overhead
CQRS + Event SourcingAudit-heavy, complex queriesRead/write separation, event store
Layered (N-Tier)Simple CRUD, small teamsLayer responsibilities, coupling risk

3B: Backend Design Patterns

Evaluate applicability per layer:

PatternLayerWhen to Apply
RepositoryData AccessAbstract data store, enable testing
CQRSApplicationSeparate read/write models, complex queries
MediatorApplicationDecouple handlers from controllers
StrategyDomain/AppMultiple interchangeable algorithms
Observer/EventsDomainCross-aggregate side effects
FactoryDomainComplex object creation with invariants
DecoratorCross-cuttingAdd behavior without modifying (logging, caching)
AdapterInfrastructureIsolate external dependencies
SpecificationDomainComposable business rules, complex filtering
Unit of WorkData AccessTransaction management across repositories
Saga/Orchestr.Cross-serviceDistributed transactions, compensating actions
OutboxMessagingReliable event publishing with DB transactions
Circuit BreakerInfrastructureExternal service resilience

For each recommended pattern, document: Apply to, Why, Example, Risk if skipped.


Step 4: Frontend Architecture

4A: Architecture Styles

WebSearch top 3 frontend architecture styles. Candidates:

StyleBest ForResearch Focus
MVVMData-binding heavy, forms-over-data appsViewModel responsibility, two-way binding
MVCServer-rendered, traditional web appsController routing, view separation
Component ArchitectureModern SPA (React, Angular, Vue)Component isolation, props/events, reuse
Reactive Store (Redux)Complex state, multi-component syncSingle source of truth, immutable state
Signal-based ReactivityFine-grained reactivity (Angular 19, Solid)Granular updates, no zone.js overhead
Micro FrontendsMultiple teams, independent deploymentModule federation, routing, shared state
Feature-based ModulesLarge monolith SPA, lazy loadingFeature boundaries, route-level splitting
Server Components (RSC)SEO, initial load performanceServer/client boundary, streaming

4B: Frontend Design Patterns

PatternLayerWhen to Apply
Container/PresentationalComponentSeparate logic from UI rendering
Reactive StoreStateCentralized state, cross-component communication
Facade ServiceServiceSimplify complex API interactions
Adapter/MapperDataTransform API response to view model
Observer (RxJS)AsyncEvent streams, real-time data, debounce/throttle
Strategy (renderers)UIConditional rendering strategies per entity type
Composite (components)UITree structures, recursive components
Command (undo/redo)UXForm wizards, canvas editors, undoable actions
Lazy LoadingPerformanceRoute/module-level code splitting
Virtual ScrollingPerformanceLarge lists, infinite scroll

Step 4B: UI System Architecture

Skip if: Backend-only project, no frontend component.

Research and recommend the project's design system architecture. Use AskUserQuestion for each decision.

4B-1: Styling Approach

WebSearch top 3 styling approaches for the confirmed frontend framework:

ApproachBest ForResearch Focus
Utility-first (Tailwind CSS)Rapid prototyping, design enforcementJIT, custom config, design tokens
CSS Modules / Scoped CSSComponent isolation, no global conflictsNaming, composition patterns
SCSS/SASS with BEMComplex theming, token variablesBEM methodology, mixin libraries
CSS-in-JSDynamic styling, theme providersRuntime perf, SSR support
CSS Custom PropertiesNative theming, framework-agnosticBrowser support, fallback strategy

4B-2: Design Token Strategy

DecisionOptionsDefault
Token formatCSS custom properties / JSON / SCSS variablesCSS custom properties
Token categoriesColor, spacing, typography, breakpoints, shadows, z-indexAll
Token namingSemantic (--color-primary) vs Functional (--btn-bg)Semantic first
ThemingLight/dark toggle / Multi-brand / Single themeSingle + dark mode

4B-3: Component Library Strategy

DecisionOptionsDefault
LibraryBuild custom / Headless (Radix, Headless UI) / Full kit (MUI, Ant, PrimeNG)Based on team and timeline
Component tiersCommon → Domain-Shared → Page (per ui-wireframe-protocol)Standard 3-tier
DocumentationStorybook / Docusaurus / In-code onlyBased on team size

4B-4: Responsive Strategy

DecisionOptionsDefault
ApproachMobile-first / Desktop-first / AdaptiveMobile-first
Breakpoints320/768/1024/1280 / CustomStandard
Grid systemCSS Grid / Flexbox / Framework gridCSS Grid + Flexbox

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate all UI system decisions with user via AskUserQuestion before proceeding to Step 5.


Step 5: Library Ecosystem Research

For EACH concern below, WebSearch top 3 library options for the confirmed tech stack. Evaluate: maturity, community, bundle size, maintenance activity, license, learning curve.

Library Concerns Checklist

ConcernWhat to ResearchEvaluation Criteria
ValidationInput validation, schema validation, form validationType safety, composability, error messages
HTTP Client / API LayerREST client, GraphQL client, API code generationInterceptors, retry, caching, type generation
State ManagementGlobal store, local state, server state cachingDevTools, SSR support, bundle size
Utilities / HelpersDate/time, collections, deep clone, string manipulationTree-shakability, size, native alternatives
CachingIn-memory cache, distributed cache, HTTP cache, query cacheTTL, invalidation, persistence
LoggingStructured logging, log levels, log aggregationStructured output, transports, performance
Error HandlingGlobal error boundary, error tracking, crash reportingSource maps, breadcrumbs, alerting integration
Authentication / AuthZJWT, OAuth, RBAC/ABAC, session managementStandards compliance, SSO, token refresh
File Upload / StorageMultipart upload, cloud storage SDK, image processingStreaming, resumable, size limits
Real-timeWebSocket, SSE, SignalR, Socket.ioReconnection, scaling, protocol support
Internationalizationi18n, l10n, pluralization, date/number formattingICU support, lazy loading, extraction tools
PDF / ExportPDF generation, Excel export, CSVServer-side vs client-side, template support

Per-Library Evaluation Template

### {Concern}: Top 3 Options

| Criteria         | Option A          | Option B | Option C |
| ---------------- | ----------------- | -------- | -------- |
| GitHub Stars     | ...               | ...      | ...      |
| Last Release     | ...               | ...      | ...      |
| Bundle Size      | ...               | ...      | ...      |
| Weekly Downloads | ...               | ...      | ...      |
| License          | ...               | ...      | ...      |
| Maintenance      | Active/Slow/Stale | ...      | ...      |
| Learning Curve   | Low/Med/High      | ...      | ...      |

**Recommendation:** {Option} — Confidence: {X}%

Step 6: Testing Architecture

Research best testing tools and strategy for the confirmed tech stack:

Testing LayerWhat to ResearchTop Candidates to Compare
Unit TestingTest runner, assertion library, mocking frameworkJest/Vitest/xUnit/NUnit, mocking
Integration TestingAPI testing, DB testing, service testingSupertest, TestContainers, WebAppFactory
E2E TestingBrowser automation, BDD, visual regressionPlaywright/Cypress/Selenium, SpecFlow
Performance TestingLoad testing, stress testing, benchmarkingk6/Artillery/JMeter/NBomber, BenchmarkDotNet
Contract TestingAPI contract validation between servicesPact, Dredd, Spectral
Mutation TestingTest quality validationStryker, PITest
CoverageCode coverage collection, reporting, enforcementIstanbul/Coverlet, SonarQube
Test DataFactories, fixtures, seeders, fakersBogus/AutoFixture/Faker.js

Test Strategy Template

### Test Pyramid

- **Unit (70%):** {framework} — {what to test}
- **Integration (20%):** {framework} — {what to test}
- **E2E (10%):** {framework} — {what to test}

### Coverage Targets

- Unit: {X}% | Integration: {X}% | E2E: critical paths only
- Enforcement: {tool} in CI pipeline, fail build below threshold

Step 7: CI/CD & Deployment

Research deployment architecture and CI/CD tooling:

ConcernWhat to ResearchTop Candidates to Compare
CI/CD PlatformPipeline orchestration, parallelism, cachingGitHub Actions/Azure DevOps/GitLab CI/Jenkins
ContainerizationContainer runtime, image building, registryDocker/Podman, BuildKit, ACR/ECR/GHCR
OrchestrationContainer orchestration, service mesh, scalingKubernetes/Docker Compose/ECS/Nomad
IaC (Infra as Code)Infrastructure provisioning, drift detectionTerraform/Pulumi/Bicep/CDK
Artifact ManagementPackage registry, versioning, vulnerability scanningNuGet/npm/Artifactory/GitHub Packages
Feature FlagsProgressive rollout, A/B testing, kill switchesLaunchDarkly/Unleash/Flagsmith
Secret ManagementVault, key rotation, environment variablesAzure KeyVault/HashiCorp Vault/SOPS
Database MigrationSchema versioning, rollback, seed dataEF Migrations/Flyway/Liquibase/dbmate

Deployment Strategy Comparison

StrategyRiskDowntimeComplexityBest For
Blue-GreenLowZeroMediumCritical services
CanaryLowZeroHighGradual rollout
RollingMedZeroLowStateless services
RecreateHighYesLowDev/staging environments
Feature FlagsLowZeroMediumFeature-level control

Step 8: Observability & Monitoring

ConcernWhat to ResearchTop Candidates to Compare
Structured LoggingLog format, correlation IDs, log levels, aggregationSerilog/NLog/Winston/Pino
Log AggregationCentralized log search, dashboards, alertsELK/Loki+Grafana/Datadog/Seq
MetricsApplication metrics, custom counters, histogramsPrometheus/OpenTelemetry/App Insights
Distributed TracingRequest tracing across services, span visualizationJaeger/Zipkin/OpenTelemetry/Tempo
APMApplication performance monitoring, auto-instrumentationDatadog/New Relic/App Insights/Elastic
AlertingThreshold alerts, anomaly detection, on-call routingPagerDuty/OpsGenie/Grafana Alerting
Health ChecksLiveness, readiness, startup probesAspNetCore.Diagnostics/Terminus
Uptime MonitoringExternal availability monitoring, SLA trackingUptimeRobot/Pingdom/Checkly

Observability Decision: 3 Pillars

### Recommended Observability Stack

| Pillar   | Tool   | Why         |
| -------- | ------ | ----------- |
| Logs     | {tool} | {rationale} |
| Metrics  | {tool} | {rationale} |
| Traces   | {tool} | {rationale} |
| Alerting | {tool} | {rationale} |

Step 9: Code Quality & Clean Code Enforcement

Research and recommend tooling for automated code quality:

ConcernWhat to ResearchTop Candidates to Compare
Linter (Backend)Static analysis, code style, bug detectionRoslyn Analyzers/SonarQube/StyleCop/ReSharper
Linter (Frontend)JS/TS linting, accessibility, complexityESLint/Biome/oxlint
FormatterAuto-formatting, consistent stylePrettier/dotnet-format/EditorConfig
Code AnalyzerSecurity scanning, complexity metrics, duplicationSonarQube/CodeClimate/Codacy
Pre-commit HooksGit hooks, staged file validationHusky+lint-staged/pre-commit/Lefthook
Editor ConfigCross-IDE consistency.editorconfig/IDE-specific configs
Architecture RulesLayer dependency enforcement, naming conventionsArchUnit/NetArchTest/Dependency-Cruiser
API Design StandardsOpenAPI validation, naming, versioningSpectral/Redocly/swagger-lint
Commit ConventionsCommit message format, changelog generationCommitlint/Conventional Commits
Code Review AutomationAutomated PR review, suggestion botsDanger.js/Reviewdog/CodeRabbit

Enforcement Strategy

### Code Quality Gates

| Gate        | Tool   | Trigger        | Fail Criteria         |
| ----------- | ------ | -------------- | --------------------- |
| Pre-commit  | {tool} | git commit     | Lint errors, format   |
| PR Check    | {tool} | Pull request   | Coverage < X%, issues |
| CI Pipeline | {tool} | Push to branch | Build fail, test fail |
| Scheduled   | {tool} | Weekly/nightly | Security vulns, debt  |

Scaffold Handoff (MANDATORY — consumed by /scaffold)

After completing code quality research, produce this handoff table in the architecture report. The /scaffold skill reads this table to generate actual config files — without it, scaffold cannot auto-configure quality tooling.

### Scaffold Handoff — Tool Choices

| Concern        | Chosen Tool       | Config File | Rationale |
| -------------- | ----------------- | ----------- | --------- |
| Linter (FE)    | {tool}            | {filename}  | {why}     |
| Linter (BE)    | {tool}            | {filename}  | {why}     |
| Formatter      | {tool}            | {filename}  | {why}     |
| Pre-commit     | {tool}            | {filename}  | {why}     |
| Error handling | {pattern}         | {files}     | {why}     |
| Loading state  | {pattern}         | {files}     | {why}     |
| Docker         | {compose pattern} | {files}     | {why}     |

Also include: Error handling strategy (4-layer pattern), loading state approach (global vs per-component), and Docker profile structure. Specific tool choices → docs/project-reference/ or project-config.json.


Step 10: Dependency Risk Assessment

For EVERY recommended library/package, evaluate maintenance and obsolescence risk:

Package Health Scorecard

CriteriaScore (1-5)How to Verify
Last Release Date...npm/NuGet page — stale if >12 months
Open Issues Ratio...GitHub issues open vs closed
Maintainer Count...Bus factor — single maintainer = high risk
Breaking Change Freq....Changelog — frequent major versions = churn cost
Dependency Depth...npm ls --depth / dependency graph depth
Known Vulnerabilities...Snyk/npm audit/GitHub Dependabot
License Compatibility...SPDX identifier — check viral licenses (GPL)
Community Activity...Monthly commits, PR merge rate, Discord/forums
Migration Path...Can swap to alternative if abandoned?
Framework Alignment...Official recommendation by framework team?

Risk Categories

Risk LevelCriteriaAction
LowActive, >3 maintainers, recent release, no CVEsUse freely
Medium1-2 maintainers, release <6mo, minor CVEs patchedUse with monitoring plan
HighSingle maintainer, >12mo stale, open CVEsFind alternative or plan exit strategy
CriticalAbandoned, unpatched CVEs, deprecatedDO NOT USE — find replacement

Dependency Maintenance Strategy

### Recommended Practices

1. **Automated scanning:** {tool} (Dependabot/Renovate/Snyk) — weekly PR for updates
2. **Lock file strategy:** Commit lock files, pin major versions, allow patch auto-update
3. **Audit schedule:** Monthly `npm audit` / `dotnet list package --vulnerable`
4. **Vendor policy:** Max {N} dependencies per concern, prefer well-maintained alternatives
5. **Exit strategy:** For each High-risk dependency, document migration path to alternative

Step 11: Generate Report

Write report to {plan-dir}/research/architecture-design.md with sections:

  1. Executive summary (recommended architecture in 8-10 lines)
  2. Architecture requirements table (from Step 2)
  3. Backend architecture — style comparison + recommended patterns (Steps 3)
  4. Frontend architecture — style comparison + recommended patterns (Step 4)
  5. Library ecosystem — per-concern recommendations with alternatives (Step 5)
  6. Testing architecture — pyramid, tools, coverage targets (Step 6)
  7. CI/CD & deployment — pipeline design, deployment strategy (Step 7)
  8. Observability stack — 3 pillars + alerting (Step 8)
  9. Code quality — enforcement gates, tooling (Step 9)
  10. Dependency risk matrix — high-risk packages, mitigation (Step 10)
  11. Architecture diagram (Mermaid — showing all layers and data flow)
  12. Risk assessment for overall architecture
  13. Unresolved questions

Architecture Diagram Template

graph TB subgraph "Frontend" UI[SPA / Micro Frontend] STORE[State Management] end subgraph "API Gateway" GW[Gateway / BFF] end subgraph "Backend Services" CMD[Commands / Handlers] QRY[Queries / Read Models] SVC[Domain Services] ENT[Entities / Aggregates] end subgraph "Infrastructure" DB[(Database)] CACHE[(Cache)] MSG[Message Bus] SEARCH[(Search Index)] end subgraph "Observability" LOG[Logging] METRIC[Metrics] TRACE[Tracing] end subgraph "CI/CD" PIPE[Pipeline] REG[Container Registry] K8S[Orchestration] end UI --> GW --> CMD & QRY CMD --> SVC --> ENT --> DB QRY --> CACHE & SEARCH ENT -.-> MSG CMD & QRY -.-> LOG & METRIC & TRACE PIPE --> REG --> K8S


Step 12: User Validation Interview

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION present findings and ask 8-12 questions via AskUserQuestion:

Required Questions

  1. Backend architecture — "I recommend {style}. Agree?"
  2. Frontend architecture — "I recommend {style} with {state management}. Agree?"
  3. Design patterns — "Recommended backend patterns: {list}. Frontend patterns: {list}. Any to add/remove?"
  4. Key libraries — "For {concern}, I recommend {lib} over {alternatives}. Agree?"
  5. Testing strategy — "Test pyramid: {unit}%/{integration}%/{E2E}% using {frameworks}. Appropriate?"
  6. CI/CD — "Pipeline: {tool} with {deployment strategy}. Fits your infra?"
  7. Observability — "Monitoring stack: {logs}/{metrics}/{traces}. Sufficient?"
  8. Code quality — "Enforcement: {linter + formatter + pre-commit hooks}. Team ready?"
  9. Dependency risk — "Found {N} high-risk dependencies. Accept or find alternatives?"
  10. Complexity check — "This architecture has {N} concerns addressed. Appropriate for team size?"

Optional Deep-Dive Questions (pick 2-3)

  • "Should we use event sourcing or traditional state-based persistence?"
  • "Monolith-first or start with service boundaries?"
  • "Micro frontends or monolith SPA?"
  • "How important is framework independence for this project?"
  • "Self-hosted observability or managed SaaS?"
  • "Strict lint rules from day 1 or gradual adoption?"

After user confirms, update report with final decisions and mark as status: confirmed.


Best Practices Audit (applied across all steps)

Validate architecture against these principles — flag violations in report:

PrincipleCheckStatus
Single Responsibility (S)Each class/module has one reason to change✅/⚠️
Open/Closed (O)Extensible without modifying existing code✅/⚠️
Liskov Substitution (L)Subtypes substitutable for base types✅/⚠️
Interface Segregation (I)No forced dependency on unused interfaces✅/⚠️
Dependency Inversion (D)High-level modules depend on abstractions, not concretions✅/⚠️
DRYNo duplicated business logic across layers✅/⚠️
KISSSimplest architecture that meets requirements✅/⚠️
YAGNINo speculative layers or patterns for future needs✅/⚠️
Separation of ConcernsClear boundaries between domain, application, infra✅/⚠️
IoC / Dependency InjectionAll dependencies injected, no new in business logic✅/⚠️
Technical AgnosticismDomain layer has zero framework/infra dependencies✅/⚠️
TestabilityArchitecture supports unit + integration testing✅/⚠️
12-Factor AppConfig in env, stateless processes, port binding✅/⚠️
Fail-FastValidate early, fail with clear errors✅/⚠️

Output

{plan-dir}/research/architecture-design.md     # Full architecture analysis report
{plan-dir}/phase-02b-architecture.md           # Confirmed architecture decisions

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate EVERY architecture recommendation with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION include confidence % and evidence citations for all claims. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality.


Next Steps

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION — NO EXCEPTIONS after completing this skill, you MUST ATTENTION use AskUserQuestion to present these options. Do NOT skip because the task seems "simple" or "obvious" — the user decides:

  • "/plan (Recommended)" — Create implementation plan from architecture design
  • "/refine" — If need to create PBIs first
  • "Skip, continue manually" — user decides

Closing Reminders

MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION validate decisions with user via AskUserQuestion — never auto-decide. MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality.

  • MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.
  • MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.

[IMPORTANT] Analyze how big the task is and break it into many small todo tasks systematically before starting — this is very important.

Prompt-Enhance Closing Anchors

  • IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION follow declared step order for this skill; NEVER skip, reorder, or merge steps without explicit user approval
  • IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION for every step/sub-skill call: set in_progress before execution, set completed after execution
  • IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION every skipped step MUST include explicit reason; every completed step MUST include concise evidence
  • IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION if Task tools unavailable, maintain an equivalent step-by-step plan tracker with synchronized statuses

平台分布

Codex

36.49%
按下载量换算43

Claude

31.45%
按下载量换算37

Cursor

18.84%
按下载量换算22

Gemini CLI

8.55%
按下载量换算10

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills