
architecture-discipline
by pvillega
Templates for new Claude repos
SKILL.md
name: architecture-discipline description: Use when designing/modifying system architecture or evaluating technology choices. Enforces 7-section TodoWrite with 22+ items. Triggers: "design architecture", "system design", "architectural decision", "should we use [tech]", "compare [A] vs [B]", "add new service", "microservices", "database choice", "API design", "scale to [X] users", "infrastructure decision". If thinking ANY of these, USE THIS SKILL: "quick recommendation is fine", "obvious choice", "we already know the answer", "just need to pick one", "simple architecture question".
Architecture Discipline
When to Use
Use when decisions affect:
- Data models or schema changes
- Service boundaries or new services
- Deployment topology or infrastructure
- Scale characteristics (10x growth implications)
- Technology stack choices
- API contracts or external integrations
Skip for:
- Parameter tweaks or configuration changes
- UI/styling changes
- Localization or copy changes
- Bug fixes within existing architecture
- Adding fields to existing models (unless schema migration)
Threshold: If the decision could cause a 3+ month re-architecture project if wrong, use this skill.
CRITICAL: This Is Reasoning Discipline, Not a Checklist
The 7 sections are a reasoning sequence, not boxes to check:
- Alternatives BEFORE choosing
- Scale requirements BEFORE design
- Failure modes built in, not bolted on
🚨 If you wrote architecture without starting with all 7 sections: DELETE and restart. Retrofitting analysis is rationalization, not evaluation.
MANDATORY FIRST STEP
CREATE TodoWrite with these 7 sections (22+ items total):
| Section | Minimum Items |
|---|---|
| Scale Analysis | 4+ |
| Architectural Options | 3+ |
| Ripple Effect Analysis | 5+ |
| Failure Modes | 3+ |
| Observability | 3+ |
| Documentation | 2+ |
| Migration/Compatibility | 2+ |
Do not design, propose solutions, or implement until TodoWrite is verified.
Verification Checkpoint
After creating TodoWrite, verify 3 random items pass this test:
Each item must have ALL THREE:
- ✓ Concrete numbers/thresholds ("100K users", "$500/mo", "P95 < 500ms")
- ✓ Specific tools/technologies ("PostgreSQL", "Redis", "CloudWatch")
- ✓ Measurable outcome ("handles 1M req/sec", "costs $X at 10x")
| ❌ FAILS | ✅ PASSES |
|---|---|
| "Add monitoring" | "CloudWatch: websocket.connections.active, alert if >5% error rate via PagerDuty" |
| "Evaluate caching" | "Compare: Redis (1ms, $300/mo) vs In-memory LRU (0.1ms, $0) vs No cache (100ms)" |
| "Analyze scale" | "Current: 100K DAU, 50 req/sec. 10x: 1M users, 500 req/sec. Bottleneck: PostgreSQL connection pool" |
DO NOT PROCEED until 22+ items AND quality check passes.
Section Requirements
1. Scale Analysis (4+ items)
NEVER design for current scale only. Before proposing any solution:
- Current scale: Users (DAU/MAU), requests/sec, data volume, read/write ratio
- 10x scale: What numbers at 10x? When expected?
- Bottlenecks: What breaks at 10x? (DB connections, API limits, memory)
- Mitigation: Specific solution for each bottleneck
2. Architectural Options (3+ items)
NEVER present single solution. Minimum 3 distinct options, each with:
- Performance: Latency (P50/P95/P99), throughput, scale limit
- Complexity: LOC estimate, services involved, operational burden
- Cost: Infrastructure ($X/mo current, $Y/mo at 10x), development (engineer-weeks)
- Trade-offs: Specific advantages (✅) and disadvantages (❌)
If stakeholder suggests solution: Add as Option A, evaluate with SAME rigor as alternatives.
3. Ripple Effect Analysis (5+ items)
Changes propagate across layers. Analyze ALL:
- Data layer: Schema changes, migrations, indexes, query performance
- Services: Which need updates? API contracts changed?
- API: Breaking changes? Version bump? Backward compatibility?
- Clients: Mobile updates? Web UI changes?
- Operations: Deployment changes? New monitoring? Cost changes?
4. Failure Modes (3+ items)
For each mode:
- Scenario: [Component] fails because [reason]
- Detection: How we know (metrics drop, error rate spike)
- Impact: What breaks (user features, data integrity)
- Mitigation: Circuit breaker, fallback, redundancy
5. Observability (3+ items)
- Metrics: Specific (latency P95, error rate %, throughput)
- Alerts: Conditions (error rate > 5%, latency P95 > 500ms)
- Dashboards: Key visualizations
6. Documentation (2+ items)
- ADR: Chosen option, rejected alternatives, trade-offs, constraints
- Diagram: New components, data flows, failure paths
7. Migration/Compatibility (2+ items)
- Backward compatibility: Old clients work? API versioning?
- Migration path: Phased rollout, feature flags, rollback procedure
Red Flags - STOP When You Think:
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Analysis paralysis" | This IS the analysis that prevents expensive mistakes |
| "We'll add scale/alternatives/failure modes later" | Retrofitting costs 5-10x more |
| "CTO already decided" | Still needs independent evaluation |
| "Being pragmatic not dogmatic" | These requirements ARE pragmatic |
| "Just a simple feature" | Simple becomes complex at scale |
| "We already know the solution" | Compare 3 alternatives first |
| "Keep it simple" | Simple for current scale = complex re-architecture at 10x |
| "I can add missing sections to existing work" | DELETE and restart |
Override Requirements
To skip ANY requirement, you MUST provide ALL 4:
- Specific retrofit date (not "later")
- Budget allocated (engineer-weeks)
- Risk acceptance signed by decision maker
- Interim mitigation plan
| Skipped | Risk | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Scale Analysis | Re-architecture in 6-12 months | 3-6 month project, 5-10x cost |
| Alternatives | Optimize wrong dimension | 2-4 month migration |
| Failure Modes | Production incidents | $5-50K per incident |
| Ripple Effects | Broken clients, data issues | Deployment failures |
Verification Before Complete
| Category | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Scale | ✓ Current + 10x projected ✓ Bottlenecks ✓ Mitigations |
| Trade-offs | ✓ 3+ options ✓ Performance/complexity/cost ✓ Rationale |
| Impact | ✓ All layers analyzed ✓ Breaking changes identified |
| Failure | ✓ Specific modes ✓ Detection ✓ Mitigation ✓ Rollback |
| Documentation | ✓ ADR ✓ Diagram updated |
If any item missing, do not proceed to implementation.
Score
Total Score
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
3ヶ月以内に更新がある
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon