designing-architecture
Designs software architecture and selects appropriate patterns for projects. Use when designing systems, choosing architecture patterns, structuring projects, making technical decisions, or when asked about microservices, monoliths, or architectural approaches.
Packaged view
This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.
Install command
npx @skill-hub/cli install cloudai-x-claude-workflow-designing-architecture
Repository
Skill path: skills/designing-architecture
Designs software architecture and selects appropriate patterns for projects. Use when designing systems, choosing architecture patterns, structuring projects, making technical decisions, or when asked about microservices, monoliths, or architectural approaches.
Open repositoryBest for
Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.
Technical facets: Full Stack.
Target audience: everyone.
License: Unknown.
Original source
Catalog source: SkillHub Club.
Repository owner: CloudAI-X.
This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.
What it helps with
- Install designing-architecture into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
- Review https://github.com/CloudAI-X/claude-workflow before adding designing-architecture to shared team environments
- Use designing-architecture for development workflows
Works across
Favorites: 0.
Sub-skills: 0.
Aggregator: No.
Original source / Raw SKILL.md
---
name: designing-architecture
description: Designs software architecture and selects appropriate patterns for projects. Use when designing systems, choosing architecture patterns, structuring projects, making technical decisions, or when asked about microservices, monoliths, or architectural approaches.
---
# Designing Architecture
## Architecture Decision Workflow
Copy this checklist and track progress:
```
Architecture Design Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Understand requirements and constraints
- [ ] Step 2: Assess project size and team capabilities
- [ ] Step 3: Select architecture pattern
- [ ] Step 4: Define directory structure
- [ ] Step 5: Document trade-offs and decision
- [ ] Step 6: Validate against decision framework
```
## Pattern Selection Guide
### By Project Size
| Size | Recommended Pattern |
|------|---------------------|
| Small (<10K LOC) | Simple MVC/Layered |
| Medium (10K-100K) | Clean Architecture |
| Large (>100K) | Modular Monolith or Microservices |
### By Team Size
| Team | Recommended |
|------|-------------|
| 1-3 devs | Monolith with clear modules |
| 4-10 devs | Modular Monolith |
| 10+ devs | Microservices (if justified) |
## Common Patterns
### 1. Layered Architecture
```
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Presentation │ ← UI, API Controllers
├─────────────────────────────┤
│ Application │ ← Use Cases, Services
├─────────────────────────────┤
│ Domain │ ← Business Logic, Entities
├─────────────────────────────┤
│ Infrastructure │ ← Database, External APIs
└─────────────────────────────┘
```
**Use when**: Simple CRUD apps, small teams, quick prototypes
### 2. Clean Architecture
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Frameworks & Drivers │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Interface Adapters │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Application │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Domain │ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
```
**Use when**: Complex business logic, long-lived projects, testability is key
### 3. Hexagonal (Ports & Adapters)
```
┌──────────┐
│ HTTP API │
└────┬─────┘
│ Port
┌────────▼────────┐
│ │
│ Application │
│ Core │
│ │
└────────┬────────┘
│ Port
┌────▼─────┐
│ Database │
└──────────┘
```
**Use when**: Need to swap external dependencies, multiple entry points
### 4. Event-Driven Architecture
```
Producer → Event Bus → Consumer
│
├─→ Consumer
│
└─→ Consumer
```
**Use when**: Loose coupling needed, async processing, scalability
### 5. CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)
```
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ Commands │ │ Queries │
│ (Write) │ │ (Read) │
└──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘
│ │
▼ ▼
Write Model Read Model
│ │
└────────┬───────────┘
▼
Event Store
```
**Use when**: Different read/write scaling, complex domains, event sourcing
## Directory Structure Patterns
### Feature-Based (Recommended for medium+)
```
src/
├── features/
│ ├── users/
│ │ ├── api/
│ │ ├── components/
│ │ ├── hooks/
│ │ ├── services/
│ │ └── types/
│ └── orders/
│ ├── api/
│ ├── components/
│ └── ...
├── shared/
│ ├── components/
│ ├── hooks/
│ └── utils/
└── app/
└── ...
```
### Layer-Based (Simple apps)
```
src/
├── controllers/
├── services/
├── models/
├── repositories/
└── utils/
```
## Decision Framework
When making architectural decisions, evaluate against these criteria:
1. **Simplicity** - Start simple, evolve when needed
2. **Team Skills** - Match architecture to team capabilities
3. **Requirements** - Let business needs drive decisions
4. **Scalability** - Consider growth trajectory
5. **Maintainability** - Optimize for change
## Trade-off Analysis Template
Use this template to document architectural decisions:
```markdown
## Decision: [What we're deciding]
### Context
[Why this decision is needed now]
### Options Considered
1. Option A: [Description]
2. Option B: [Description]
### Trade-offs
| Criteria | Option A | Option B |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Complexity | Low | High |
| Scalability | Medium | High |
| Team familiarity | High | Low |
### Decision
We chose [Option] because [reasoning].
### Consequences
- [What this enables]
- [What this constrains]
```
## Validation Checklist
After selecting an architecture, validate against:
```
Architecture Validation:
- [ ] Matches project size and complexity
- [ ] Aligns with team skills and experience
- [ ] Supports current requirements
- [ ] Allows for anticipated growth
- [ ] Dependencies flow inward (core has no external deps)
- [ ] Clear boundaries between modules/layers
- [ ] Testing strategy is feasible
- [ ] Trade-offs are documented
```
If validation fails, reconsider the pattern selection or adjust the implementation approach.