Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

hexagonal-architecture

Design or refactor services so business rules stay separate from databases, APIs, and frameworks. Uses Ports and Adapters—interfaces and their implementations—to define clear boundaries, test workflows, and migrate existing code one feature at a time.

OriginalShow the original description

Design, implement, and refactor Ports & Adapters systems with clear domain boundaries, dependency inversion, and testable use-case orchestration across TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, and Go services. Use when introducing or refactoring toward Ports and Adapters, or when domain logic has become entangled with I/O.

AI rating100/ 100See how to install

Good for

  • Separating business rules from database and API calls
  • Sharing application workflows across HTTP, CLI, and workers
  • Replacing infrastructure while preserving business rules
  • Migrating existing services one feature at a time

Overview

What it does

Helps design, implement, and refactor services so business logic stays separate from databases, external APIs, and frameworks. Ports and Adapters defines connections to the outside through interfaces and places their implementations around the application. The skill organizes inputs and outputs for use cases, which coordinate business workflows, as well as where dependencies are assembled and how files are arranged by feature.

When it helps

Use it when business rules and input/output operations have become tangled, making a service difficult to change or test. It also helps when the same workflow must be available through HTTP, a CLI, and queue processing, or when you want to replace an external service while preserving business rules. For existing systems, the approach is to migrate gradually, starting with one feature and checking behavior through tests.

Example requests

  • “Separate this order workflow into business rules and database access.”
  • “Design a use case that HTTP and CLI interfaces can share.”
  • “Outline the steps and tests for migrating this service one feature at a time.”

Notes

The material covers structural examples in TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, and Go. Business rules should remain free of framework and infrastructure dependencies, with connection details placed in adapters.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Objective evaluation

AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.

Clear instructionsIs it clear when to use it and what it does?
AGoodIt explicitly covers separating business logic from I/O and sharing use cases across multiple entry points.
Concrete stepsAre steps, inputs, outputs, and examples spelled out?
AGoodIt provides six steps from boundary definition to testing, a file layout, and TypeScript implementation examples.
SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodDatabase writes and payment integration appear as implementation examples, with no instructions to execute them in a live environment.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
AGoodIt gives language-specific structures and allows manual wiring in Java without requiring Spring.

The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 19, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md11.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Hexagonal Architecture

Hexagonal architecture (Ports and Adapters) keeps business logic independent from frameworks, transport, and persistence details. The core app depends on abstract ports, and adapters implement those ports at the edges.

When to Use

  • Building new features where long-term maintainability and testability matter.
  • Refactoring layered or framework-heavy code where domain logic is mixed with I/O concerns.
  • Supporting multiple interfaces for the same use case (HTTP, CLI, queue workers, cron jobs).
  • Replacing infrastructure (database, external APIs, message bus) without rewriting business rules.

Use this skill when the request involves boundaries, domain-centric design, refactoring tightly coupled services, or decoupling application logic from specific libraries.

Core Concepts

  • Domain model: Business rules and entities/value objects. No framework imports.
  • Use cases (application layer): Orchestrate domain behavior and workflow steps.
  • Inbound ports: Contracts describing what the application can do (commands/queries/use-case interfaces).
  • Outbound ports: Contracts for dependencies the application needs (repositories, gateways, event publishers, clock, UUID, etc.).
  • Adapters: Infrastructure and delivery implementations of ports (HTTP controllers, DB repositories, queue consumers, SDK wrappers).
  • Composition root: Single wiring location where concrete adapters are bound to use cases.

Outbound port interfaces usually live in the application layer (or in domain only when the abstraction is truly domain-level), while infrastructure adapters implement them.

Dependency direction is always inward:

  • Adapters -> application/domain
  • Application -> port interfaces (inbound/outbound contracts)
  • Domain -> domain-only abstractions (no framework or infrastructure dependencies)
  • Domain -> nothing external

How It Works

Step 1: Model a use case boundary

Define a single use case with a clear input and output DTO. Keep transport details (Express req, GraphQL context, job payload wrappers) outside this boundary.

Step 2: Define outbound ports first

Identify every side effect as a port:

  • persistence (UserRepositoryPort)
  • external calls (BillingGatewayPort)
  • cross-cutting (LoggerPort, ClockPort)

Ports should model capabilities, not technologies.

Step 3: Implement the use case with pure orchestration

Use case class/function receives ports via constructor/arguments. It validates application-level invariants, coordinates domain rules, and returns plain data structures.

Step 4: Build adapters at the edge

  • Inbound adapter converts protocol input to use-case input.
  • Outbound adapter maps app contracts to concrete APIs/ORM/query builders.
  • Mapping stays in adapters, not inside use cases.

Step 5: Wire everything in a composition root

Instantiate adapters, then inject them into use cases. Keep this wiring centralized to avoid hidden service-locator behavior.

Step 6: Test per boundary

  • Unit test use cases with fake ports.
  • Integration test adapters with real infra dependencies.
  • E2E test user-facing flows through inbound adapters.

Architecture Diagram

flowchart LR
  Client["Client (HTTP/CLI/Worker)"] --> InboundAdapter["Inbound Adapter"]
  InboundAdapter -->|"calls"| UseCase["UseCase (Application Layer)"]
  UseCase -->|"uses"| OutboundPort["OutboundPort (Interface)"]
  OutboundAdapter["Outbound Adapter"] -->|"implements"| OutboundPort
  OutboundAdapter --> ExternalSystem["DB/API/Queue"]
  UseCase --> DomainModel["DomainModel"]

Suggested Module Layout

Use feature-first organization with explicit boundaries:

src/
  features/
    orders/
      domain/
        Order.ts
        OrderPolicy.ts
      application/
        ports/
          inbound/
            CreateOrder.ts
          outbound/
            OrderRepositoryPort.ts
            PaymentGatewayPort.ts
        use-cases/
          CreateOrderUseCase.ts
      adapters/
        inbound/
          http/
            createOrderRoute.ts
        outbound/
          postgres/
            PostgresOrderRepository.ts
          stripe/
            StripePaymentGateway.ts
      composition/
        ordersContainer.ts

TypeScript Example

Port definitions

export interface OrderRepositoryPort {
  save(order: Order): Promise<void>;
  findById(orderId: string): Promise<Order | null>;
}

export interface PaymentGatewayPort {
  authorize(input: { orderId: string; amountCents: number }): Promise<{ authorizationId: string }>;
}

Use case

type CreateOrderInput = {
  orderId: string;
  amountCents: number;
};

type CreateOrderOutput = {
  orderId: string;
  authorizationId: string;
};

export class CreateOrderUseCase {
  constructor(
    private readonly orderRepository: OrderRepositoryPort,
    private readonly paymentGateway: PaymentGatewayPort
  ) {}

  async execute(input: CreateOrderInput): Promise<CreateOrderOutput> {
    const order = Order.create({ id: input.orderId, amountCents: input.amountCents });

    const auth = await this.paymentGateway.authorize({
      orderId: order.id,
      amountCents: order.amountCents,
    });

    // markAuthorized returns a new Order instance; it does not mutate in place.
    const authorizedOrder = order.markAuthorized(auth.authorizationId);
    await this.orderRepository.save(authorizedOrder);

    return {
      orderId: order.id,
      authorizationId: auth.authorizationId,
    };
  }
}

Outbound adapter

export class PostgresOrderRepository implements OrderRepositoryPort {
  constructor(private readonly db: SqlClient) {}

  async save(order: Order): Promise<void> {
    await this.db.query(
      "insert into orders (id, amount_cents, status, authorization_id) values ($1, $2, $3, $4)",
      [order.id, order.amountCents, order.status, order.authorizationId]
    );
  }

  async findById(orderId: string): Promise<Order | null> {
    const row = await this.db.oneOrNone("select * from orders where id = $1", [orderId]);
    return row ? Order.rehydrate(row) : null;
  }
}

Composition root

export const buildCreateOrderUseCase = (deps: { db: SqlClient; stripe: StripeClient }) => {
  const orderRepository = new PostgresOrderRepository(deps.db);
  const paymentGateway = new StripePaymentGateway(deps.stripe);

  return new CreateOrderUseCase(orderRepository, paymentGateway);
};

Multi-Language Mapping

Use the same boundary rules across ecosystems; only syntax and wiring style change.

  • TypeScript/JavaScript
    • Ports: application/ports/* as interfaces/types.
    • Use cases: classes/functions with constructor/argument injection.
    • Adapters: adapters/inbound/*, adapters/outbound/*.
    • Composition: explicit factory/container module (no hidden globals).
  • Java
    • Packages: domain, application.port.in, application.port.out, application.usecase, adapter.in, adapter.out.
    • Ports: interfaces in application.port.*.
    • Use cases: plain classes (Spring @Service is optional, not required).
    • Composition: Spring config or manual wiring class; keep wiring out of domain/use-case classes.
  • Kotlin
    • Modules/packages mirror the Java split (domain, application.port, application.usecase, adapter).
    • Ports: Kotlin interfaces.
    • Use cases: classes with constructor injection (Koin/Dagger/Spring/manual).
    • Composition: module definitions or dedicated composition functions; avoid service locator patterns.
  • Go
    • Packages: internal/<feature>/domain, application, ports, adapters/inbound, adapters/outbound.
    • Ports: small interfaces owned by the consuming application package.
    • Use cases: structs with interface fields plus explicit New... constructors.
    • Composition: wire in cmd/<app>/main.go (or dedicated wiring package), keep constructors explicit.

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • Domain entities importing ORM models, web framework types, or SDK clients.
  • Use cases reading directly from req, res, or queue metadata.
  • Returning database rows directly from use cases without domain/application mapping.
  • Letting adapters call each other directly instead of flowing through use-case ports.
  • Spreading dependency wiring across many files with hidden global singletons.

Migration Playbook

  1. Pick one vertical slice (single endpoint/job) with frequent change pain.
  2. Extract a use-case boundary with explicit input/output types.
  3. Introduce outbound ports around existing infrastructure calls.
  4. Move orchestration logic from controllers/services into the use case.
  5. Keep old adapters, but make them delegate to the new use case.
  6. Add tests around the new boundary (unit + adapter integration).
  7. Repeat slice-by-slice; avoid full rewrites.

Refactoring Existing Systems

  • Strangler approach: keep current endpoints, route one use case at a time through new ports/adapters.
  • No big-bang rewrites: migrate per feature slice and preserve behavior with characterization tests.
  • Facade first: wrap legacy services behind outbound ports before replacing internals.
  • Composition freeze: centralize wiring early so new dependencies do not leak into domain/use-case layers.
  • Slice selection rule: prioritize high-churn, low-blast-radius flows first.
  • Rollback path: keep a reversible toggle or route switch per migrated slice until production behavior is verified.

Testing Guidance (Same Hexagonal Boundaries)

  • Domain tests: test entities/value objects as pure business rules (no mocks, no framework setup).
  • Use-case unit tests: test orchestration with fakes/stubs for outbound ports; assert business outcomes and port interactions.
  • Outbound adapter contract tests: define shared contract suites at port level and run them against each adapter implementation.
  • Inbound adapter tests: verify protocol mapping (HTTP/CLI/queue payload to use-case input and output/error mapping back to protocol).
  • Adapter integration tests: run against real infrastructure (DB/API/queue) for serialization, schema/query behavior, retries, and timeouts.
  • End-to-end tests: cover critical user journeys through inbound adapter -> use case -> outbound adapter.
  • Refactor safety: add characterization tests before extraction; keep them until new boundary behavior is stable and equivalent.

Best Practices Checklist

  • Domain and use-case layers import only internal types and ports.
  • Every external dependency is represented by an outbound port.
  • Validation occurs at boundaries (inbound adapter + use-case invariants).
  • Use immutable transformations (return new values/entities instead of mutating shared state).
  • Errors are translated across boundaries (infra errors -> application/domain errors).
  • Composition root is explicit and easy to audit.
  • Use cases are testable with simple in-memory fakes for ports.
  • Refactoring starts from one vertical slice with behavior-preserving tests.
  • Language/framework specifics stay in adapters, never in domain rules.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-architecture-audit

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill