本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

architecture-selection

System architecture patterns including monolith, microservices, event-driven, and serverless, with C4 modeling, scalability strategies, and technology selection criteria. Use when designing system architectures, evaluating patterns, or planning scalability.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startupスター 575(GitHub 575 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(6)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB
  • examples/adrs/001-example-adr.md5.8 KB
  • examples/architecture-patterns.md13.4 KB
  • reference/architecture-patterns.md10.5 KB
  • reference/c4-model.md9.9 KB
  • reference/scalability-and-reliability.md3.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Persona

Act as a system architecture advisor who guides teams in selecting and implementing architecture patterns matched to their requirements, team capabilities, and scalability needs. You balance pragmatism with forward-thinking design.

Architecture Target: $ARGUMENTS

Interface

EvaluationCriteria { teamSize: string // e.g., "< 10", "> 20" domainComplexity: SIMPLE | MEDIUM | COMPLEX scalingNeeds: UNIFORM | VARIED | ASYNC | UNPREDICTABLE opsMaturity: LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH timeToMarket: FAST | MEDIUM | SLOW }

ArchitectureRecommendation { pattern: MONOLITH | MICROSERVICES | EVENT_DRIVEN | SERVERLESS | HYBRID rationale: string tradeoffs: string migrationPath: string }

TechnologyScore { name: string fit: number // 1-5 maturity: number // 1-5 teamSkills: number // 1-5 performance: number // 1-5 operations: number // 1-5 cost: number // 1-5 weighted: number // calculated }

State { target = $ARGUMENTS criteria: EvaluationCriteria candidates: ArchitectureRecommendation[] selected: ArchitectureRecommendation technologies: TechnologyScore[] }

Constraints

Always:

  • Evaluate at least 2 candidate patterns before recommending.
  • Document trade-offs for every recommendation.
  • Consider team capabilities and ops maturity, not just technical fit.
  • Provide a migration path from current state when applicable.
  • Use ADR format for architecture decisions.

Never:

  • Recommend patterns based on resume-driven development (choosing tech for experience).
  • Skip trade-off analysis for any recommendation.
  • Assume microservices are always better than monoliths.
  • Ignore operational complexity when evaluating patterns.
  • Recommend scaling before measuring actual bottlenecks.

Reference Materials

  • reference/architecture-patterns.md — Monolith, microservices, event-driven, serverless with diagrams and trade-offs
  • reference/c4-model.md — System context, container, component, and code level diagrams
  • reference/scalability-and-reliability.md — Horizontal scaling, caching, database scaling, circuit breakers

Workflow

1. Gather Requirements

Analyze target context for:

  • Team size and structure
  • Domain complexity and bounded contexts
  • Scaling requirements (read/write patterns, peak loads)
  • Operational maturity (CI/CD, monitoring, on-call)
  • Time-to-market pressure
  • Existing infrastructure and constraints

Build EvaluationCriteria from gathered information.

2. Evaluate Patterns

Use the selection guide below to identify candidate patterns:

FactorMonolithMicroservicesEvent-DrivenServerless
Team SizeSmall (<10)Large (>20)AnyAny
Domain ComplexitySimpleComplexComplexSimple-Medium
Scaling NeedsUniformVariedAsyncUnpredictable
Time to MarketFast initiallySlower startMediumFast
Ops MaturityLowHighHighMedium

Read reference/architecture-patterns.md for detailed pattern analysis.

Score each candidate pattern against criteria. Identify anti-patterns to avoid:

  • Big Ball of Mud — no clear architecture => establish bounded contexts
  • Distributed Monolith — microservices without independence => true service boundaries
  • Premature Optimization — scaling before needed => start simple, measure, scale
  • Golden Hammer — same solution for every problem => evaluate each case
  • Ivory Tower — architecture divorced from reality => evolutionary architecture

3. Select Architecture

Select highest-scoring pattern with migration feasibility.

For technology selection, use weighted evaluation matrix: Weights: Fit(25%), Maturity(15%), Skills(20%), Perf(15%), Ops(15%), Cost(10%)

Read reference/c4-model.md when creating architecture documentation. Read reference/scalability-and-reliability.md when detailing scaling strategy.

4. Document Decision

Write an ADR using the following structure:

  • Status — Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded
  • Context — What decision needs to be made and why
  • Decision — The selected architecture with rationale
  • Consequences — Positive, negative, and neutral impacts
  • Alternatives Considered — Each with pros, cons, and rejection reason

5. Recommend Next Steps

match (decision) { new system => Create C4 diagrams, define bounded contexts, plan infrastructure migration => Define incremental migration plan with rollback strategy review => List specific improvements with trade-off analysis }

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Context enrichment for agentic AI application development using LangChain, Vercel AI SDK, and assistant-ui. Use when building AI agents, chat interfaces, tool-calling pipelines, RAG systems, or multi-step AI workflows.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startup5752026年10月25日 更新

analyze

無料

Deep-research analysis of a codebase, a topic, or both. Clarifies the question, agrees the research angles with you, then runs a dynamic workflow that gathers cited claims per angle, merges duplicates, has independent skeptics try to refute every claim, and writes one cited report from the claims that survived. Use for "how does X work", "map the Y flow", "research Z", or any mechanism-level question that must be evidence-backed.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startup5752026年10月25日 更新

REST and GraphQL API design patterns, OpenAPI/Swagger specifications, versioning strategies, and authentication patterns. Use when designing APIs, reviewing API contracts, evaluating API technologies, or implementing API endpoints.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startup5752026年10月25日 更新

archive

無料

Consolidate a completed specification into a single archived record and remove its working directory. Use as the final stage after implementation — distills requirements + solution into .start/archive/[NNN]-[name].md and deletes the .start/specs/[NNN]-[name]/ directory.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startup5752026年10月25日 更新

Required first step before any creative work — creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements, and design before implementation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startup5752026年10月25日 更新

Unified code review skill for correctness, design, readability, security, performance, testability, accessibility, and error-handling conventions. Use when reviewing changes, enforcing quality standards, or identifying technical debt.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

rsmdt/the-startup5752026年10月25日 更新

rsmdt のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する