跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

hexagonal-architecture

将业务逻辑与数据库、外部 API 和框架分离,整理清晰的边界、用例及测试,支持新服务设计,也支持按功能逐步改造已有代码。

原文查看原文说明

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 评分100分/ 100查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 分离业务规则与数据库及 API 调用
  • 在 HTTP、CLI 和队列间共用流程
  • 保留业务规则并替换外部基础设施
  • 按功能逐步迁移已有服务

中文介绍

功能

帮助设计、实现和改造服务,将业务逻辑与数据库、外部 API、框架分离。Ports and Adapters 通过接口定义与外部的连接点,并将具体实现放在应用外围。资料还整理承担业务流程的用例输入输出、组装依赖的位置,以及按功能划分的文件布局。

适用场景

适合业务规则与输入输出处理混杂,导致修改或测试困难的服务。同一流程需要供 HTTP、CLI 和队列处理共用时,或需要保留业务规则并替换外部服务时,也可使用。对于已有系统,采用从单个功能开始逐步迁移、通过测试确认行为的方式。

使用示例

  • “请将这段订单处理分为业务规则和数据库访问。”
  • “请设计一个供 HTTP 和 CLI 共用的用例。”
  • “请整理逐个功能迁移现有服务的步骤及测试。”

注意事项

资料涵盖 TypeScript、Java、Kotlin 和 Go 的结构示例。业务规则不应依赖框架或外部基础设施,连接部分应放在适配器中。

本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。

客观评估

AI 仅根据 SKILL.md 的内容,从 4 个方面进行了评估。星标数和热度不计入评估。

指令清晰度能否看出何时使用、做什么
A良好明确说明分离业务逻辑与输入输出,以及多个入口共用用例的场景。
步骤具体性步骤、输入输出和示例是否具体
A良好提供从边界定义到测试的六个步骤、文件布局和 TypeScript 实现示例。
安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
A良好数据库写入和支付集成仅为实现示例,未要求在实际环境中执行。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
A良好提供各语言的结构方案,Java 可手动组装,不强制使用 Spring。

总分按每项 A=25 分、B=15 分、C=5 分相加。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月19日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md11.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • 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/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

agent-eval

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

用实际开发任务比较多个编程智能体,记录成功率、可获取的API费用、耗时和重复运行的稳定性,为工具选型及更新后的性能评估提供数据。

  • 用实际开发任务比较智能体
  • 采用新工具或模型前进行评估
  • 检查智能体更新后的性能
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • 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/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月5日 更新

agent-introspection-debugging

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

在AI代理反复失败或重复操作时,记录错误与环境前提、排查原因,采取影响有限的恢复操作,并汇总结果和证据,为有依据的重试与交接提供支持。

  • 排查重复调用工具的原因
  • 调查对话膨胀导致的质量下降
  • 核对文件路径与环境差异
affaan-m/ECC28.3万2026年10月16日 更新

查看 affaan-m 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题