Software Architecture Design

SkillMedia

Designs runtime and platform architecture inside a chosen solution. Use when deciding modular monolith vs services, consistency, resilience, or estate topology.

Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.

Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.

Then ask your AI: use the Software Architecture Design skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public in frameworks/shared-skills/skills/software-architecture-design/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Use this skill for deep software and platform architecture decisions inside a known solution shape rather than implementation details within a single service or component.

If the question starts from a business workflow, system landscape, target state, or phased cross-system migration, use ../software-solution-architecture/SKILL.md first and come here for runtime, decomposition, and operability depth.

Treat estate modernization, platform engineering, and AI-native interoperability as optional deep dives. Do not load them unless the user is explicitly asking for those concerns.

Quick Reference

TaskPattern/ToolKey ResourcesWhen to Use
Choose architecture styleLayered, Microservices, Event-driven, Serverlessmodern-patterns.mdGreenfield projects, major refactors
Design for scaleLoad balancing, Caching, Sharding, Read replicasscalability-reliability-guide.mdHigh-traffic systems, performance goals
Ensure resilienceCircuit breakers, Retries, Bulkheads, Graceful degradationscalability-reliability-guide.mdDistributed systems, external dependencies
Document decisionsArchitecture Decision Record (ADR)adr-template.mdMajor technical decisions, tradeoff analysis
Define service boundariesDomain-Driven Design (DDD), Bounded contextsmicroservices-template.mdMicroservices decomposition
Model data consistencyACID vs BASE, Event sourcing, CQRS, Saga patternsdata-architecture-patterns.mdMulti-service transactions
Plan observabilitySLIs/SLOs/SLAs, Distributed tracing, Metrics, Logsarchitecture-blueprint.mdProduction readiness
Migrate from monolithStrangler fig, Database decomposition, Shadow trafficmigration-modernization-guide.mdLegacy modernization
Design inter-service commsAPI Gateway, Service mesh, BFF patternapi-gateway-service-mesh.mdMicroservices networking
Design delivery platformIDP, golden paths, fitness functionsfitness-functions-governance.mdMulti-team platforms, governance
Rationalize service sprawlBounded-context platforms, repo-vs-runtime matrix, platform scorecardsestate-modernization.md20+ repos, too many services, uneven platform maturity
Plan estate modernizationPlatform-first migration waves, consolidation, compatibility boundariesestate-modernization-blueprint.mdPolyrepo estates, regulated migrations, legacy reduction
Design AI-native systemsRAG boundaries, tool gateways, agent interoperability, MCP, A2Aarchitecture-trends.mdLLM-powered products when architecture, not implementation, is the main question

When to Use This Skill

Invoke when working on:

  • Software shape inside a known solution: Turning a chosen solution shape into runtime boundaries, bounded contexts, and platform decisions
  • System decomposition: Deciding between monolith, modular monolith, microservices
  • Architecture patterns: Event-driven, CQRS, layered, hexagonal, serverless
  • Platform architecture: Internal developer platforms, golden paths, policy and delivery guardrails
  • Estate modernization: Too many repos, too many runtime units, polyrepo rationalization, platform-first operating models
  • Data architecture: Consistency models, sharding, replication, CQRS patterns
  • Scalability design: Load balancing, caching strategies, database scaling
  • Resilience patterns: Circuit breakers, retries, bulkheads, graceful degradation
  • API boundary design: Service-to-service contract posture, versioning strategy, and integration shape when the boundary decision is architectural
  • Architecture decisions: ADRs, tradeoff analysis, technology selection
  • Migration planning: Monolith decomposition, strangler fig, database separation
  • AI-native architecture: RAG boundaries, tool gateways, and interoperability protocols when the request is architecture-level rather than tool/server implementation

When NOT to Use This Skill

Use other skills instead for:

Boundary Rules

  • This skill owns runtime boundaries, deployable-unit decisions, data consistency tradeoffs, resilience internals, and platform defaults.
  • Start from the simplest architecture that satisfies the constraints; do not default to microservices, event sourcing, service mesh, or multi-agent splits without explicit evidence.
  • If the unresolved question is still "which systems participate, where is the system of record, or what is the target-state landscape?" route back to software-solution-architecture.
  • If the unresolved question is implementation of agent protocols, tool servers, or runtime-specific integrations, route to ai-agents or agents-mcp.

Decision Tree: Choosing Architecture Pattern

Primary question: [What kind of architecture problem is this?]
    ├─ Large estate with many repos/services and rising cognitive load?
    │   ├─ Runtime count is the main problem → Bounded-context platforms + selective consolidation
    │   ├─ Delivery inconsistency is the main problem → IDP + golden paths + scorecards
    │   └─ Both are true → Platform-first modernization, then consolidate low-value runtime units
    │
    ├─ Deterministic workflow, known steps?
    │   ├─ Single deployable acceptable → Modular Monolith
    │   ├─ Independent teams/capabilities required → Sequential or event-driven services
    │   └─ Burst-driven or edge-triggered workload → Serverless / event-driven
    │
    ├─ Adaptive workflow with tool use and reasoning?
    │   ├─ One agent can own the task → Single-agent system
    │   ├─ Specialized roles truly needed → Multi-agent with explicit stop conditions
    │   └─ High stakes / regulated workflow → Human-in-the-loop + audit trail
    │
    ├─ Strong consistency inside one domain boundary?
    │   ├─ Keep data and writes together → Monolith or Modular Monolith
    │   └─ Split only at stable bounded contexts → Microservices with owned data
    │
    └─ Need platform-level consistency across many teams?
        ├─ Repeated service creation / compliance needs → IDP + golden paths
        └─ Cross-agent or cross-vendor interoperability → MCP for tools/context, A2A for agent-to-agent

Decision Factors:

  • Default posture: prefer modular monolith over microservices unless independent deployment, ownership, and operability benefits are clear — see the explicit team-size/release-cadence/operational-maturity gates in modern-patterns.md § Modular Monolith vs. Microservices
  • Estate posture: optimize for fewer runtime units before fewer repos; repositories are collaboration units, runtimes are operational cost centers
  • Agent posture: prefer deterministic workflows or a single agent before introducing multi-agent coordination
  • Connectivity posture: prefer gateway plus application-library patterns until mTLS, traffic policy, or shared telemetry needs justify mesh complexity
  • Team structure (Conway's Law) — architecture mirrors org structure
  • Deployment independence needs
  • Consistency and failure-domain boundaries
  • Operational maturity (monitoring, orchestration)
  • Interoperability needs (protocols, contracts, external systems)

Where to split: fracture planes (Skelton and Pais, Team Topologies, 2nd ed., 2025). A fracture plane is "a natural seam in the software system that allows the system to be split easily into two or more parts" — the stonemason's analogy. Candidate planes: business domain bounded context (the default, and the one most splits should map to), regulatory compliance, change cadence, team location, risk, performance isolation, technology, and user personas.

  • Litmus test, quoted: "Does the resulting architecture support more autonomous teams (less dependent teams) with reduced cognitive load (less disparate responsibilities)?" Concretely: after the split, can each team build, test, and deploy its part without coordinating with another team?
  • Composite rule: real boundaries usually combine planes — "we can and should break down a monolith by combining different types of fracture planes," and "often, a combination of fracture planes will be required."
  • Distributed-monolith warning: splitting the software without aligning the boundaries to teams and their release paths buys distribution cost with none of the autonomy. The book quotes Amy Phillips: "If you have microservices but you wait and do end-to-end testing of a combination of them before a release, what you have is a distributed monolith." Coupling also creeps in below the service boundary — shared databases, coupled builds and releases.
  • Make segments team-sized: "it is essential to make software segments team sized so that teams can effectively own and evolve their software in a sustainable way."

See references/modern-patterns.md for detailed pattern descriptions, and references/modern-patterns.md § Connascence to check whether a proposed seam leaves strong coupling crossing it.

Output Guidelines

The references in this skill are background knowledge for you — absorb the patterns and present them as your own expertise. Do not cite internal reference file names (e.g., "from data-architecture-patterns.md") in user-facing output. Users don't know these files exist.

Every architecture recommendation must cover the following; skip elements only with explicit justification:

  • Simplest sufficient topology — state the least-complex architecture that still satisfies requirements
  • Concrete technology picks — name specific technologies (e.g., "Temporal.io for workflow orchestration", not just "an orchestrator")
  • Recommended option + rejected alternatives — what was considered, why alternatives lost
  • What NOT to build — explicitly defer or exclude premature scope
  • Team and process alignment — CODEOWNERS, deployment ownership, on-call boundaries
  • Repo and runtime model — for multi-repo estates, distinguish repo count from deployable count
  • Operability model — deployment topology, failure domains, rollback points, SLO ownership, incident boundaries
  • Migration path — sequencing, cutover strategy, reversibility (for refactors or new subsystems)
  • Key risks and failure modes — named breakpoints, how to detect early
  • Success metrics — measurable indicators: deploy frequency, lead time, error rates, MTTR

Workflow (System-Level)

Use this workflow when a user asks for architecture recommendations, decomposition, or major platform decisions.

  1. Clarify: problem statement, non-goals, constraints, and success metrics
  2. Capture quality attributes: availability, latency, throughput, durability, consistency, security, compliance, cost
  3. Decide workload shape: deterministic workflow, single-agent, or multi-agent; synchronous vs asynchronous
  4. Propose 2–3 candidate architectures and compare tradeoffs
  5. Default to the least-complex viable topology before justifying more distributed patterns
  6. For 20+ repo estates, classify each repo as runtime, adapter, library, channel, platform, tooling, or absorption candidate
  7. Define boundaries: bounded contexts, ownership, APIs/events, protocol contracts, interoperability needs
  8. Decide data strategy: storage, consistency model, schema evolution, migrations
  9. Design for operations: SLOs, failure modes, observability, deployment, DR, incident playbooks
  10. Design governance and safety: policy enforcement, auditability, evaluation gates, rollback controls
  11. Call out scope limits: what NOT to build yet, what to defer, what to buy vs build
  12. Document decisions: write ADRs for key tradeoffs and irreversible choices

Preferred deliverables (pick what fits the request):

  • Architecture blueprint: assets/planning/architecture-blueprint.md
  • Estate modernization blueprint: assets/planning/estate-modernization-blueprint.md
  • Decision record: assets/planning/adr-template.md
  • Pattern deep dives: references/modern-patterns.md, references/scalability-reliability-guide.md

ASCII Flow

Architecture design request
  -> Define quality attributes and system boundaries
  -> Map domain model, dependencies, and failure modes
  -> Choose architecture pattern and integration style
  -> Document rejected options and tradeoffs
  -> Define migration, observability, and verification checks
  -> Hand off implementable decisions and open risks

Known Traps

  • Choosing microservices because the estate already has many repos, even though runtime sprawl and weak ownership are the real issue.
  • Drawing a target-state diagram without a migration sequence, rollback boundary, or compatibility plan between old and new paths.
  • Splitting domains before ownership, on-call, and deploy authority are ready to support the additional surface area.
  • Introducing async and event-driven workflows on every boundary before deciding which paths actually need decoupling.
  • Calling something platform engineering while the golden path remains optional, inconsistent, or under-owned.

Common Anti-Patterns

  • Using deployable services as the default decomposition unit instead of bounded contexts, team ownership, and operational cost.
  • Copying hyperscaler or vendor reference architectures into teams that do not have equivalent scale, tooling, or platform staffing.
  • Designing for peak optional futures instead of the current throughput, failure, compliance, and change-management constraints.
  • Keeping every repo and runtime because each has "some value" despite obvious coordination and governance cost.
  • Conflating "modern" with "more distributed" and "AI-native" with "multi-agent by default."

Navigation

Core References

Read at most 2–3 references per question — pick the ones most relevant to the specific ask. Do not read all of them.

ReferenceContentsWhen to Read
modern-patterns.md11 architecture patterns with decision trees, incl. modular-monolith-vs-microservices gates and cell-based architectureChoosing or comparing patterns
scalability-reliability-guide.mdCAP theorem, DB scaling, caching, circuit breakers, SREScaling or reliability questions
data-architecture-patterns.mdCQRS variants, event sourcing, data mesh, sagas, consistencyData flow across services
migration-modernization-guide.mdStrangler fig, DB decomposition, feature flags, risk assessmentRefactoring a monolith
api-gateway-service-mesh.mdGateway patterns, service mesh, mTLS, observabilityInter-service communication
fitness-functions-governance.mdFitness-function taxonomy (six axes), architectural-vs-domain and monitoring-vs-alarm litmus tests, ArchUnit/NetArchTest/linter rules, herding thresholds, coupling and complexity metricsAutomating architectural governance, making principles enforceable
architecture-trends.mdPlatform engineering, ambient mesh, AI-native systems, MCP/A2ACurrent trends only
estate-modernization.mdRuntime-vs-repo rationalization, bounded-context platforms, consolidation heuristicsMulti-repo estates and service sprawl
operational-playbook.mdArchitecture questions framework, decomposition heuristicsDesign discussion framing

Templates

Planning & Documentation (assets/planning/):

Architecture Patterns (assets/patterns/):

Operations (assets/operations/):

Validation

  • evals/evals.json — trigger, non-trigger, and near-boundary behavioral checks for this skill

Applied-Recipe Toolkits

Related Skills

Freshness Protocol

When users ask version-sensitive questions about architecture patterns, platform engineering, or AI-native systems, verify current information before answering.

Trigger Conditions

  • "What's the best architecture for [use case]?"
  • "Microservices vs monolith — what's the current recommendation?"
  • "What's the latest in platform engineering / service mesh / AI architecture?"
  • "How do I modernize 50/100+ repos or reduce service sprawl?"
  • "Is [pattern] still recommended?"

How to Freshness-Check

  1. Start from data/sources.json and prefer official docs, standards, release notes, and lifecycle pages.
  2. Run a targeted web search for the specific architecture pattern or platform.
  3. Use non-primary sources only as durable background, not as freshness authority.

Load only when the question explicitly involves current trends, vendor-specific constraints, AI-native architecture, or "what's the latest thinking on X?"

  • references/architecture-trends.md — Platform engineering, ambient mesh, MCP/A2A interoperability, AI-native systems
  • references/estate-modernization.md — Estate rationalization, bounded-context platforms, platform-first migration posture
  • data/sources.json — curated resources organized by category:
    • platform_engineering_2026 — IDPs, software catalogs, and template-driven platform defaults
    • estate_modernization_2026 — strangler migration, anti-corruption layers, repo-vs-runtime guidance
    • optional_ai_architecture — MCP/A2A protocols and architecture-level AI interoperability references
    • modern_architecture_2026 — ambient mesh and other version-sensitive platform patterns

If live web access is available, consult 2–3 authoritative sources from data/sources.json and fold findings into the recommendation. If not, answer with durable patterns and explicitly state assumptions that could change (vendor limits, pricing, managed-service capabilities, or lifecycle status).

Fact-Checking

  • Known bugs, regressions, framework/compiler/runtime footguns, and version-specific crash or workaround guidance must be verified against current primary web sources before being treated as current fact.
  • Use web search/web fetch to verify current external facts, versions, pricing, deadlines, regulations, or platform behavior before final answers.
  • Prefer primary sources; report source links and dates for volatile information.
  • If web access is unavailable, state the limitation and mark guidance as unverified.

Learnings Loop

Before applying this skill on a non-trivial task, read learnings.consolidated.md in this directory (and learnings.md if present).

Shortened here. Read the whole file on GitHub.

Signals

GitHub stars
87
Forks
19
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Catalog kind
skill
Gateway key
software-architecture-design
Source
github.com/vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public