From cc10x
Designs greenfield system architecture: maps functionality flows, defines components, plans APIs, schemas, auth, and observability. Use for new multi-component or integration-heavy work instead of retrofitting existing code.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/cc10x:architectureThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Design systems from scratch: map flows, then draw components. For retrofitting existing code, use `codebase-hygiene` instead.
Design systems from scratch: map flows, then draw components. For retrofitting existing code, use codebase-hygiene instead.
| Request type | Use |
|---|---|
| New system/major feature (greenfield) | This skill |
| Existing code with shallow modules | codebase-hygiene |
| Multi-component integration | This skill |
| Single-component refactor | planning + building |
Map every user flow end-to-end before designing any component:
Flow: [name]
1. [step] → [what the system does] → [what the user sees]
2. [step] → [what the system does] → [what the user sees]
Error paths:
- [error] → [system response] → [user sees]
Every flow must have its error paths mapped. Unmapped error paths become unmapped components.
Translate flows into components:
For each component:
Before finalizing any component boundary, apply the Deletion Test and Two-Adapter Rule as defined in cc10x:codebase-design. A component that fails the deletion test (complexity vanishes if deleted) or fails the two-adapter rule (it is a port with only one adapter — an ordinary caller or test exercising the interface is not an adapter) is not a real boundary yet — fold it into its caller or defer the split until a second concrete need appears.
Box diagram: your system + external systems it talks to. One paragraph per external system: what it provides, what you depend on.
Internal boxes: web app, API, database, queue, worker. Arrows show data flow. One paragraph per container: technology choice, responsibility.
Inside each container: the modules/classes. Arrows show call relationships. This is what the builder will implement.
Use LSP to understand existing architecture before designing new:
Design APIs from the flow, not from the data model:
// Good: functionality-aligned
POST /orders/{id}/cancel → { status, cancelledAt }
// Bad: data-model-aligned
PUT /orders/{id} → { ..., status: "cancelled", ... }
For each integration:
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System | [name] |
| Protocol | [HTTP/gRPC/CLI/message queue] |
| Direction | [we call them / they call us / both] |
| Contract | [request/response schema or event schema] |
| Failure mode | [what happens when it's down] |
| Retry policy | [retries, backoff, circuit breaker] |
| Class | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Owned | We control the code and deploy it | Internal service |
| Wrapped | We depend on it but wrap it in our interface | Third-party SDK behind adapter |
| Consumed | We depend on it directly, no wrapper | External API called directly |
| Infra | Platform-level dependency | Database, message queue |
Wrapped dependencies can be swapped. Consumed dependencies cannot. Track which is which — it determines your coupling risk.
For each component:
The deep-module vocabulary (module, interface, depth, seam, adapter, leverage, locality, deletion test, two-adapter rule) is defined in cc10x:codebase-design. Use those terms exactly.
Three extra terms specific to greenfield architecture (not in codebase-design):
Before finalizing any component boundary, apply the Deletion Test and Two-Adapter Rule as defined in cc10x:codebase-design. A component that fails the deletion test (complexity vanishes if deleted) or fails the two-adapter rule (it is a port with only one adapter — an ordinary caller or test exercising the interface is not an adapter) is not a real boundary yet — fold it into its caller or defer the split until a second concrete need appears.
When a module's interface is non-trivial, design it twice:
Compare both. The first design is usually shallow — it mirrors the implementation. The second design reveals what the interface should hide. Use the better one, or a hybrid.
Why: One-pass interfaces optimize for the implementer. Two-pass interfaces optimize for the caller.
For architectural decisions with material trade-offs:
### Decision: [Title]
**Context:** [why this decision is needed]
**Options:** [2-3 alternatives with trade-offs]
**Decision:** [what was chosen]
**Rejected:** [what was not chosen and why]
**Consequences:** [what this enables and prevents]
**Reversibility:** [reversible or irreversible — irreversible decisions need more evidence]
npx claudepluginhub romiluz13/cc10x --plugin cc10xGuides system design, architecture reviews, ADR creation, hexagonal compliance, Mermaid/PlantUML diagram generation, and layer dependency enforcement.
Transforms stack selections into a coherent system design with explicit boundaries, integration patterns, and architecture decision records (ARC-). Consumes tech, risk, and feature entries, and produces documented architecture decisions with machine-checkable conformance rules.
Designs software architectures evaluating monolith/microservices/serverless/event-driven/CQRS/hexagonal patterns; generates C4 diagrams, ADRs, bounded contexts, and quality analysis.