designing-architecture — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited designing-architecture (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Copy this checklist and track progress:
Architecture Design Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Understand requirements and constraints
- [ ] Step 2: Assess project size and team capabilities
- [ ] Step 3: Select architecture pattern
- [ ] Step 4: Define directory structure
- [ ] Step 5: Document trade-offs and decision
- [ ] Step 6: Validate against decision framework| Size | Recommended Pattern |
|---|---|
| Small (<10K LOC) | Simple MVC/Layered |
| Medium (10K-100K) | Clean Architecture |
| Large (>100K) | Modular Monolith or Microservices |
| Team | Recommended |
|---|---|
| 1-3 devs | Monolith with clear modules |
| 4-10 devs | Modular Monolith |
| 10+ devs | Microservices (if justified) |
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Presentation │ ← UI, API Controllers
├─────────────────────────────┤
│ Application │ ← Use Cases, Services
├─────────────────────────────┤
│ Domain │ ← Business Logic, Entities
├─────────────────────────────┤
│ Infrastructure │ ← Database, External APIs
└─────────────────────────────┘Use when: Simple CRUD apps, small teams, quick prototypes
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Frameworks & Drivers │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Interface Adapters │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Application │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Domain │ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘Use when: Complex business logic, long-lived projects, testability is key
┌──────────┐
│ HTTP API │
└────┬─────┘
│ Port
┌────────▼────────┐
│ │
│ Application │
│ Core │
│ │
└────────┬────────┘
│ Port
┌────▼─────┐
│ Database │
└──────────┘Use when: Need to swap external dependencies, multiple entry points
Producer → Event Bus → Consumer
│
├─→ Consumer
│
└─→ ConsumerUse when: Loose coupling needed, async processing, scalability
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ Commands │ │ Queries │
│ (Write) │ │ (Read) │
└──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘
│ │
▼ ▼
Write Model Read Model
│ │
└────────┬───────────┘
▼
Event StoreUse when: Different read/write scaling, complex domains, event sourcing
src/
├── features/
│ ├── users/
│ │ ├── api/
│ │ ├── components/
│ │ ├── hooks/
│ │ ├── services/
│ │ └── types/
│ └── orders/
│ ├── api/
│ ├── components/
│ └── ...
├── shared/
│ ├── components/
│ ├── hooks/
│ └── utils/
└── app/
└── ...src/
├── controllers/
├── services/
├── models/
├── repositories/
└── utils/When making architectural decisions, evaluate against these criteria:
Use this template to document architectural decisions:
## Decision: [What we're deciding]
### Context
[Why this decision is needed now]
### Options Considered
1. Option A: [Description]
2. Option B: [Description]
### Trade-offs
| Criteria | Option A | Option B |
| ---------------- | -------- | -------- |
| Complexity | Low | High |
| Scalability | Medium | High |
| Team familiarity | High | Low |
### Decision
We chose [Option] because [reasoning].
### Consequences
- [What this enables]
- [What this constrains]After selecting an architecture, validate against:
Architecture Validation:
- [ ] Matches project size and complexity
- [ ] Aligns with team skills and experience
- [ ] Supports current requirements
- [ ] Allows for anticipated growth
- [ ] Dependencies flow inward (core has no external deps)
- [ ] Clear boundaries between modules/layers
- [ ] Testing strategy is feasible
- [ ] Trade-offs are documentedIf validation fails, reconsider the pattern selection or adjust the implementation approach.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.