home / skills / cloudai-x / claude-workflow-v2 / designing-architecture
This skill helps you design software architectures and select patterns for projects, guiding structure, trade-offs, and scalable decisions.
npx playbooks add skill cloudai-x/claude-workflow-v2 --skill designing-architectureReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: designing-architecture
description: Designs software architecture and selects appropriate patterns for projects. Use when designing systems, choosing architecture patterns, structuring projects, making technical decisions, or when asked about microservices, monoliths, or architectural approaches.
---
# Designing Architecture
## Architecture Decision Workflow
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
```
## Pattern Selection Guide
### By Project Size
| Size | Recommended Pattern |
|------|---------------------|
| Small (<10K LOC) | Simple MVC/Layered |
| Medium (10K-100K) | Clean Architecture |
| Large (>100K) | Modular Monolith or Microservices |
### By Team Size
| Team | Recommended |
|------|-------------|
| 1-3 devs | Monolith with clear modules |
| 4-10 devs | Modular Monolith |
| 10+ devs | Microservices (if justified) |
## Common Patterns
### 1. Layered Architecture
```
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ 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
### 2. Clean Architecture
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Frameworks & Drivers │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ Interface Adapters │ │
│ │ ┌─────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Application │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌─────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Domain │ │ │ │
│ │ │ └─────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └─────────────────────┘ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
```
**Use when**: Complex business logic, long-lived projects, testability is key
### 3. Hexagonal (Ports & Adapters)
```
┌──────────┐
│ HTTP API │
└────┬─────┘
│ Port
┌────────▼────────┐
│ │
│ Application │
│ Core │
│ │
└────────┬────────┘
│ Port
┌────▼─────┐
│ Database │
└──────────┘
```
**Use when**: Need to swap external dependencies, multiple entry points
### 4. Event-Driven Architecture
```
Producer → Event Bus → Consumer
│
├─→ Consumer
│
└─→ Consumer
```
**Use when**: Loose coupling needed, async processing, scalability
### 5. CQRS (Command Query Responsibility Segregation)
```
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ Commands │ │ Queries │
│ (Write) │ │ (Read) │
└──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘
│ │
▼ ▼
Write Model Read Model
│ │
└────────┬───────────┘
▼
Event Store
```
**Use when**: Different read/write scaling, complex domains, event sourcing
## Directory Structure Patterns
### Feature-Based (Recommended for medium+)
```
src/
├── features/
│ ├── users/
│ │ ├── api/
│ │ ├── components/
│ │ ├── hooks/
│ │ ├── services/
│ │ └── types/
│ └── orders/
│ ├── api/
│ ├── components/
│ └── ...
├── shared/
│ ├── components/
│ ├── hooks/
│ └── utils/
└── app/
└── ...
```
### Layer-Based (Simple apps)
```
src/
├── controllers/
├── services/
├── models/
├── repositories/
└── utils/
```
## Decision Framework
When making architectural decisions, evaluate against these criteria:
1. **Simplicity** - Start simple, evolve when needed
2. **Team Skills** - Match architecture to team capabilities
3. **Requirements** - Let business needs drive decisions
4. **Scalability** - Consider growth trajectory
5. **Maintainability** - Optimize for change
## Trade-off Analysis Template
Use this template to document architectural decisions:
```markdown
## 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]
```
## Validation Checklist
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 documented
```
If validation fails, reconsider the pattern selection or adjust the implementation approach.
This skill designs software architecture and recommends suitable patterns for projects of varying size and complexity. It helps structure codebases, choose between monoliths and microservices, and document trade-offs for technical decisions. The guidance focuses on pragmatic choices that match team skills and business requirements.
It assesses requirements, constraints, project and team size, then suggests architecture patterns (layered, clean, hexagonal, event-driven, CQRS) and directory structures. It provides a decision framework, a trade-off template, and validation checklists to justify and verify choices. The outputs include recommended patterns, directory organization, and a documented rationale for the selected approach.
How do I decide between modular monolith and microservices?
Evaluate team size, operational maturity, coupling between domains, and deployment complexity. Prefer a modular monolith until microservices are justified by independent scaling, team autonomy, or domain boundaries.
When should I use CQRS or event sourcing?
Use CQRS when read/write workloads have different scaling needs or when read models must be highly optimized. Combine with event sourcing if auditability, temporal queries, or reconstruction of state are required; otherwise weigh added complexity.