| name | suggest-scalability |
| description | Decide whether a Cardano project needs Layer 2 / scaling at all, and if so which approach and topology fits — then route to the bundled implementation docs. Covers the L1-first sufficiency check (including the Leios throughput horizon), Hydra Head (the only mainnet-ready L2) vs Mithril vs in-development rollups (Midgard, Gummiworm), and Hydra topology selection (basic 2-party, delegated head, managed, star-shaped). Triggers: "do I need Layer 2", "which L2", "scale my dApp", "Hydra vs rollup", "Midgard", "Gummiworm", "state channel", "payment channel", "sidechain", "increase throughput", "sub-second finality", "which Hydra topology", "off-chain scaling", "reduce fees at scale". |
| allowed-tools | Read Grep Glob |
| disallowed-tools | Bash Edit Write WebFetch WebSearch |
Suggest a Cardano Scalability Approach
Help a developer decide whether their project needs Layer 2 / scaling, choose the right approach if it does, and — for Hydra — pick a topology, then hand off to the bundled implementation docs. This skill is the decision layer: Its job is to stop unnecessary L2 adoption and to route real requirements to the right shape.
When to use
- Developer asks "do I need Layer 2 / a sidechain / a rollup for this?"
- Comparing scaling approaches (Hydra Head vs Mithril vs emerging rollups)
- A project has a specific throughput, fee, or sub-second-finality requirement and wants to know if L1 can meet it
- Choosing a Hydra topology (2-party channel, delegated head, managed, star-shaped)
- Someone is about to reach for Hydra by default and needs a reality check first
- Planning where a workload should live before committing to an architecture
When NOT to use
- Choosing SDKs, on-chain languages, or general infrastructure — use
suggest-tooling
- The scaling decision is already made and the developer needs to build — read the bundled Hydra docs directly (
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../docs/sources/hydra/).
- Setting up a local devnet for testing — use
setup-devnet
- Explaining the eUTxO model or L1 concurrency patterns (batching, UTxO indexing) — that is often the real fix instead of L2; cover it with
explain-eutxo and cardano-context
- General "how does Hydra work" explanation — the bundled Hydra docs answer that better than a skill
Key principles
- L1-first. Most projects do not need L2. Cardano L1 handles the large majority of dApp workloads. Recommending L2 speculatively adds real operational burden (every participant runs and funds a node) for no benefit. The default answer is "stay on L1."
- Demand a real, confirmed requirement. Only pursue L2 against a specific, measured throughput or latency need L1 cannot meet. "It might get big someday" is not a requirement.
- Rule out cheaper fixes first. Many "throughput" problems are eUTxO contention, solved on L1 by batching, UTxO indexing, or multiple validator UTxOs — not by L2. Check this before scaling.
- Isomorphism is the payoff. Hydra transactions use the same format, validators, and ledger rules as L1, so on-chain code ported into a head behaves identically. This is why Hydra beats a foreign execution environment when it fits.
- Never recommend frontier tech for production. Emerging rollup-style L2s are "watch this space," not production choices. Say so plainly and verify their status upstream.
- Route, don't reimplement. Once the shape is chosen, point at the bundled docs for the lifecycle, APIs, and config. Read them rather than answering node/tx details from memory.
Workflow
Step 1: Establish whether scaling is even needed
Interview only what you can't infer:
- What is the bottleneck, concretely? Throughput (tx/s), per-tx fee, confirmation latency, or node bootstrap/sync time? Each points to a different answer (and some to no L2).
- Is the requirement measured or assumed? Ask for the actual number. If there isn't one, the answer is almost certainly "stay on L1 and measure first."
- Is the real problem eUTxO contention? If the pain is "users collide on the same UTxO," the fix is usually an L1 design pattern (batching, UTxO indexing, multiple script UTxOs), not L2. Hand to
explain-eutxo / cardano-context.
- Who transacts, and with whom? A small and fixed set of counterparties transacting among themselves is the signal for a state channel. A large and variable set of counterparties is the signal against one, or for a different scaling solution.
The Leios horizon (context, not a dependency). Ouroboros Leios is L1 throughput scaling (input-endorser pipelining) that raises Cardano's own tx/s ceiling substantially. It is protocol research, not something a dApp integrates, but it matters to this decision: a throughput requirement that L1 can't meet today may be met by L1 itself before a bespoke L2 pays off. For status and scope, read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../docs/sources/ouroboros-leios/ (start with the latest status-report-*.md and technical-report-*.md). Treat it as a reason to be more conservative about adopting L2, never as a shippable component.
Step 2: Search the bundled documentation
Ground scaling claims in the bundled sources rather than memory:
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../docs/sources/hydra/ — Hydra Head protocol (start with docs/protocol-overview.md, then topologies/ and use-cases/)${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../docs/sources/ouroboros-leios/ — Leios L1-throughput research
Mithril and emerging rollups are not bundled as sources — verify their status upstream and flag them as such.
Step 3: Choose an approach
| Approach | Type | Status | Reach for it when… |
|---|
| Stay on L1 (+ design patterns) | — | Production | The default. Requirement is unmeasured, low-frequency, or is really eUTxO contention solvable by batching/indexing. |
| Hydra Head | Isomorphic state channel (L2) | Production | A known, fixed set of parties transacts frequently among themselves, each can run a node and stay online. |
| Mithril | Snapshot certificates | Production | You need fast node bootstrap or light-client sync — not tx throughput. Often complements L1, not a scaling layer for dApp txs. |
| Emerging L2 | Midgard / Gummiworm | Experimental | Not yet — none is mainnet-ready. See the breakout below. |
Hydra fits when all of these hold:
- The participant set is small and fixed (two payment counterparties, a fixed group of players, a set of auction delegates). A head is not a public network — parties are enrolled when the head opens.
- Those parties transact with each other at high frequency and want near-instant, zero-fee L2 confirmation.
- Every participant can run a
hydra-node and stay online — the head only makes progress while participants are responsive (unanimous signing).
- Funds can be committed into the head and settled back to L1 on close (incremental commit/decommit move UTxOs in and out of a running head without closing it).
Hydra does NOT fit when:
- You need to serve arbitrary, unknown users (an open public dApp backend) — parties must be enrolled up front.
- Participants are frequently offline — the head stalls without all of them.
- The workload is low-frequency — L1 finality is simpler and sufficient.
Decision-time gotchas (factor these in before recommending Hydra):
- Contestation period (default 12h on mainnet, and mainnet should be ≥ 12h) governs dispute/close timing — it sets a floor on worst-case settlement latency, not the fast L2 path.
- A node per participant, each funded to pay L1 fees for protocol transactions — real ops cost.
- All parties must configure identical peers, contestation-period, deposit-period, and ledger params, or the head won't form or open. This is the #1 setup failure; the bundled
docs/configuration.md documents it.
Emerging L2 (in development — not bundled sources). These target the case Hydra cannot serve: L2 without a known, bounded, always-online participant set. All are pre-mainnet; their designs and status move fast, so verify upstream (none is in docs/sources/) and never recommend one for a production build.
| Emerging L2 | Type | Status |
|---|
| Midgard | Optimistic rollup | In development |
| Gummiworm | Validium-style (off-chain data availability) | In development |
For anything shipping to mainnet today, the realistic answer is Hydra (if the participant shape fits) or stay on L1. Point at these only as the direction the space is heading.
Step 4: If Hydra — pick a topology
Route the confirmed Hydra case to a topology using four questions, then map to the bundled docs.
- How many parties per head? 2, a small fixed group, or many transient clients?
- Custody / trust: must every party hold its own keys and be able to close unilaterally, or is a trusted always-on operator acceptable?
- Online assumptions: can all parties come online to make progress, or do you need an operator that is always up on their behalf?
- On-chain logic: pure payments, or Plutus validators / escrow / HTLCs running inside the head?
| Use-case shape | Topology | Bundled reference |
|---|
| 2 parties; micropayments, pay-per-use, inter-wallet transfer | Basic (2-party channel) | topologies/basic/, use-cases/payments/{pay-per-use-api,inter-wallet-payments}/ |
| Small fixed group; in-head Plutus rules (game, escrow, order matching) | Basic / managed | topologies/basic/, topologies/managed/, use-cases/other/poker-game/ |
| Many transient clients served by ≥1 always-on operator | Delegated head | topologies/delegated-head/, use-cases/auctions/always-on-service-*/ |
| Delegated bidding; L1 escrow + L2 process | Delegated head / star-shaped | topologies/star-shaped/, use-cases/auctions/delegated-voucher-*/ |
Read the matched topologies/*/index.{md,mdx} and use-cases/*/index.md before proposing a design —
they carry the trade-offs and the operator/trust assumptions each shape implies.
Step 5: Hand off to implementation
Once the approach and topology are chosen, this skill's job is done — route to the bundled Hydra docs rather than restating them. A useful reading order:
- Understand —
docs/protocol-overview.md, then the chosen topologies/ and use-cases/ page.
- Set up nodes —
docs/getting-started.md, docs/configuration.md (backend, keys, zero-fee ledger params, the cross-party consistency rules), docs/how-to/operating-hydra.md.
- Drive the head —
docs/how-to/submit-transaction.md (L2 NewTx), docs/how-to/deposit-with-javascript-sdk.md (deposit via @hydra-sdk), docs/how-to/incremental-commit.md, docs/how-to/incremental-decommit.md, docs/how-to/selective-fanout.md, and docs/api-behavior.md (history replay, filtering).
- Build securely —
docs/how-to/best-practise-dapp.md for commit/deposit validator checks.
Note the API is under active change (ADR-33, adr/2026-03-10_033-directly-open-head.md): the head opens empty and funds enter via deposits. Pin the node version and re-check output tags after upgrades — the bundled docs currently show some inconsistency between Commit* and Deposit* naming, so trust the shipped api-behavior.md / API reference for the version you run.
Step 6: State the trade-offs plainly
Whatever you recommend, close with the honest cost:
- Staying on L1: simplest, no new ops. If contention is the issue, name the L1 pattern that fixes it.
- Hydra: zero-fee, sub-second L2 among enrolled parties — but a node per participant, all-online liveness, and contestation-period settlement latency on close. Worth it only for the right participant shape at real frequency.
- Emerging rollups: promising direction, not production. Revisit later; don't build on them now.
References
- Bundled Hydra docs:
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../docs/sources/hydra/ (topologies, use-cases, how-tos, ADRs)
- Bundled Leios research:
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../docs/sources/ouroboros-leios/
- Hand-off:
suggest-tooling (SDKs/infra), explain-eutxo (L1 contention patterns), setup-devnet (local testing)
- Hydra project site: https://hydra.family/head-protocol
