database-schema-design

name	database-schema-design
description	Design storage-model and migration-safety packets for relational, document-heavy, and hybrid data systems. Use when the user needs entity ownership, constraints, indexes, staged schema changes, or queryable-vs-flexible field decisions across backend/fullstack products, internal ops tools, marketing/customer-data workflows, or game/live-ops systems. Route API contracts to api-design, auth-owned identity/session modeling to authentication-setup, verification to backend-testing, and reporting/telemetry follow-through to looker-studio-bigquery or monitoring-observability.
license	MIT
allowed-tools	Bash Read Write Edit Glob Grep
metadata	{"version":"2.1.0","modernization":"2026-04-14T00:00:00.000Z","hardening":"2026-04-19T00:00:00.000Z","tags":"database, schema-design, migrations, indexing, constraints, relational, nosql, backend","platforms":"Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini"}

Database Schema Design

Use this skill when the main job is choosing and evolving the storage model, not dumping generic SQL or ORM snippets.

database-schema-design is the backend storage-design anchor for:

• choosing between relational-first, document-heavy, and hybrid models
• turning domain entities into tables, collections, ownership boundaries, and lifecycle rules
• justifying constraints, indexes, tenant scope, history/audit structures, and deletion/retention behavior
• planning staged schema evolution so migrations, backfills, and cleanup are believable
• handing downstream teams one compact storage-design packet before implementation, verification, reporting, or observability work branches out

Read these support docs before handling larger or riskier work:

• references/storage-decision-matrix.md
• references/schema-review-checklist.md
• references/intake-packets-and-route-outs.md

When to use this skill

• Design a new schema for a product feature, internal tool, admin workflow, customer-data surface, or live-ops/game backend system.
• Refactor an existing storage model with weak constraints, naming drift, poor cardinality modeling, or untrusted indexing.
• Decide which fields must be first-class columns or indexed document fields versus flexible metadata payloads.
• Plan multi-tenant, audit-log, entitlement, status-history, retention, or soft-delete boundaries.
• Review whether a migration is safe, staged realistically, and honest about backfills, compatibility windows, and cleanup.
• Produce one bounded storage packet before implementation or while a risky backend change is being shaped.

When not to use this skill

• The main job is REST/GraphQL contract shape, endpoint behavior, webhook semantics, or versioning → api-design.
• The main job is identity/session/provider setup or auth-owned user/org boundaries → authentication-setup.
• The main job is migration verification, repository coverage, or contract/regression tests → backend-testing.
• The main job is published docs, quickstarts, or developer-facing schema/API explanations → api-documentation.
• The main job is broad hardening beyond data integrity, like secret handling, CSRF, cookies, or abuse controls → security-best-practices.
• The main job is dashboard/reporting presentation or telemetry/alert coverage on top of already-modeled data → looker-studio-bigquery or monitoring-observability.
• The request has no real domain, access pattern, or lifecycle context yet; in that case return the missing questions instead of pretending the schema is settled.

Instructions

Step 1: Classify one primary storage-design packet

Use one primary lane and one smallest useful artifact.

schema_packet:
  workload_shape: oltp | analytics-adjacent | event-log | content-heavy | mixed | unknown
  data_lane: relational-first | document-heavy | hybrid | unknown
  change_type: greenfield | incremental | migration | cleanup | scale-fix
  ownership_focus: product-core | internal-ops | marketing-customer-data | game-live-ops | mixed
  durability_needs: basic | transactional | audit-heavy | compliance-sensitive | unknown
  hottest_risk: integrity | queryability | migration-safety    
           

Normalize first:

1. What are the real business entities or aggregates?
2. Which reads, writes, filters, joins, or reports are highest value?
3. Is this greenfield design, live-system change, or schema cleanup?
4. Which rules are true business invariants versus temporary implementation convenience?
5. Which platform constraints already exist (database engine, ORM, hosted service, compliance, scale)?

Step 2: Gather the minimum credible evidence

Do not design storage from vibes alone. Pull the smallest packet that supports real decisions:

• product/domain objective
• current schema, models, or representative records if they exist
• known reads/writes, filters, joins, search/reporting needs, and retention rules
• tenant/ownership, audit/history, and deletion expectations
• rollout constraints: traffic, migration windows, lock risk, compatibility concerns, downstream consumers
• open questions that would make the design fake-ready

If the evidence is thin, say so explicitly and keep the packet at review/memo level instead of pretending it is implementation-ready.

Step 3: Choose the data lane deliberately

Use references/storage-decision-matrix.md.

• Relational-first when integrity, transactions, shared invariants, joins, or reporting matter most.
• Document-heavy when one aggregate is usually read/written together and the shape varies enough that strict relational modeling would be fake precision.
• Hybrid when the transactional core is stable but some metadata/content payloads are legitimately flexible.

State the reason in one or two sentences. “Because the stack already uses it” is useful context, not the whole rationale.

Step 4: Model ownership, lifecycle, and query-critical fields

For each core entity/collection/aggregate, define:

• purpose and ownership boundary
• identifier strategy
• required vs optional attributes
• lifecycle states and timestamps
• relationships or reference direction
• tenant/org ownership if relevant
• deletion, archival, retention, and history rules
• which fields must stay queryable, unique, or reportable
• which fields can remain flexible metadata without harming search/reporting/ops

Watch for these traps:

• mirroring UI objects instead of business concepts
• hiding many-to-many or history in JSON blobs or ad hoc arrays
• collapsing mutable state, audit history, and derived/cache data into one table/document
• letting auth/profile/session ownership blur into unrelated product entities
• storing analytics, telemetry, or campaign attributes in opaque payloads when they already drive filtering, reporting, or live-ops decisions

Step 5: Design integrity and access rules together

A schema is only as good as the invariants it can defend.

Name:

• keys and ownership rules
• uniqueness / nullability / defaults / state constraints
• hottest reads, writes, filters, joins, or aggregate lookups
• indexes and why each one exists
• intentional denormalization or flexible fields and the reason they stay flexible

If you cannot name the main query shapes, the indexing guidance is probably fake.

Step 6: Plan rollout and route-outs

For incremental or live-system changes, define:

• additive vs destructive changes
• expand-and-contract, backfill, dual-read/write, or shadow-read phases if needed
• when indexes/constraints become safe to enforce
• rollback or stop conditions
• cleanup conditions for old columns/tables/doc fields

Then route adjacent work clearly using references/intake-packets-and-route-outs.md:

• api-design for interface or contract changes that depend on the model
• authentication-setup for identity/session/provider ownership
• backend-testing for migration verification and regression coverage
• looker-studio-bigquery when the main job is stakeholder dashboards/reporting over curated data
• monitoring-observability when the main job is telemetry freshness, alert coverage, or runtime visibility
• security-best-practices when the concern goes beyond data integrity into broader app/web hardening

Step 7: Run the boundary check

Use references/schema-review-checklist.md before finalizing.

Verify:

1. One data lane and one output packet were chosen.
2. Ownership, lifecycle, and query-critical fields are explicit.
3. Flexible metadata is justified instead of acting as deferred modeling debt.
4. Migration safety is believable for a live system.
5. API/auth/testing/reporting/observability work was routed out instead of silently absorbed.
6. The packet ends with the next concrete move.

Output format

## Storage Design Packet: [System or Feature]

### Packet framing
- Workload shape:
- Chosen data lane:
- Change type:
- Ownership focus:
- Why this lane fits:

### Evidence used
- Current artifacts:
- Query/reporting needs:
- Lifecycle or retention constraints:
- Assumptions / gaps:

### Entity / collection map
| Entity | Purpose | Key fields | Relationships / ownership | Lifecycle notes |
|--------|---------|------------|----------------------------|-----------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Integrity and access rules
- Required constraints:
- Uniqueness / nullability notes:
- Indexes and why:
- Flexible metadata that stays flexible:

### Rollout / migration plan
- Sequence:
- Backfill / compatibility notes:
- Cleanup conditions:
- Stop / rollback signals:

### Route-outs
- API / contract:
- Auth / identity:
- Verification:
- Reporting / observability:

### Recommended next move
- draft migration plan | review with owners | hand off to API/auth/testing/reporting | defer until missing evidence is gathered

Examples

Example 1: SaaS core model

Input: "We need schema help for a B2B SaaS app with users, organizations, memberships, subscriptions, invoices, and audit logs. We use Postgres and need something implementation-ready."

Good output direction

• chooses relational-first
• separates users, organizations, memberships, subscriptions, and immutable invoice records clearly
• treats audit/history separately from mutable entity state
• routes session/provider details to authentication-setup

Example 2: Flexible metadata migration

Input: "Our marketplace stores product metadata in one JSON column, but search, moderation, and filters now depend on stable fields. Plan a safe migration."

Good output direction

• chooses hybrid
• identifies which fields must graduate from JSON into first-class columns or indexed fields
• proposes staged rollout, backfill, and cleanup conditions
• routes verification to backend-testing

Example 3: Game live-ops boundary

Input: "We need to model player inventory, seasonal event progress, and telemetry for a live game without burying reporting needs in opaque blobs."

Good output direction

• separates player-owned transactional state from telemetry/reporting concerns
• keeps one storage packet focused on state integrity and lifecycle
• routes dashboard/telemetry follow-through to looker-studio-bigquery or monitoring-observability

Best practices

1. Start from business invariants and access patterns, not table aesthetics.
2. Treat migration safety as part of schema design, not a later ops chore.
3. Keep flexible metadata honest: useful when justified, dangerous when it hides query-critical fields.
4. Separate mutable state, history/audit, and derived/reporting data.
5. Route adjacent API/auth/testing/reporting work outward instead of turning this into a generic backend mega-skill.
6. Prefer a durable packet over giant vendor-specific example dumps.

References

• PostgreSQL Data Definition docs
• Prisma Data Guide — Making Connections
• MongoDB data modeling docs
• Firestore structure-data guide