Tactical DDD \u2014 Rich Domain Modeling workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Detects anemic domain models, validates and refactors them into rich domain models, and enforces tactical DDD patterns (Entities, Value Objects, Aggregates, Domain Services, Domain Events). Use when the user asks to validate, review, or check domain models or DDD code; detect anemia; refactor domain objects; improve encapsulation; or mentions terms like "anemic model", "rich domain", "aggregate", "value object", "domain event", "ubiquitous language", "is this good DDD", "does this follow DDD", or "check my domain". Do NOT use for module or service boundary design, architectural decomposition, strategic DDD context mapping, or code outside the domain layer (DTOs, controllers, infrastructure adapters) and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Der Befehl bleibt in einer Zeile. Scrollen Sie horizontal, um ihn vor dem Kopieren vollständig zu prüfen.
Sie bevorzugen eine lokale Kopie? Laden Sie die Dateien herunter, die SkillsMP derzeit vorliegen.
Datei-Explorer
8 Dateien
SKILL.md wird angezeigt
SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
tactical-ddd
description
Tactical DDD \u2014 Rich Domain Modeling workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Detects anemic domain models, validates and refactors them into rich domain models, and enforces tactical DDD patterns (Entities, Value Objects, Aggregates, Domain Services, Domain Events). Use when the user asks to validate, review, or check domain models or DDD code; detect anemia; refactor domain objects; improve encapsulation; or mentions terms like "anemic model", "rich domain", "aggregate", "value object", "domain event", "ubiquitous language", "is this good DDD", "does this follow DDD", or "check my domain". Do NOT use for module or service boundary design, architectural decomposition, strategic DDD context mapping, or code outside the domain layer (DTOs, controllers, infrastructure adapters) and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
This public intake copy packages packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/tactical-ddd from https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
Tactical DDD — Rich Domain Modeling
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Quick Anemia Signals (scan first), Output Format, Anemia Diagnosis: .
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Detects anemic domain models, validates and refactors them into rich domain models, and enforces tactical DDD patterns (Entities, Value Objects, Aggregates, Domain Services, Domain Events). Use when the user asks to....
Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.
Operating Table
Situation
Start here
Why it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
detection.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
refactoring.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
Intent - Phases to run
"validate / review / check / is this correct?" - Phase 1 + 2 only → report findings, ask before refactoring
Load detection.md and scan the target code for anemia signals. Produce a severity score and list of affected classes.
Phase 2 — Assess
For each affected class, determine the correct building block:
Has unique identity tracked over time?
Has invariants tying multiple objects?
→ Building Block
Yes
—
Entity
No
—
Value Object
Yes (root) + children with shared invariants
Yes
Aggregate
Operation spans multiple Aggregates/doesn't belong to any
—
Domain Service
Prefer Value Objects over Entities. Prefer small Aggregates over large ones.
If intent was validate/review: stop here. Report findings using the output format below. Ask "Would you like me to apply these fixes?" before proceeding.
Phase 3 — Refactor
Load refactoring.md for step-by-step moves. Apply in this order:
Replace setter chains with a single expressive method
Move service logic into the Aggregate that owns it
Add business guards at the top of each method
Publish a Domain Event after each successful state change
Replace primitive types with Value Objects
For deep pattern questions (boundary design, event modeling, service vs. entity decision), load reference.md.
Imported: Quick Anemia Signals (scan first)
public setX() / public setY() → behaviour should be encapsulated
service.doX(entity, ...) → logic likely belongs in entity
entity.setA(); entity.setB(); ... → setter chain = missing intent method
no domain methods beyond getters → pure data bag
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @tactical-ddd to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @tactical-ddd against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @tactical-ddd for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @tactical-ddd using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Best Practices
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
Behaviour with data — Objects own both state and the operations that change it
Ubiquitous Language — Method names come from the domain, not CRUD (commitTo, not setStatus)
Small Aggregates — Root + Value Objects by default; add child Entities only for true invariants
One transaction = one Aggregate — Cross-Aggregate rules use eventual consistency via Domain Events
Reference by ID — Never hold object references to other Aggregates
Value Objects first — Use Entities only when individual identity is essential
Domain Services sparingly — Excessive services → anemic model
Imported Operating Notes
Imported: Golden Rules
Behaviour with data — Objects own both state and the operations that change it
Ubiquitous Language — Method names come from the domain, not CRUD (commitTo, not setStatus)
Small Aggregates — Root + Value Objects by default; add child Entities only for true invariants
One transaction = one Aggregate — Cross-Aggregate rules use eventual consistency via Domain Events
Reference by ID — Never hold object references to other Aggregates
Value Objects first — Use Entities only when individual identity is essential
Domain Services sparingly — Excessive services → anemic model
Protect invariants — The Aggregate is the last line of defence; never trust the caller
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/tactical-ddd, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Related Skills
@debugging - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@documentation - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@architecture - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@context-engineering - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
Resource family
What it gives the reviewer
Example path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/n/a
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
