Use when an architect in detailed technical design must produce or review the 技术架构图 and needs the fully merged technical-architecture specialist method directly inside the new lifecycle family.
Installation
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.
Use when an architect in detailed technical design must produce or review the 技术架构图 and needs the fully merged technical-architecture specialist method directly inside the new lifecycle family.
Architect-specific lifecycle method and review gates are added in this umbrella skill:
where 技术架构图 sits in the architecture lifecycle
what detailed-design questions it must answer
how to separate it from neighboring artifacts
how to convert solution intent into concrete technical realization
how to review stability, operability, security, and runtime collaboration before implementation
Core principle:
技术架构图 is not a prettier system diagram. It is the detailed-design artifact that explains how the approved solution is concretely realized through technology stack, runtime units, middleware, storage, project structure, execution paths, and reliability controls.
This skill exists because many so-called “技术架构图” fail in one of five ways:
they are only system architecture diagrams with product names sprinkled on top
they are only deployment diagrams, showing hosts/clusters but not technical realization logic
they are only flow/sequence diagrams, showing time order but not stable runtime structure
they list middleware names but do not explain why these choices exist or how components collaborate
they compress away drawing details, causing future diagrams to drift in shape/line/color semantics and lose consistency
Use this skill when you need a technology-realization artifact that is detailed enough to guide implementation, review, interface design, non-functional design, and operations handoff.
normalized working reference: references/universal-arch-lifecycle-tech-detailed-technical-arch-diagramming-spec-full.md
Preservation rules:
the original user draft is preserved in verbatim form for exact wording/structure retention
the normalized working reference exists for easier day-to-day loading while preserving the same drawing-detail payload in practical form
this SKILL.md is an architect usage layer on top of those references, not a replacement for them
when a future summary conflicts with the verbatim draft on drawing detail, exact wording, structure, or examples, treat the verbatim draft as authoritative
when practical execution needs a cleaner working copy, use the normalized working reference while preserving semantics from the verbatim draft
do not compress away shapes, colors, line rules, layout modes, checklists, or tool-adaptation details when actually producing diagrams from this skill
the user asks for 技术架构图、详细设计中的技术架构、技术实现架构图、运行时技术图、服务/进程/任务协作图
the solution design is already established and now must be translated into concrete technical realization
a design doc must explain what tech stack realizes which function and why
you need one or more diagrams to show runtime components, middleware, storage, execution paths, and stability controls
you must review whether an existing “技术架构图” actually answers detailed-design questions instead of only looking sophisticated
you need the full drawing grammar preserved while strengthening architect judgment around runtime, NFRs, and risk
Do not use when:
the main question is “系统要具备哪些功能、如何分层” → use arch-lifecycle-tech-overview-functional-arch-diagramming
the main question is “有哪些内部子系统、边界与外部依赖” at overview level → use arch-lifecycle-tech-overview-system-arch-diagramming
the main question is “业务如何从谁流转到谁” → use business solution / process flow artifacts
the main question is “状态如何流转、分支如何处理、补偿如何回退” → pair with state / sequence / flow diagrams
the main question is “数据库表结构、字段、索引、ER 关系” → use data architecture / ER artifacts
the main question is “机房、VPC、K8s 节点、网络拓扑、灰度发布路径” → use deployment / physical architecture
Lifecycle Placement: Where This Artifact Belongs
According to the local source note 软件架构设计的生命周期, 技术架构图 belongs to:
第三阶段：技术方案设计
specifically under 详细设计 → 技术架构
That means the entry condition is:
requirements research is already done
solution design has already been reviewed
overview design has already clarified goals, functional layering, design principles, overall system shape, and key risks
This artifact is not where you discover the business problem for the first time.
It is where you turn approved system/solution intent into an implementable technical structure.
The direct lifecycle question it must answer
The local lifecycle note frames 技术架构 as the answer to:
系统设计中的功能通过什么技术栈实现？如何选型的？项目结构是什么样的？
系统运行起来后，服务、进程、任务、调用链路如何协作，稳定性如何保障？
Therefore, every qualified technical architecture diagram set must make these answerable quickly.
What A Technical Architecture Diagram Must Answer
Within ~30 seconds, a reviewer should be able to infer:
what concrete technical roles exist
which layer each role belongs to
which runtime units actually execute work
which middleware / channel / store / control points are involved
how the main synchronous and asynchronous paths collaborate
where project/module boundaries or deployment carriers materially matter
what reliability, scaling, isolation, fallback, and observability mechanisms are built in
what is external dependency vs owned technical implementation
why the main stack choices are structurally justified
If the viewer still cannot tell:
how the solution is implemented,
how the system runs,
or how it stays available under stress and failure,
then the technical architecture artifact is not finished.
Boundary With Neighboring Artifacts
Keep 技术架构图 separate from adjacent artifacts.
Technical architecture vs functional architecture
Functional architecture: what capabilities the system should have, and how they are layered
Technical architecture: how those capabilities are concretely realized by stack, engines, stores, channels, runtime units, and implementation carriers
Fast judgment rule:
if the main nouns are 能力 / 模块 / 业务域 / 支撑域, you are probably still in functional architecture
if the main nouns are 网关 / 调度器 / 执行器 / 服务实例 / 队列 / 缓存 / 规则引擎 / 工作进程 / 数据存储 / 追踪 / 限流 / 熔断, you are likely in technical architecture
Technical architecture vs system architecture
System architecture: subsystem boundary and collaboration structure at overview level
Technical architecture: concrete technical realization of those subsystems
Useful test:
if replacing “Kafka / Redis / MySQL / Worker Pool / Sidecar / Gateway / Scheduler” with generic boxes leaves the meaning almost unchanged, the current artifact is probably still system architecture, not technical architecture
Technical architecture vs project architecture
Technical architecture: runtime realization and technology stack composition
Project architecture: code/module/component/dependency organization in the repository
These often relate, but they are not identical.
A strong detailed-design packet usually includes both:
one diagram for runtime technical architecture
one diagram for project/module structure if maintainability is a major concern
Technical architecture vs process / state / sequence artifacts
Technical architecture is stable runtime structure and collaboration topology
Flow/state/sequence artifacts explain time-ordered behavior, branch handling, retries, compensation, and state closure
Important review rule:
If the current “技术架构图” mostly shows numbered request order or branch logic over time, it is actually a dynamic behavior artifact, not a technical architecture artifact.
Technical architecture vs deployment / physical topology
Technical architecture: what technical units exist and how they collaborate
Deployment topology: where those units run physically or logically in infrastructure
Carrier information may appear in technical architecture when architecturally decisive, but the picture should still be implementation-structure-first, not rack/network-first.
The Detailed-Design Modeling Lens
Before drawing, classify candidate content into seven buckets:
This classification prevents three common failures:
drawing only owned business services while forgetting runtime carriers and control surfaces
over-focusing on middleware brand names while losing collaboration logic
mixing optional support paths and primary execution paths without hierarchy
The Technical Architecture Decomposition Rule
When converting from approved solution/system design into technical architecture, apply this chain:
Start from business/solution closed loop
Map each required responsibility to a technical role
Decide which technical roles become owned runtime units vs external dependencies
Choose communication style per edge
sync request
async event
batch trigger
stream
config/control
Choose state carriers
durable transaction store
cache
search/index
object/file store
log/event history
Add resilience controls explicitly
retry
idempotency
timeout
rate limiting
circuit breaking
degradation
isolation/bulkhead
Add observability and security controls explicitly
Only then optimize visual layout
Do not start by asking “which boxes should I draw?”
Start by deciding what technical responsibilities must exist for the solution to run safely.
Required Architect Review Gates For 技术架构图
These are the architect additions beyond generic drawing grammar.
Gate 1: Stack-choice justification gate
Do not accept a technical architecture that only names technologies.
For every major stack choice, ask:
what problem does this stack choice solve in this design?
why is it better than the plausible alternatives here?
is it solving throughput, latency, consistency, operability, delivery speed, flexibility, or isolation?
is it a structural necessity or just familiarity bias?
Good examples:
queue introduced to decouple peak traffic and background processing
cache introduced to absorb high-read hot path and reduce primary-store pressure
scheduler introduced because retries / delayed tasks / DAG dependencies require explicit control
stream/bus introduced because many consumers require event fan-out and replay
Bad examples:
“用 Kafka 因为常用”
“上 K8s 因为公司都在用”
“加 Redis 备用” with no path explanation
Gate 2: Runtime-collaboration gate
The diagram must make runtime collaboration visible.
Ask explicitly:
what runs continuously?
what runs on trigger?
what runs on schedule?
what runs in parallel?
where are queues, pools, or execution windows?
what blocks synchronously vs what drains asynchronously?
If a service graph exists but no reviewer can tell how work actually gets executed after request arrival, the diagram is incomplete.
Gate 3: Main-path vs side-path gate
Separate these visually:
main success path
async/offline path
fallback / degradation path
observability/control path
Do not give monitoring, audit, retries, and admin control the same visual weight as the user-facing hot path.
Likewise, do not hide critical degrade/fallback paths in prose only.
Additional detailed-design rule:
if the viewer’s first impression is "this is a flowchart" rather than "these are the stable technical planes / layers / runtime units", the diagram is failing as a 技术架构图
for detailed technical architecture, make planes/layers the primary visual structure and keep arrows secondary
prefer naming and grouping such as Source Acquisition Plane, Execution Plane, Control Plane, Serving Plane, Replica Plane, Observability/Governance Plane
if you need many labels on arrows to explain the picture, too much runtime narrative has leaked into the architecture view; move that content into 核心流程图 / 时序图 instead
a good test: after hiding most arrow labels, the reader should still understand the system structure from the planes and runtime units alone
Gate 4: Reliability-control gate
At technical-design stage, stability must appear in the structure.
Check whether the diagram explicitly or companion-note explicitly shows:
timeout boundary
retry strategy
idempotency boundary
circuit break / degrade path
queue backlog absorption or backpressure handling
failover / replica / redundancy
data consistency strategy
hot path bottleneck isolation
If “高可用” appears only as a sentence below the diagram, the technical architecture has not actually expressed it.
Gate 5: Data-state ownership gate
Do not blur state ownership.
Ask:
which component is source-of-truth for each important state?
what is transient vs durable?
what is cache vs transaction store vs analytics/search projection?
which path requires strong consistency and which accepts eventual consistency?
where do replay/rebuild/compensation rely on persisted history?
If multiple components seem to own the same truth with no governance, the architecture likely has hidden consistency risk.
Gate 6: External-dependency unreliability gate
Carry forward the lifecycle rule that collaborators must often be treated as unreliable.
For each external dependency, ask:
what happens on timeout, error, stale data, partial response, rate limit, auth failure?
do we fail closed, fail open, queue for later, or switch to manual handling?
is there isolation so one external fault does not collapse the whole core path?
If the answer materially affects structure, represent it visually using fallback edges, side queues, governance nodes, or callouts.
Gate 7: Security and compliance gate
If the system touches high-risk domains, make sure the technical architecture reflects:
authentication / identity source
authorization boundary
secret / key management boundary
audit trail path
sensitive-data classification or redaction point
privileged cross-domain access path
Do not wait until a separate security appendix to realize the runtime path is missing critical controls.
Gate 8: Operability gate
Ask whether an operator or SRE can infer from the technical architecture:
where to observe health
where to find failure signal
where to throttle, pause, reroute, or replay
which components can scale independently
which components are single points of failure
what recovery path exists after backlog, corruption, or external outage
If none of that can be inferred, the diagram may be technically correct but operationally weak.
How To Use The Full Drawing Spec In Practice
When actually producing diagrams, do not rely on this umbrella alone.
Load and apply the full reference for:
architecture viewpoints
layout mode selection
shape semantics
line semantics
color semantics
typography / spacing / alignment
anti-pattern detection
multi-tool adaptation and downgrade strategy
final checklist
The umbrella skill decides what the artifact must answer.
The reference decides how the diagram must be drawn in full detail.
Which reference to load first
Use this routing:
if the task is mainly preserving visual grammar and drawing consistency → load references/universal-arch-lifecycle-tech-detailed-technical-arch-diagramming-spec-full.md
if the task is mainly a classic transactional backend / layered service system → also load references/worked-example-backend-microservice.md
if the task is mainly event-driven / async processing / queue-stream pipeline → also load references/worked-example-event-driven-pipeline.md
if the task mixes multiple concerns, start from the full spec, then add the closest worked example as the execution template
Practical Drawing Workflow For 技术架构图
Step 0: Confirm lifecycle readiness
Before drawing, verify:
business problem and solution scope are already clear
overview design already exists or is at least mentally stable
the main technical unknowns are implementation-shape unknowns, not problem-definition unknowns
If not, do not fake detailed design yet.
Return to solution/system design clarification.
Step 1: State the technical design target in one sentence
Write:
本图将说明：该方案通过哪些技术栈、运行单元、存储与控制机制实现，以及运行时如何协作并保证稳定性。
This sentence is the anchor. If the diagram drifts into capability listing or physical topology, return to this target.
Step 2: Extract the implementation responsibilities
From the approved solution/system design, enumerate:
request entry points
control/orchestration points
execution units
storage/state carriers
integration channels
observability and security controls
external dependencies
Do not name products first.
Name the technical roles first.
Step 3: Decide the dominant viewpoint and layout
Typical defaults:
逻辑 + 运行时 for service/collaboration-heavy systems
逻辑 + 数据 for data-intensive platforms
逻辑 + 安全 when trust boundaries dominate
逻辑 + 部署 only when carrier placement is architecturally decisive
Typical layouts:
Tier Stack for most backends and platforms
Pipeline for ETL / CI-CD / ML / staged processing
Hub-Spoke for gateway / bus / central control plane systems
Concentric Zone for zero-trust / DMZ-heavy systems
Mesh for service-mesh data plane / P2P / blockchain-like peers
Anti-flowchart checkpoint (mandatory)
Before drawing, explicitly ask: is this picture trying to explain static runtime structure, or is it secretly explaining step order?
If the picture is for 技术架构图, default to these visual choices:
start from system boundary + functional planes / domains, not from a top-to-bottom request path
place external actors / dependencies outside the owned runtime boundary
put related technical units inside containers / planes first, then draw relations
use node names that read like stable technical roles (gateway, adapter, repository, worker runtime, control plane) rather than step labels (receive, parse, dispatch, return)
make arrows express dependency / data path / control path / governance path, not numbered or implied time sequence
if a linear main path dominates the viewer's first impression, split that path into a separate 核心流程图 instead of forcing it into the 技术架构图
when a reviewer says “this still looks like a flowchart”, treat that as a layout failure, not a wording failure: reduce narrative arrows, strengthen plane/container grouping, and if possible benchmark against an already-approved sibling-project architecture diagram in the same document ecosystem
Fast smell test:
if the eye naturally reads the picture as A then B then C then D, it is drifting toward a flowchart
if the eye first sees which planes exist, what each plane owns, and how planes relate, it is behaving like an architecture diagram
For concrete smells and rewrites, see references/architecture-vs-flowchart-smells.md.
Step 4: Map each role to concrete technical realization
Now name concrete choices where appropriate:
gateway type
scheduler / workflow engine
worker pool / execution model
queue / bus / stream
cache / DB / object store / index
observability stack
auth / secret / audit controls
Rule:
Use product names when they matter architecturally.
Do not add version noise or config minutiae unless the choice itself is the design issue.
Step 5: Draw the main path first
Draw only the dominant success path:
request enters
orchestration/control decides
execution units process
state is read/written
result returns or event is emitted
Make this legible before adding support complexity.
If the main path is messy, the final diagram will collapse under added detail.
Step 6: Layer in async, fallback, governance, and observability paths
Add, in this order:
async side paths
scheduled/batch paths
fallback/degrade paths
monitoring/audit/alert paths
security boundary annotations
Do not add all edge types at once.
Preserve visual hierarchy.
Step 7: Mark the stability and scaling semantics
Use the full reference grammar to explicitly show:
multi-instance / replica / scale-out
load balancing or dispatch strategy
queue buffering / partitioning / fan-out
retry loop or compensation
cache or read-replica path
isolation lane / tenant / AZ / security zone
metrics / tracing / alert route
This is where technical architecture stops being a component inventory and becomes an engineering design artifact.
Step 8: Decide whether one diagram is enough
Split when needed:
overall technical architecture
runtime/process collaboration view
data architecture view
security technical view
project/module structure view
Hard rule:
One diagram should answer one dominant technical question.
If it tries to answer all of runtime, data, security, deployment, and project structure at once, split it.
What To Include In Companion Notes Around The Diagram
A strong technical architecture diagram is usually accompanied by short notes on:
major stack choices and why
critical runtime assumptions
consistency model
timeout/retry/idempotency rules
scale bottlenecks and mitigation
fallback and manual intervention path
security/audit assumptions
operational verification pointers
Do not overload the diagram with paragraphs.
Put the minimum visible semantics on the diagram and move explanation into short callouts or the surrounding design text.
Readability And Render-Safety Gates
Before finalizing any technical architecture diagram, perform two explicit checks:
A. Readability gate
main path should be identifiable in one glance
control-plane lines should not weave through the primary data path
side paths such as observability, rollback, or replica sync should be visually separated rather than crossing the hot path repeatedly
if lines still look tangled after one pass, change the layout instead of only nudging coordinates
prefer left-to-right / top-to-bottom monotonic routing for the dominant path
B. Render-safety gate
if emitting raw SVG/HTML/XML-based diagram assets, escape XML-sensitive text in labels (&, <, >, quotes in attributes where relevant)
validate the final artifact as parseable XML before handoff when the carrier is SVG
a diagram that is visually well designed but not well-formed XML is a delivery failure, not a minor polish issue
Practical rule:
if a label contains &, write & in SVG text nodes
Common Technical-Architecture Smells
Technology logo collage
many products named, no collaboration logic
fix: redraw around responsibilities and paths first
one giant database box with no ownership semantics
fix: separate transactional, cache, object, index, queue, audit/history roles
No failure semantics
hot path exists, but retry/degrade/timeout/isolation absent
fix: add visible reliability structure
Observability omitted
no metrics, logs, traces, alerts, or audit path shown
fix: add watch/alert/tracing links or explicit observability layer
Deployment detail overload
pods, IPs, zones, ports swamp the technical story
fix: move physical detail to deployment view unless architecturally decisive
Project structure confused with runtime structure
repo modules are drawn as if they are deployed runtime nodes
fix: split project architecture and runtime technical architecture
Unjustified middleware introduction
queue, cache, workflow engine, or search engine present with no structural reason
fix: annotate the problem solved by each major technical choice
One diagram answers everything badly
runtime, state, security, deployment, and process all crammed together
fix: split by dominant concern
Messy crossing lines in the hot path
the main value of the diagram disappears because data path, control path, and side paths intersect repeatedly
fix: re-layout by path ownership, not by box symmetry
Raw SVG labels that break XML rendering
labels include unescaped & or other XML-sensitive characters, causing the whole diagram not to render
fix: escape text and validate the SVG parses successfully before delivery
Technical architecture drawn as a process storyboard
left-to-right request/batch narration dominates, with planes reduced to decoration
symptoms: every important sentence lives on an arrow label; replica/query/governance paths are drawn as route continuations of the main path; the viewer reads steps before they read structure
fix: redesign around stable planes/layers first, then keep only a few decisive relationships; move detailed execution storytelling into core-flow / sequence artifacts
Verification Checklist
Before considering the skill output complete, verify:
The artifact is clearly in 详细设计 / 技术架构 stage, not still overview design
The diagram directly answers how functionality is realized by concrete technical stack and runtime structure
The boundary from 功能架构图 / 系统架构图 / 流程图 / 部署图 is explicit
Main path, async path, fallback path, and observability/control path are visually distinguishable where relevant
Stack choices are justified by structure, not only named
Runtime execution units are visible: service, worker, scheduler, pool, function, job, or equivalent
State ownership is clear: DB/cache/object/index/queue/history roles are not collapsed blindly
Stability controls are visible: retry, idempotency, degrade, isolation, replica, throttling, backpressure, or equivalent
Security / audit / auth controls appear when materially relevant
If the picture became overloaded, it has been split into multiple views
The full drawing grammar from references/universal-arch-lifecycle-tech-detailed-technical-arch-diagramming-spec-full.md was consulted rather than summarized from memory
A reviewer could explain the technical realization in under ~30 seconds after seeing the diagram
Common Pitfalls
Skipping the full reference because the umbrella seems enough.
This loses the user-mandated preservation of drawing detail. Always consult the reference when producing the real artifact.
Calling something 技术架构图 when it is only 项目结构图.
Code-package layout may matter, but it does not replace runtime technical architecture.
Showing only product names with no relation semantics.
The point is not to prove you know tools; it is to show why the system works.
Adding middleware before proving the path needs it.
Technical architecture should reduce implementation ambiguity, not add novelty for its own sake.
Forgetting external unreliability.
External dependencies often need isolation/degrade/manual handling paths visible in the design.
No distinction between control plane and execution plane.
In many systems, config/rules/orchestration and runtime execution must be visually separated.
Not splitting diagrams when data/security/runtime concerns diverge.
Overloaded diagrams create false completeness while reducing actual clarity.
Worked Example Usage Notes
The worked examples are not copy-paste templates for product names.
They are meant to teach future agents:
what the dominant path usually looks like
what technical roles are easy to forget
which reliability controls should be visible
where one diagram should split into multiple views
When using a worked example:
keep the structure and review logic
replace example labels with scenario-true labels
do not import details that are not structurally justified by the current system
if the real system is hybrid, combine the example only after the primary layout/viewpoint is decided from the full spec
Recommended Companion Skill Routing
Pair this skill with:
arch-lifecycle-delivery for top-level staged delivery and review chain
arch-lifecycle-tech-overview-functional-arch-diagramming when capability layering is still unclear
arch-lifecycle-tech-overview-system-arch-diagramming when subsystem boundaries and dependencies need separate clarification
ddd-domain-modeling-for-architecture when semantic or consistency boundaries drive the technical realization
Remember
A good 技术架构图 does not merely say what technologies exist.
It shows how the approved solution becomes a running system, why the main technical choices exist, and how the system remains understandable, stable, and operable under real conditions.
