Common Domain Component Detection workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Finds duplicate business logic spread across multiple components and suggests consolidation. Use when asking "where is this logic duplicated?", "find common code between services", "what can be consolidated?", "detect shared domain logic", or analyzing component overlap before refactoring. Do NOT use for code-level duplication detection (use linters) or dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis) and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
component-common-domain-detection
description
Common Domain Component Detection workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Finds duplicate business logic spread across multiple components and suggests consolidation. Use when asking "where is this logic duplicated?", "find common code between services", "what can be consolidated?", "detect shared domain logic", or analyzing component overlap before refactoring. Do NOT use for code-level duplication detection (use linters) or dependency analysis (use coupling-analysis) 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)/component-common-domain-detection 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.
Common Domain Component Detection This skill identifies common domain functionality that is duplicated across multiple components and suggests consolidation opportunities to reduce duplication and improve maintainability.
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: How to Use, Core Concepts, Common Namespace Patterns Found, Shared Classes Found, Functionality Analysis, Coupling Impact Analysis.
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.
After identifying and sizing components (Pattern 1)
Before flattening components (Pattern 3)
When planning to reduce code duplication
Analyzing shared domain logic across the codebase
Preparing for component consolidation
Identifying candidates for shared services or libraries
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
QUICK-REFERENCE.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
README.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.
Focus on: .notification, .audit, .validation, .formatting
Example Output:
#### Imported: Next Steps
After identifying common domain components:
1.**Apply Flatten Components Pattern** - Remove orphaned classes
2.**Apply Determine Component Dependencies Pattern** - Analyze coupling
3.**Create Component Domains** - Group components into domains
4.**Plan Consolidation** - Execute consolidation recommendations
#### Imported: How to Use### Quick Start
Request analysis of your codebase:
-**"Find common domain functionality across components"**-**"Identify duplicate domain logic that should be consolidated"**-**"Detect shared classes used across multiple components"**-**"Analyze consolidation opportunities for common components"**### Usage Examples**Example 1: Find Common Functionality**
User: "Find common domain functionality across components"
User: "Are there multiple notification components that should be consolidated?"
The skill will:
Find all components with notification-related names
Analyze their functionality and dependencies
Calculate coupling impact if consolidated
Recommend consolidation approach
**Example 3: Analyze Shared Classes**
User: "Find classes that are shared across multiple components"
The skill will:
Identify classes imported/used by multiple components
Classify as domain vs infrastructure functionality
Suggest consolidation or shared library approach
Assess impact on coupling
### Step-by-Step Process
1. **Scan Components**: Identify components with common namespace patterns
2. **Detect Shared Code**: Find classes/files used across components
3. **Analyze Functionality**: Determine if functionality is truly common
4. **Assess Coupling**: Calculate coupling impact before consolidation
5. **Recommend Actions**: Suggest consolidation or shared library approach
## Examples
### Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
```text
Use @component-common-domain-detection 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 @component-common-domain-detection 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 @component-common-domain-detection 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 @component-common-domain-detection 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.
Distinguish domain from infrastructure functionality
Analyze coupling impact before consolidating
Consider both shared service and shared library approaches
Look for namespace patterns AND shared classes
Verify functionality is truly similar before consolidating
Don't consolidate without analyzing coupling impact
Don't assume all common patterns should be consolidated
Don't ignore differences in functionality
Don't consolidate if coupling increase is too high
Don't mix domain and infrastructure in same analysis
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)/component-common-domain-detection, 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
@accessibility - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@ai-cold-outreach - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@ai-pricing - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@ai-sdr - 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
Shared Classes: Same class used across multiple components
Example: SMTPConnection used by 5 different components
Example: AuditLogger used by multiple domain components
Similar Functionality: Different components doing similar things
Example: Multiple components sending emails with slight variations
Example: Multiple components writing audit logs
Consolidation Approaches
Shared Service:
Common functionality becomes a separate service
Other components call this service
Good for: Frequently changing logic, complex operations
Shared Library:
Common code packaged as library (JAR, DLL, npm package)
Components import and use the library
Good for: Stable functionality, simple utilities
Component Consolidation:
Merge multiple components into one
Good for: Highly related functionality, low coupling impact
Imported: Common Namespace Patterns Found
Notification Components:
services/customer/notification
services/ticket/notification
services/survey/notification
Audit Components:
services/billing/audit
services/ticket/audit
services/survey/audit
### Phase 2: Detect Shared Classes
Find classes/files used across multiple components:
1. **Scan imports/dependencies** in each component
- Track which classes are imported from where
- Note classes used by multiple components
2. **Identify shared classes**
- Classes imported by 2+ components
- Exclude infrastructure classes (Logger, Config, etc.)
3. **Classify as domain vs infrastructure**
- Domain: Business logic classes (SMTPConnection, AuditLogger)
- Infrastructure: Technical utilities (Logger, DatabaseConnection)
**Example Output**:
```markdown
#### Imported: Shared Classes Found
**Domain Classes**:
- `SMTPConnection` - Used by 5 components (notification-related)
- `AuditLogger` - Used by 8 components (audit-related)
- `DataFormatter` - Used by 3 components (formatting-related)
**Infrastructure Classes** (exclude from consolidation):
- `Logger` - Used by all components (infrastructure)
- `Config` - Used by all components (infrastructure)
Phase 3: Analyze Functionality Similarity
For each group of common components:
Examine functionality
Read source code of each component
Identify what each component does
Note similarities and differences
Assess consolidation feasibility
Are differences minor (configurable)?
Can differences be abstracted?
Is functionality truly the same?
Calculate coupling impact
Count incoming dependencies (afferent coupling) before consolidation
Estimate incoming dependencies after consolidation
Compare total coupling levels
Example Analysis:
#### Imported: Functionality Analysis**Notification Components**:
- CustomerNotification: Sends billing notifications
- TicketNotification: Sends ticket assignment notifications
- SurveyNotification: Sends survey emails
**Similarities**: All send emails to customers
**Differences**: Email content/templates, triggers
**Consolidation Feasibility**: ✅ High
- Differences are in content, not mechanism
- Can be abstracted with templates/context
Phase 4: Assess Coupling Impact
Before recommending consolidation, analyze coupling:
Calculate current coupling
Count components using each notification component
Sum total incoming dependencies
Estimate consolidated coupling
Count components that would use consolidated component
Compare to current total
Evaluate coupling increase
Is consolidated component too coupled?
Does it create a bottleneck?
Is coupling increase acceptable?
Example Coupling Analysis:
#### Imported: Coupling Impact Analysis**Before Consolidation**:
- CustomerNotification: Used by 2 components (CA = 2)
- TicketNotification: Used by 2 components (CA = 2)
- SurveyNotification: Used by 1 component (CA = 1)
-**Total CA**: 5
**After Consolidation**:
- Notification: Used by 5 components (CA = 5)
-**Total CA**: 5 (same!)
**Verdict**: ✅ No coupling increase, safe to consolidate
Phase 5: Recommend Consolidation Approach
Based on analysis, recommend approach:
Shared Service (if):
Functionality changes frequently
Complex operations
Needs independent scaling
Multiple deployment units will use it
Shared Library (if):
Stable functionality
Simple utilities
Compile-time dependency acceptable
No need for independent deployment
Component Consolidation (if):
Highly related functionality
Low coupling impact
Same deployment unit acceptable
Imported: Output Format
Common Domain Components Report
#### Imported: Common Domain Components Found### Notification Functionality**Components**:
- services/customer/notification (2% - 1,433 statements)
- services/ticket/notification (2% - 1,765 statements)
- services/survey/notification (2% - 1,299 statements)
**Shared Classes**: SMTPConnection (used by all 3)
**Functionality Analysis**:
- All send emails to customers
- Differences: Content/templates, triggers
- Consolidation Feasibility: ✅ High
**Coupling Analysis**:
- Before: CA = 2 + 2 + 1 = 5
- After: CA = 5 (no increase)
- Verdict: ✅ Safe to consolidate
**Recommendation**: Consolidate into `services/notification`- Approach: Shared Service
- Expected Size: ~4,500 statements (5% of codebase)
- Benefits: Reduced duplication, easier maintenance
Consolidation Opportunities Table
#### Imported: Consolidation Opportunities
| Common Functionality | Components | Current CA | After CA | Feasibility | Recommendation |
| -------------------- | ------------ | ---------- | -------- | ----------- | ----------------------------- |
| Notification | 3 components | 5 | 5 | ✅ High | Consolidate to shared service |
| Audit | 3 components | 8 | 12 | ⚠️ Medium | Consolidate, monitor coupling |
| Validation | 2 components | 3 | 3 | ✅ High | Consolidate to shared library |
Detailed Consolidation Plan
#### Imported: Consolidation Plan### Priority: High**Notification Components** → `services/notification`**Steps**:
1. Create new `services/notification` component
2. Move common functionality from 3 components
3. Create abstraction for content/templates
4. Update dependent components to use new service
5. Remove old notification components
**Expected Impact**:
- Reduced code: ~4,500 statements consolidated
- Reduced duplication: 3 components → 1
- Coupling: No increase (CA stays at 5)
- Maintenance: Easier to maintain single component
### Priority: Medium**Audit Components** → `services/audit`**Steps**:
[Similar format]
**Expected Impact**:
- Coupling increase: CA 8 → 12 (monitor)
- Benefits: Reduced duplication
Imported: Analysis Checklist
Common Pattern Detection:
Scanned all component namespaces for common leaf nodes
Identified components with same ending names
Filtered out infrastructure patterns
Grouped similar components
Shared Class Detection:
Scanned imports/dependencies in each component
Identified classes used by multiple components
Classified as domain vs infrastructure
Documented shared class usage
Functionality Analysis:
Examined source code of common components
Identified similarities and differences
Assessed consolidation feasibility
Determined if differences can be abstracted
Coupling Assessment:
Calculated current coupling (CA) for each component
