Skip to main content Inicio Creadores konglong87 methodology-skills ddd-strategic-design
ddd-strategic-design Use when starting new projects, designing system architecture, identifying bounded contexts, mapping context relationships, system refactoring, system redesign, or when user mentions 'DDD', 'domain-driven design', 'bounded context', 'context mapping', 'microservices design', 'business modeling', 'system boundaries', 'domain thinking', '领域思维', '领域驱动', '重构项目', '重构系统', '重新设计系统', '优化重构系统'.
Ir a la instalación Skills Marketplace Descubre y explora habilidades de IA creadas por la comunidad.
Instalar con Codex o Claude Copia este prompt, pégalo en Codex, Claude u otro asistente, y deja que revise la página de la skill y la instale por ti.
Mostrar detalles del prompt Un comando directo omite el prompt de revisión. Revisa el origen antes de ejecutarlo.
npx skills add https://github.com/konglong87/methodology-skills --skill ddd-strategic-designEl comando permanece en una sola línea. Desplázate horizontalmente para revisarlo antes de copiarlo.
¿Prefieres una copia local? Descarga los archivos que SkillsMP tiene disponibles ahora.
Descargar Zip Descargando... Ocupaciones relacionadas SOC
Basado en la clasificación ocupacional SOC
name ddd-strategic-design version 2.0.0 description Use when starting new projects, designing system architecture, identifying bounded contexts, mapping context relationships, system refactoring, system redesign, or when user mentions 'DDD', 'domain-driven design', 'bounded context', 'context mapping', 'microservices design', 'business modeling', 'system boundaries', 'domain thinking', '领域思维', '领域驱动', '重构项目', '重构系统', '重新设计系统', '优化重构系统'. category design complexity high typical_duration 1hour dependencies [] benefits-from ["goal-oriented","first-principles"] conflicts-with [] output_artifact memory/artifacts/ddd-strategic-design/ allowed-tools ["Read","Write","Bash","Grep","Glob"] tags ["系统设计","架构设计","领域驱动设计","微服务","DDD"]
Domain-Driven Design: Strategic Design
前置协议
环境检测
PROJECT_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown" )
BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown" )
COMMIT=$(git rev-parse --short HEAD 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown" )
echo "PROJECT: $PROJECT_ROOT "
echo "BRANCH: $BRANCH "
echo "COMMIT: $COMMIT "
前置技能检查
benefits-from 检查 （推荐但非必须）：
GOAL_ARTIFACT="memory/artifacts/goal-oriented/latest.json"
if [ -f "$GOAL_ARTIFACT " ]; then
echo "FOUND: goal-oriented artifact"
fi
FP_ARTIFACT="memory/artifacts/first-principles/latest.json"
if [ -f "$FP_ARTIFACT " ]; then
echo "FOUND: first-principles artifact"
fi
工件目录初始化 ：
mkdir -p memory/artifacts/ddd-strategic
用户意图确认
根据用户消息判断：
检查点 ：
新系统设计 ：从零开始设计系统架构系统重构 ：将单体拆分为微服务架构优化 ：重新梳理上下文边界业务建模 ：梳理业务领域
Overview Strategic design focuses on defining bounded contexts and their relationships. A bounded context is a boundary within which a domain model is defined and applicable. Inside the boundary, all terms, rules, and logic have a specific, consistent meaning. Different contexts may use the same terms with different meanings.
Why it matters: Without clear boundaries, teams talk past each other. "Customer" means something different to Sales vs Support vs Billing. Strategic design makes these boundaries explicit.
Core principle: Language consistency within a boundary, explicit translation between boundaries.
Tactical design happens within each bounded context. See ddd-tactical-design skill for implementation details.
When to Use
Starting a new project or system
Decomposing a monolith into microservices
Multiple teams working on the same domain
Domain logic is complex and domain experts are available
Language confusion across teams (same term, different meanings)
Simple CRUD operations with minimal logic
Single-team small projects (< 3 developers)
Technical-only domains (no business experts needed)
Existing well-defined bounded contexts
The Process digraph strategic_design {
rankdir=TB;
"Event Storming" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#c8e6c9"];
"Identify Bounded Contexts" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#bbdefb"];
"Define Context Map" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#fff9c4"];
"Architecture Decisions" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#f8bbd0"];
"保存工件" [shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#81c784"];
"Event Storming" -> "Identify Bounded Contexts";
"Identify Bounded Contexts" -> "Define Context Map";
"Define Context Map" -> "Architecture Decisions";
"Architecture Decisions" -> "保存工件";
}
Step 1: Event Storming Gather domain experts and developers. Use sticky notes to explore the domain:
Domain Events (orange): Something that happened
"Order Placed", "Payment Processed", "Inventory Reserved"
Write in past tense
Commands (blue): What triggers events
"Place Order", "Process Payment", "Reserve Inventory"
Write in imperative mood
Aggregates (yellow): What handles commands and emits events
"Order", "Payment", "Inventory"
External Systems (pink): Outside dependencies
"Payment Gateway", "Email Service"
Actors (green): Who initiates commands
"Customer", "Admin", "System"
Process: Start with events, work backward to commands, identify what's needed.
Step 2: Identify Bounded Contexts Group related events, commands, and aggregates into contexts:
Semantic consistency : Same term means same thing within a contextIndependent evolution : Each context can change independentlyTeam alignment : One team owns one context (Conway's Law)
Where does language change? (Customer in Sales vs Support)
Where can we draw a clean boundary?
What can be deployed independently?
What team owns this capability?
Start coarse, refine later. Too many contexts = integration complexity. Too few = coupling.
Step 3: Define Context Map Document relationships between contexts:
Pattern Description When to Use Partnership Teams succeed or fail together Tight coordination needed Customer-Supplier Downstream depends on upstream Upstream serves downstream needs Conformist Downstream conforms to upstream Upstream cannot be influenced Anti-Corruption Layer Downstream translates upstream model Protect domain model purity Open Host Service Publish API for multiple consumers Shared capability Shared Kernel Shared subset of model Carefully controlled coupling
Draw the map: Which contexts talk to each other? What patterns apply?
Step 4: Architecture Decisions Based on context map, decide:
Team structure : One team per context (ideally)Communication : Synchronous (RPC) vs asynchronous (events)Data ownership : One context owns data, others subscribeDeployment : Monolith or microservices? Start monolith-first.
Thinking Framework Use this table during Event Storming:
Question What to Look For Example What events? Business-critical things that happened "OrderPlaced", "PaymentFailed" What triggers events? Commands from users or systems "PlaceOrder", "RetryPayment" What boundaries? Where language changes Sales "Customer" ≠ Support "Customer" Who owns what? Team responsibility boundaries Team A: Orders, Team B: Inventory How do they communicate? Sync vs async, contracts Events for loose coupling, RPC for tight
Bounded Context Checklist:
Examples
Case 1: E-commerce System
Events: OrderPlaced, InventoryReserved, PaymentProcessed, OrderShipped
Commands: PlaceOrder, ReserveInventory, ProcessPayment, ShipOrder
Aggregates: Order, Inventory, Payment, Shipment
Bounded Contexts identified:
Order Context
Language: Order, OrderItem, Customer (buyer), OrderStatus
Team: Order Management Team
Events: OrderPlaced, OrderCancelled
Inventory Context
Language: Product, Stock, Warehouse, Reservation
Team: Warehouse Team
Events: InventoryReserved, StockDepleted
Payment Context
Language: Payment, Transaction, PaymentMethod, Refund
Team: Finance Team
Events: PaymentProcessed, PaymentFailed
Order → Inventory: Customer-Supplier (Order needs Inventory to reserve)
Order → Payment: Customer-Supplier (Order needs Payment to process)
Order publishes OrderPlaced event → Inventory subscribes (async)
Payment publishes PaymentProcessed event → Order subscribes (async)
Architecture: Start as modular monolith. Deploy as microservices if teams scale.
Case 2: Healthcare System
Patient Management Context
Language: Patient, MedicalRecord, Diagnosis
Team: Clinical Team
Appointment Context
Language: Appointment, Schedule, Availability, Slot
Team: Scheduling Team
Billing Context
Language: Invoice, Payment, Insurance, Claim
Team: Billing Team
Patient Management → Appointment: Shared Kernel (Patient ID)
Appointment → Billing: Customer-Supplier (Appointments trigger billing)
Billing has Anti-Corruption Layer for Insurance Provider's external model
Common Pitfalls
Pitfall 1: Too Fine-Grained Contexts Mistake: Creating a context for every aggregate or entity.
Problem: Excessive integration complexity. Every change touches multiple contexts.
Solution: Start with fewer, larger contexts. Split only when you feel coupling pain.
Rule of thumb: Can you deploy this independently without coordinating with 3+ other teams? If no, merge contexts.
Pitfall 2: Ignoring Team Structure Mistake: Designing contexts based on domain purity, ignoring Conway's Law.
Problem: One team owns multiple contexts → coupling. Multiple teams own one context → conflict.
Solution: Align context boundaries with team boundaries. One team, one context.
Pitfall 3: Missing Anti-Corruption Layer Mistake: Letting upstream context's model leak into downstream context.
Problem: Downstream model becomes polluted with concepts that don't fit its domain.
Solution: Add Anti-Corruption Layer. Translate upstream model to downstream model at the boundary.
Example: External "User" → ACL translates → Internal "AccountHolder" with different attributes.
后置协议
工件输出
TIMESTAMP=$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M%S)
ARTIFACT_FILE="memory/artifacts/ddd-strategic/result-$TIMESTAMP .json"
cat > "$ARTIFACT_FILE " <<EOF
{
"skill": "ddd-strategic-design",
"version": "2.0.0",
"timestamp": "$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)",
"project": "$PROJECT_ROOT",
"branch": "$BRANCH",
"commit": "$COMMIT",
"input": {
"user_request": "用户的原始请求"
},
"output": {
"bounded_contexts": [
{
"name": "上下文名称",
"language": ["术语1", "术语2"],
"team": "团队名称",
"events": ["Event1", "Event2"]
}
],
"context_map": {
"Order → Inventory": "Customer-Supplier",
"Order → Payment": "Customer-Supplier"
},
"architecture_decisions": [
"Start as modular monolith",
"Deploy as microservices when teams scale"
]
},
"next_skills": [
"ddd-tactical-design",
"mvp-first"
]
}
EOF
echo "ARTIFACT SAVED: $ARTIFACT_FILE "
ln -sf "$ARTIFACT_FILE " memory/artifacts/ddd-strategic/latest.json
目标文件更新
GOAL_FILE=$(ls -t memory/goals/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1)
if [ -n "$GOAL_FILE " ]; then
GOAL_STATUS=$(grep "状态：" "$GOAL_FILE " | awk '{print $2}' )
if [ "$GOAL_STATUS " = "pending" ]; then
echo "Adding milestone: DDD 战略设计完成"
fi
fi
建议后续技能 ## 后续建议
基于 DDD 战略设计结果，建议继续执行：
**推荐技能链** ：
1. /ddd-tactical-design - 在限界上下文内进行战术设计
2. /mvp-first - 进行 MVP 功能筛选
**根据设计阶段选择** ：
- **战术实现** → /ddd-tactical-design（设计聚合、实体、值对象）
- **功能规划** → /mvp-first（筛选 MVP 功能）
- **迭代执行** → /pdca-cycle（进入 PDCA 循环）
是否继续执行？
- A) 执行推荐的技能链
- B) 只执行第一个技能
- C) 不继续，结束当前任务
References
Domain-Driven Design by Eric Evans - The original DDD bookImplementing Domain-Driven Design by Vaughn Vernon - Practical implementation guideEvent Storming by Alberto Brandolini - Collaborative domain explorationContext Mapping patterns: https://www.infoq.com/articles/ddd-contextmapping/ 