| name | software-design-principles |
| description | Foundational engineering canon – SOLID, DRY, clean code, layered architecture, cross-cutting concerns, NFRs. Imported by workflow skills (consort, lakebase-scm-workflows). Use when designing a module, reviewing a PR, planning a refactor, mapping cross-cutting concerns to layers, or arguing about API shape. |
software-design-principles
The code-level engineering canon. Markdown only, no scripts – consulted, not invoked. Workflow skills cite it; agents and humans read it. Larger scopes live in the sibling skills architectural-design-principles (system-level) and ui-ux-design-principles (experience-level).
Architectural concerns mapping (mandatory before promote/merge)
Fill this in for any non-trivial change before calling the design done. An unfilled row, or a concern with no clear owner, is a design smell – resolve it before merging.
| Concern | Layer | Owner module | Cross-cutting? |
|---|
| Authentication | HTTP / boundary | <module> | Yes |
| Authorization | Service | <module> | Yes |
| Capability resolution | Service | <module> | Yes |
| Audit logging | Cross-cutting | <module> | Yes |
| Rate limiting | HTTP / boundary | <module> | Yes |
| Schema validation | HTTP / boundary | <module> | Yes |
| Policy config | Service / config | <module> | Yes |
| Domain logic | Service | <module> | No |
| Storage | Infrastructure | <module> | No |
References
- SOLID – the five object-design rules.
- DRY – one home for each piece of logic.
- Clean code – naming, function shape, comments, error boundaries.
- Cross-cutting concerns – which layer owns auth, authz, capability resolution, audit, rate limiting, schema, policy.
- NFRs – performance, scalability, security, observability, operability, resilience.
Layered architecture lives in the architectural skill (reference).
Hard rules
- Names carry the design. If a fresh reader can't infer the concept from the name, rename it before the next test.
- Layers depend inward. HTTP -> service -> infrastructure, never the reverse.
- One owner per cross-cutting concern. Overlapping auth/audit logic in two modules is a smell: one owns it, the rest delegate.
- No duplicated logic. Before writing a block, look for an existing copy and extract one shared helper; fix every call site of a bug together.
- NFR baseline before done. Skim performance / scalability / security / observability / operability / resilience.
- Public boundary tests, private refactors. A correct refactor never changes the outer-boundary tests.
- No import-time coupling to an optional build artifact. A module must import in every environment it ships to. An unconditional
StaticFiles mount / asset read at import scope greens where the artifact exists and crashes everywhere it does not (backend-only tests, CI before the client build, fresh clones). Mount/read it only when present; degrade clearly (a 503 "not built") when absent. The import-time-build-coupling smell, enforced by consort-imports-clean.
- Tests encode requirements at a point in time; evolution can supersede them. Requirements accumulate and the latest one wins. When a later AC, story, or feature INTENTIONALLY changes behavior an earlier test asserts , a dropped column, a changed contract, a removed endpoint, a renamed field , that earlier test is superseded: it is neither a regression nor a constraint to preserve. Refactor it to the new behavior, or retire it, alongside the change that obsoleted it , across stories and features, not only the one in hand , and never weaken a test or force a green to keep an obsolete assertion alive. A genuine regression is the opposite (still-valid behavior broken by accident: fix the code, keep the test). Telling supersession from regression is required judgment, not a reason to stop; only a real conflict (making the superseded tests current would break a still-valid one) is escalated. Scan for supersession COMPREHENSIVELY, not just the tests that name the changed shape: when a change drops/renames a column, field, table, or endpoint, the superseded set also includes FITNESS / architecture / migration tests that assert a property of the now-gone shape , a reversibility check ("after up() then down(), the column is reconstructed"), a schema-shape assertion ("the column exists"), an invariant over the old field. A reversibility/fitness test for a column a later contract step intentionally drops encodes abandoned behavior and is superseded like any other. Missing one leaves the suite red for a reason the change fully intended.
- A schema contract change updates the data model AND the code in lockstep. Dropping a column (or removing/renaming a field, table, or endpoint) is NOT done when the migration is written. In the SAME change you must also remove it from the ORM/model definition, every query that names it, every serializer/DTO, and every template/view , or the running code keeps emitting SQL (or responses) for something the database no longer has, and you get
column ... does not exist at runtime even though the migration "succeeded". The migration changes the database; the model + queries + views must match it. This is the contract half of expand/contract: expand adds the new shape and backfills; contract removes the old shape EVERYWHERE (DB and code together), never just the DB.
Composition
consort – Architect Reviewer imports this in per-story review; Navigator in PLAN; Driver in REFACTOR.lakebase-scm-workflows – PRs reviewed against the layered-architecture + cross-cutting checks.
