| name | aposd-designing-deep-modules |
| description | Enforce Design-It-Twice workflow: generate 2-3 radically different approaches, compare them, then implement. Use when designing modules, APIs, or classes before implementation. Triggers on: design, create class, add module, implement feature, new service, API design, before implementing. Produces structured design document with approaches, comparison table, choice rationale, and depth check. |
Skill: aposd-designing-deep-modules
STOP - Before Implementing
Never implement your first design. Generate 2-3 radically different approaches, compare them, then implement.
Design-It-Twice Workflow
BEFORE implementing any module:
1. DEFINE - What are you designing? (class, API, service)
2. GENERATE - 2-3 RADICALLY different approaches
3. SKETCH - Rough outline each (important methods only, no implementation)
4. COMPARE - List pros/cons, especially ease of use for callers
5. EVALUATE - Is there a clear winner or hybrid?
6. VERIFY - Does chosen design pass depth evaluation?
7. IMPLEMENT - Only then write the code
Time bound: Smaller modules: 1-2 hours. Larger modules: scale proportionally. This is design time, not implementation time.
If none attractive: Use identified problems to drive a new iteration of step 2.
Depth Evaluation
| Metric | Deep (Good) | Shallow (Bad) |
|---|
| Interface size | Few methods | Many methods |
| Method reusability | Multiple use cases | Single use case |
| Hidden information | High | Low |
| Caller cognitive load | Low | High |
| Common case | Simple | Complex |
Exemplar: Unix file I/O - 5 methods hide hundreds of thousands of lines of implementation.
Three Questions Framework
Ask these when designing interfaces:
| Question | Purpose | Red Flag Answer |
|---|
| "What is the simplest interface that covers all current needs?" | Minimize method count | "I need many methods" |
| "In how many situations will this method be used?" | Detect over-specialization | "Just this one situation" |
| "Is this easy to use for my current needs?" | Guard against over-generalization | "I need lots of wrapper code" |
Information Hiding Checklist
When embedding functionality in a module:
Generality Sweet Spot
Target: Somewhat general-purpose
| Aspect | Should Be |
|---|
| Functionality | Reflects current needs |
| Interface | Supports multiple uses |
| Specialization | Pushed up to callers OR down into variants |
Push specialization UP: Top-level code handles specific features; lower layers stay general.
Push specialization DOWN: Define general interface, implement with device-specific variants.
Red Flags
| Red Flag | Symptom | Fix |
|---|
| Shallow Module | Interface complexity rivals implementation | Combine with related functionality |
| Classitis | Many small classes with little functionality each | Consolidate related classes |
| Single-Use Method | Method designed for exactly one caller | Generalize to handle multiple cases |
| Information Leakage | Same knowledge in multiple modules | Consolidate in single module |
| Temporal Decomposition | Structure mirrors execution order | Structure by knowledge encapsulation |
| False Abstraction | Interface hides info caller actually needs | Expose necessary information |
| Granularity Mismatch | Caller must do work that belongs in module | Move logic into module |
Anti-Rationalization Table
| Tempting Shortcut | Why It Feels Right | Why It's Wrong |
|---|
| "I'm confident in my first idea" | Experience says it works | Complex problems defeat intuition; alternatives reveal hidden weaknesses |
| "I don't have time for multiple designs" | Deadline pressure | Design time << debugging time for wrong abstraction |
| "The alternatives would be worse" | Quick mental dismissal | Without sketching, you can't actually compare |
| "This is just a simple module" | Scope seems small | Small modules become core dependencies; getting them wrong cascades |
| "I'll refactor later if needed" | Deferred pain | Changing interfaces is expensive; callers multiply |
| "The user already knows what they want" | Seems respectful | They know the PROBLEM, not necessarily the best SOLUTION |
| "This is a standard pattern" | Feels like best practice | "Standard" often means "first thing I saw"; make it explicit |
| "I already know which is best" | Saves time | Then the comparison should be EASY, not skippable |
Process Integrity Checks
Before finalizing your design choice, verify:
If user expresses impatience: Acknowledge it, but complete the process. Say: "I hear the urgency - this comparison takes 2 minutes and helps avoid rework."
Emergency Bypass Criteria
Skip the normal workflow ONLY when ALL of these conditions are true:
- Production is down RIGHT NOW (not "might break soon")
- Users are actively impacted, security breach in progress, OR data loss occurring
- The fix is minimal (rollback or single-line change)
- You commit to returning for proper implementation within 24 hours
Emergency does NOT mean:
- "Demo in 30 minutes" — That's planning failure
- "CEO is asking" — Authority pressure ≠ emergency
- "Team is blocked" — They can wait for you to think
- "We need this fast" — Speed pressure is when discipline matters MOST
Mandatory Output Format
When designing, produce:
## Design: [Component Name]
### Approaches Considered
1. [Approach A] - [1-2 sentence description]
2. [Approach B] - [1-2 sentence description]
3. [Approach C] - [1-2 sentence description] (if applicable)
### Comparison
| Criterion | A | B | C |
|-----------|---|---|---|
| Interface simplicity | | | |
| Information hiding | | | |
| Caller ease of use | | | |
| [Domain-specific criterion] | | | |
### Choice: [A/B/C/Hybrid]
Rationale: [Why this wins, what's sacrificed]
### Depth Check
- Interface methods: [count]
- Hidden details: [list]
- Common case complexity: [simple/moderate/complex]
Chain
| After | Next |
|---|
| Design chosen | cc-pseudocode-programming |
