ワンクリックでManusで任意のスキルを実行

new-feature-design

スター821

フォーク210

更新日2026年7月8日 03:10

Design and document new features with GitHub issue, low-level design (LLD), expert review, and testing plan. Creates structured documentation in .scratchpad/ with issue spec, technical design with diagrams and pseudo-code, multi-persona expert review, and a testing plan covering functional (curl and registry_management.py), backwards-compatibility, UX, ECS/terraform, and E2E API tests. Supports starting from a user description OR an existing GitHub issue URL. Folder naming: issue-{number}/ for existing issues, {feature-name}/ for new features.

インストール

Codex または Claude でインストールこの Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。

Manusで実行

ソース

agentic-community

agentic-community/mcp-gateway-registry

GitHub リポジトリを開く Creator のリポジトリを見る

ダウンロード

Manusで実行

New Feature Design Skill

Use this skill when the user wants to design a new feature for the MCP Gateway Registry. This skill creates comprehensive design documentation that enables entry-level developers to implement the feature.

Input Modes

This skill supports two input modes:

User Description Mode - User describes the feature they want to design
GitHub Issue URL Mode - User provides a URL to an existing GitHub issue

Detecting Input Mode

When the user invokes this skill:

If they provide a GitHub issue URL (e.g., https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123), use GitHub Issue URL Mode
Otherwise, use User Description Mode

Workflow

User Description Mode Workflow

Gather Requirements - Ask clarifying questions about the feature
Quick Codebase Review - Explore the codebase to understand structure
Create Design Folder - Create .scratchpad/{feature-name}/ directory
Write GitHub Issue - Create github-issue.md for issue creation
Deep Codebase Analysis - Thoroughly explore relevant code
Write Low-Level Design - Create lld.md with technical details
Expert Review - Create review.md with multi-persona feedback
Write Testing Plan - Create testing.md with functional, backwards-compat, UX, ECS, and E2E tests
Present Summary & Seek Guidance - Present findings and ask for direction

GitHub Issue URL Mode Workflow

Fetch GitHub Issue - Retrieve issue content using gh CLI
Analyze Issue Content - Extract requirements, design elements, and context
Quick Codebase Review - Explore the codebase to understand structure
Create Design Folder - Create .scratchpad/issue-{number}/ directory (e.g., issue-500 for GitHub issue #500)
Summarize Existing Issue - Create github-issue.md summarizing the existing issue
Clarify Requirements - Ask user about any gaps or ambiguities found
Deep Codebase Analysis - Thoroughly explore relevant code
Write Low-Level Design - Create lld.md with technical details
Expert Review - Create review.md with multi-persona feedback
Write Testing Plan - Create testing.md with functional, backwards-compat, UX, ECS, and E2E tests
Present Summary & Seek Guidance - Present findings and ask for direction

GitHub Issue URL Mode

Step 1: Fetch GitHub Issue

When a user provides a GitHub issue URL, fetch the issue content using the gh CLI:

# Extract owner, repo, and issue number from URL
# URL format: https://github.com/{owner}/{repo}/issues/{number}

# Fetch issue details
gh issue view {number} --repo {owner}/{repo} --json title,body,labels,state,assignees,comments

# For more context, also fetch related PRs if any
gh issue view {number} --repo {owner}/{repo} --json linkedPullRequests

Step 2: Analyze Issue Content

After fetching the issue, analyze it for:

Existing Requirements
- Problem statement
- User stories or use cases
- Acceptance criteria
- Scope definition
Existing Design Elements
- Technical proposals in the issue body
- Architecture suggestions
- API designs mentioned
- Data model proposals
- Diagrams or pseudocode
Discussion Context
- Comments with additional requirements
- Decisions made in discussion
- Concerns raised by team members
- Alternative approaches discussed
Metadata
- Labels (indicates feature type, priority)
- Assignees (who might have context)
- Linked PRs (prior implementation attempts)

Step 3: Create Issue Summary

Create a summary document that captures what was found:

# GitHub Issue Analysis: #{issue_number}

*Source: {issue_url}*
*Fetched: {date}*

## Issue Overview

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Title | {title} |
| State | {state} |
| Labels | {labels} |
| Assignees | {assignees} |

## Extracted Requirements

### Problem Statement
{extracted or "Not explicitly stated - needs clarification"}

### User Stories
{extracted user stories or "None found"}

### Acceptance Criteria
{extracted criteria or "Not defined - will need to establish"}

### Scope
{inferred scope or "Not specified"}

## Existing Design Elements

### Technical Proposals
{any technical details from issue body}

### Architecture Suggestions
{any architecture mentioned}

### API Design
{any API designs proposed}

### Open Questions in Issue
{questions raised but not answered}

## Discussion Summary

### Key Decisions Made
{decisions from comments}

### Concerns Raised
{concerns from team members}

### Alternative Approaches Mentioned
{alternatives discussed}

## Gaps Identified

The following information is missing and needs clarification:
1. {gap 1}
2. {gap 2}

Step 4: Clarify Requirements

Based on the analysis, ask the user only about gaps not covered in the issue:

Feature name (derive from issue title if possible, use kebab-case)
Missing requirements - Only ask about gaps identified
Design decisions - If alternatives were discussed but not decided
Scope confirmation - Verify the scope interpretation is correct

Example prompt:

I've analyzed GitHub issue #{number}: "{title}"

The issue provides:
- {what's available}

However, I need clarification on:
1. {gap question 1}
2. {gap question 2}

Also, the issue discusses two approaches for {topic}:
- Option A: {description}
- Option B: {description}

Which approach should we pursue in the design?

User Description Mode

Step 1: Gather Requirements

Before creating any files, ask the user:

What is the feature name? (will be used for folder name, use kebab-case)
What problem does this feature solve?
Who are the users/consumers of this feature?
Are there any constraints or requirements?
What is the expected scope (small/medium/large)?

Step 2: Quick Codebase Review

Before creating any design documents, perform a quick exploration of the codebase to understand:

Project Structure - Use Glob to understand the overall directory layout
- Identify main source directories (registry/, src/, etc.)
- Locate existing models, routes, services, and utilities
- Find configuration files and constants
Related Components - Search for existing features similar to the one being designed
- Use Grep to find relevant keywords and patterns
- Identify existing patterns and conventions used in the codebase
Entry Points - Understand how the application is structured
- Find the main FastAPI application and router setup
- Identify middleware, dependencies, and shared utilities

This quick review should take 5-10 minutes and helps you ask better clarifying questions and avoid proposing designs that conflict with existing architecture.

Step 3: Create Design Folder

Folder Naming Convention

IMPORTANT: Use different naming conventions based on the input mode:

Input Mode	Folder Name	Example
GitHub Issue URL Mode	`issue-{number}/`	`issue-500/` for GitHub issue #500
User Description Mode	`{feature-name}/`	`rate-limiting/` for a rate limiting feature

This convention makes it easy to:

Trace design documents back to their source GitHub issue
Avoid duplicate work on the same issue
Organize designs consistently

Folder Structure

Create the folder structure:

.scratchpad/issue-{number}/     # For GitHub Issue URL Mode
# OR
.scratchpad/{feature-name}/     # For User Description Mode

├── github-issue.md    # GitHub issue specification or summary
├── lld.md             # Low-level design document
├── review.md          # Expert review document
└── testing.md         # Testing plan (functional, backwards-compat, UX, ECS, E2E)

Step 4: Write GitHub Issue (github-issue.md)

For User Description Mode: Create a comprehensive GitHub issue specification.

For GitHub Issue URL Mode: Create a summary document that consolidates the existing issue content with any clarifications gathered. Use the "Issue Summary from URL" template below instead.

Template: New Issue Specification (User Description Mode)

# GitHub Issue: {Feature Title}

## Title
{concise title for the issue}

## Labels
- {appropriate labels from: enhancement, feature-request, api, frontend, backend, etc.}

## Description

### Problem Statement
{What problem does this solve? Why is it needed?}

### Proposed Solution
{High-level description of the solution}

### User Stories
- As a {user type}, I want to {action} so that {benefit}
- ...

### Acceptance Criteria
- [ ] {Criterion 1}
- [ ] {Criterion 2}
- ...

### Out of Scope
- {What is explicitly NOT included}

### Dependencies
- {Any dependent issues or external dependencies}

### Related Issues
- #{issue numbers if any}

Template: Issue Summary from URL (GitHub Issue URL Mode)

When working from an existing GitHub issue, create a summary document:

# Issue Summary: {Issue Title}

*Source Issue: [{owner}/{repo}#{number}]({issue_url})*
*Fetched: {date}*
*Status: {open/closed}*

## Issue Metadata

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Labels | {labels} |
| Assignees | {assignees} |
| Created | {created_date} |
| Last Updated | {updated_date} |

## Original Problem Statement

{Copy or summarize the problem statement from the issue body}

## Requirements Extracted

### From Issue Body
{Requirements found in the original issue}

### From Discussion (Comments)
{Additional requirements or clarifications from comments}

### Clarified with User
{Any requirements clarified during our conversation}

## Existing Design Elements

{Any technical proposals, architecture suggestions, or design decisions already in the issue}

### Technical Approach
{If specified in the issue}

### API Design
{If specified in the issue}

### Data Models
{If specified in the issue}

## Acceptance Criteria

### From Issue
{Criteria from the original issue}

### Additional (Established)
{Any additional criteria we established}

## Scope

{Scope as defined or inferred from the issue}

## Out of Scope

{What is explicitly excluded}

## Key Decisions from Discussion

| Decision | Context | Decided By |
|----------|---------|------------|
| {decision} | {why} | {who/when} |

## Open Questions Resolved

| Question | Resolution |
|----------|------------|
| {question from issue} | {answer we determined} |

## Dependencies

{Any dependencies mentioned in the issue}

## Notes

{Any additional context or notes relevant to the design}

Step 5: Deep Codebase Analysis

CRITICAL: Before writing the LLD, you MUST thoroughly understand all relevant code in the repository. This is not optional - a design that doesn't account for existing code patterns will fail during implementation.

REQUIRED: theory alignment. Read Theory of the System and check the proposed feature against its core invariants (single control plane for all asset types; the gateway is a generic reverse proxy and the registry is the control plane; registry is control-plane-not-data-path for A2A; DEPLOYMENT_MODE vs REGISTRY_MODE; three-surface config parity; fail-closed admission vs fail-open notification; IdP-agnostic across a closed provider factory; MCP spec compliance). Use the doc's "how to change this system without breaking its theory" checklist. If the design would violate an invariant, flag it explicitly to the user in the LLD (a "Theory impact" note) and in the Expert Review — a deliberate theory change is allowed, but it must be called out and argued, never slipped in. State which invariant is affected and the justification.

What to Analyze

Existing Models and Data Structures
- Read ALL relevant Pydantic models in registry/models/
- Understand field types, validators, and relationships
- Identify any models that need to be extended or referenced
Service Layer Patterns
- Read existing services in registry/services/
- Understand how business logic is organized
- Identify common patterns (error handling, logging, caching)
- Note any base classes or utility functions used
Route/API Patterns
- Read existing routes in registry/routes/
- Understand request/response patterns
- Identify how authentication, validation, and error responses are handled
- Note middleware and dependencies used
Storage Layer
- Read storage implementations in registry/storage/
- Understand how data is persisted
- Identify any abstraction layers or interfaces
Configuration and Constants
- Read configuration files and constants
- Understand environment variable patterns
- Identify feature flags or configuration options
Existing Tests
- Read relevant test files in tests/
- Understand testing patterns and fixtures used
- Identify how mocking is done

How to Analyze

Use the Task tool with subagent_type=Explore for thorough investigation:

Task tool with prompt: "Thoroughly analyze the service layer patterns in registry/services/.
Read all service files and document: 1) Common patterns used, 2) Error handling approaches,
3) Logging conventions, 4) Any base classes or utilities, 5) How services interact with storage."

For each area, you should:

Read the actual code, not just file names
Understand the "why" behind design decisions
Note any TODOs or known issues
Identify code that your feature will need to integrate with

Document Your Findings

Create a brief section in your LLD documenting:

Key files reviewed
Patterns identified
Integration points for the new feature
Any constraints or limitations discovered

Step 6: Write Low-Level Design (lld.md)

Create a detailed technical design document. This is the most critical document - it should contain enough detail for an entry-level developer to implement the feature.

# Low-Level Design: {Feature Name}

*Created: {date}*
*Author: Claude*
*Status: Draft*

## Table of Contents
1. [Overview](#overview)
2. [Codebase Analysis](#codebase-analysis)
3. [Architecture](#architecture)
4. [Data Models](#data-models)
5. [API Design](#api-design)
6. [Configuration Parameters](#configuration-parameters)
7. [New Dependencies](#new-dependencies)
8. [Implementation Details](#implementation-details)
9. [Observability](#observability)
10. [Scaling Considerations](#scaling-considerations)
11. [File Changes](#file-changes)
12. [Testing Strategy](#testing-strategy)
13. [Alternatives Considered](#alternatives-considered)
14. [Rollout Plan](#rollout-plan)

## Overview

### Problem Statement
{Detailed problem description}

### Goals
- {Goal 1}
- {Goal 2}

### Non-Goals
- {What this design explicitly does NOT address}

### Theory Impact
{State whether this feature upholds or changes any core invariant in
[Theory of the System](../../../docs/design/theory-of-the-system.md). Default: "No invariant
affected." If an invariant IS affected, name it, explain why the change is deliberate and
justified, and note the consequence — this is a flag for the reviewer, not something to bury.}

## Codebase Analysis

*Summary of the deep codebase analysis performed before writing this LLD.*

### Key Files Reviewed

| File/Directory | Purpose | Relevance to This Feature |
|----------------|---------|---------------------------|
| `registry/models/{model}.py` | {Description} | {How it relates} |
| `registry/services/{service}.py` | {Description} | {How it relates} |
| `registry/routes/{route}.py` | {Description} | {How it relates} |

### Existing Patterns Identified

1. **Pattern Name**: {Description of the pattern and where it's used}
   - Files: `{file1.py}`, `{file2.py}`
   - How we'll follow this: {How the new feature will use this pattern}

2. **Pattern Name**: {Description}
   - Files: `{files}`
   - How we'll follow this: {How we'll apply it}

### Integration Points

| Component | Integration Type | Details |
|-----------|------------------|---------|
| {Existing component} | {Extends/Uses/Depends on} | {Specific integration details} |

### Constraints and Limitations Discovered

- {Constraint 1}: {How it affects the design}
- {Constraint 2}: {How it affects the design}

### Code Snippets Reference

{Include relevant code snippets from existing codebase that the new feature will integrate with or follow patterns from}

```python
# From registry/services/example_service.py:45-60
# This shows the pattern we'll follow for...
def existing_pattern_example():
    pass

Architecture

System Context Diagram

{ASCII diagram showing how this feature fits into the overall system}

┌─────────────────┐     ┌─────────────────┐     ┌─────────────────┐
│                 │     │                 │     │                 │
│   Component A   │────▶│   New Feature   │────▶│   Component B   │
│                 │     │                 │     │                 │
└─────────────────┘     └─────────────────┘     └─────────────────┘

Sequence Diagram

{Show the flow of requests/data}

User          Frontend       Backend        Database
  │               │              │              │
  │──── Request ──▶│              │              │
  │               │── API Call ──▶│              │
  │               │              │── Query ────▶│
  │               │              │◀── Result ───│
  │               │◀── Response ─│              │
  │◀── Display ───│              │              │

Component Diagram

{Show internal components and their relationships}

Data Models

New Models

{Define any new Pydantic models with full field definitions}

class NewModel(BaseModel):
    """Description of the model."""

    field_name: str = Field(
        ...,
        description="What this field represents",
        min_length=1,
        max_length=100
    )
    optional_field: Optional[int] = Field(
        default=None,
        description="Optional field description"
    )

Model Changes

{Changes to existing models}

Database Schema Changes

{If applicable, show collection/table changes}

Data Access Plan (avoid N+1)

{For each read path the feature introduces, state how the data is fetched. Any time you need a count or lookup over a list of items, design a single bulk query or aggregation ($group/$sum/$in/batched fetch) rather than one query per item. Do NOT design a for loop that awaits a repository call per element. If a per-item read seems unavoidable, justify why and bound the item count. Note any new repository method (e.g. a count_* aggregation) the design needs so it does not fall back to loading and counting in Python.}

API Design

New Endpoints

POST /api/v1/{endpoint}

Description: {What this endpoint does}

Request:

{
    "field": "value"
}

Response (200 OK):

{
    "id": "123",
    "status": "success"
}

Error Responses:

400 Bad Request: {when}
401 Unauthorized: {when}
404 Not Found: {when}

API Changes

{Changes to existing endpoints}

Configuration Parameters

IMPORTANT: Clearly document all new configuration parameters this feature requires.

New Environment Variables

Variable Name	Type	Default	Required	Description
`FEATURE_ENABLED`	bool	`true`	No	Enable/disable the feature
`FEATURE_INTERVAL_SECONDS`	int	`30`	No	Polling interval in seconds

Settings Class Updates

Add to registry/core/config.py:

    # Feature-specific settings
    feature_enabled: bool = Field(
        default=True,
        description="Enable/disable feature X"
    )
    feature_interval_seconds: int = Field(
        default=30,
        description="Interval for feature X operations"
    )

Configuration Validation

{Any validation rules for configuration values}

Deployment Surface Checklist

CRITICAL: Every new configuration parameter must be propagated to all three deployment surfaces AND documented in the unified parameter reference. Use the checklist below and fill in the file-level details for each new parameter.

Unified Parameter Reference (must be updated for every new parameter)

The project maintains a single cross-surface mapping of every parameter at docs/unified-parameter-reference.md. This is the authoritative index for how each logical parameter is named on each surface. You must update it whenever a parameter is added, renamed, removed, or re-scoped.

File	What to Add	Done?
`docs/unified-parameter-reference.md`	Add one row per new parameter to the correct logical group table: parameter name, Docker `.env` var, Terraform `.tfvars` var, Helm values path, purpose. Mark secrets with (secret). If no existing group fits, add a new group section and explain why in the PR description. If a surface legitimately does not expose the parameter, leave the cell blank and note the reason in the PR.	[ ]

Verification: grep the new variable name across .env.example, terraform/aws-ecs/terraform.tfvars.example, charts/, AND docs/unified-parameter-reference.md — it must appear in all surfaces that the reference file claims it does.

Docker Deployment (5 files)

File	What to Add	Done?
`.env.example`	Variable with description and default value	[ ]
`.env`	Variable with the actual deployment value	[ ]
`docker-compose.yml`	Pass variable to the correct service(s) environment block	[ ]
`docker-compose.podman.yml`	Same as above (Podman variant)	[ ]
`docker-compose.prebuilt.yml`	Same as above (prebuilt-image variant)	[ ]

Terraform / ECS Deployment (5+ files)

File	What to Add	Done?
`terraform/aws-ecs/variables.tf`	Root variable definition with description and default	[ ]
`terraform/aws-ecs/main.tf`	Pass the variable into the module call	[ ]
`terraform/aws-ecs/modules/mcp-gateway/variables.tf`	Module-level variable definition	[ ]
`terraform/aws-ecs/modules/mcp-gateway/ecs-services.tf`	Map variable to container environment in ECS task definition	[ ]
`terraform/aws-ecs/terraform.tfvars.example`	Documented example value	[ ]

Sensitive values (tokens, private keys) must use AWS Secrets Manager references.

Helm / EKS Deployment (4 files)

File	What to Add	Done?
`charts/registry/values.yaml` (or the correct subchart)	Default value under the appropriate section	[ ]
`charts/mcp-gateway-registry-stack/values.yaml`	Default value (stack-level chart)	[ ]
`charts/<subchart>/templates/secret.yaml`	Add variable if sensitive (base64-encoded), plus support `existingSecret` / `secretKeyRef`	[ ]
`charts/<subchart>/templates/deployment.yaml`	Map value to container env var (plain or `secretKeyRef`)	[ ]

Sensitive values must support secretKeyRef for Kubernetes secrets.

System Config Page (Backend API + Frontend UI)

New config params must appear on the System Config page in the UI. This requires backend and possibly frontend changes.

File	What to Add	Done?
`registry/api/config_routes.py`	Add field to `CONFIG_GROUPS` dict with `(field_name, display_label, is_sensitive)`. Sensitive fields must have `is_sensitive=True` so they are masked via `_mask_sensitive_value()`.	[ ]
Frontend (`ConfigPanel.tsx`)	Auto-renders fields from `/api/config/full`. Update only if the new parameters need special UI treatment (toggles, grouped display, color-coded status, etc.).	[ ]

Verify after deployment: navigate to the System Config page and confirm the new parameter(s) appear with correct values and labels. Sensitive values should be masked. The same data is also available programmatically via GET /api/config/full (admin auth required) and can be exported via GET /api/config/export?format={env|json|tfvars|yaml}.

New Dependencies

IMPORTANT: List all new Python packages or libraries required by this feature.

Python Packages

Package	Version	Purpose	Added By
`package-name`	`latest`	{Why needed}	Backend
`another-package`	`latest`	{Why needed}	Frontend

Adding Dependencies

# Add to pyproject.toml
uv add package-name

No New Dependencies

If no new dependencies are required, explicitly state:

"This feature uses only existing dependencies from the project."

Implementation Details

Step-by-Step Implementation

Step 1: {First Step}

File: path/to/file.py Lines: {approximate line numbers or "new file"}

# Pseudo-code or actual code
def new_function(
    param1: str,
    param2: int
) -> dict:
    """
    Description of what this function does.

    Args:
        param1: Description
        param2: Description

    Returns:
        Description of return value
    """
    # Step 1: Validate input
    if not param1:
        raise ValueError("param1 is required")

    # Step 2: Process data
    result = process_data(param1, param2)

    # Step 3: Return response
    return {"status": "success", "data": result}

Step 2: {Second Step}

{Continue with detailed steps...}

Error Handling

{How errors should be handled}

Logging

{What should be logged and at what level}

Observability

Tracing

{Define trace spans for this feature}

Span Name	Attributes	Parent Span
`feature.operation_name`	`param1`, `param2`	`http.request`

Metrics

{Define metrics to track for this feature}

Metric Name	Type	Labels	Description
`feature_requests_total`	Counter	`status`, `endpoint`	Total requests
`feature_duration_seconds`	Histogram	`operation`	Operation duration

Logging Points

{Key operations that should emit logs}

Log Level	Event	Data to Include
INFO	Operation started	request_id, user_id
ERROR	Operation failed	error_type, context

Scaling Considerations

Current Load Assumptions

{Expected request volume and data size}

Horizontal Scaling

{How this feature scales across multiple instances}

Bottlenecks

{Potential bottlenecks and mitigation strategies}

Caching Strategy

{If applicable, what can be cached and for how long}

File Changes

New Files

File Path	Description
`registry/routes/new_feature.py`	API routes for new feature
`registry/services/new_feature_service.py`	Business logic
`tests/unit/test_new_feature.py`	Unit tests

Modified Files

File Path	Lines	Change Description
`registry/main.py`	~50	Add router import and include
`registry/models/domain.py`	~100-150	Add new model

API Client Updates (IMPORTANT)

When new API endpoints are added or modified, the following files MUST also be updated:

File Path	Update Required
`api/registry_client.py`	Add Pydantic response models and client methods for new endpoints
`api/registry_management.py`	Add CLI commands (argparse parsers) and handler functions
`api/openapi.json`	Regenerate OpenAPI spec if using auto-generation

Example additions for a new endpoint GET /api/feature/{path}/data:

# In api/registry_client.py:
class FeatureDataResponse(BaseModel):
    """Response model for feature data endpoint."""
    path: str = Field(..., description="Feature path")
    data: dict = Field(..., description="Feature data")

def get_feature_data(self, path: str) -> FeatureDataResponse:
    """Get feature data from the registry."""
    response = self._make_request("GET", f"/api/feature/{path}/data")
    return FeatureDataResponse(**response)

# In api/registry_management.py:
def cmd_feature_data(args: argparse.Namespace) -> None:
    """Get feature data command handler."""
    client = _get_client(args)
    result = client.get_feature_data(path=args.path)
    # Display result...

This ensures the registry management CLI stays in sync with backend API capabilities.

Estimated Lines of Code

Category	Lines
New Python code	~{X}
New test code	~{X}
Modified code	~{X}
Total	~{X}

Testing Strategy

IMPORTANT: Explicitly list all new test files and test cases required for this feature.

New Test Files

Test File	Type	Description
`tests/unit/services/test_feature_service.py`	Unit	Service layer unit tests
`tests/unit/repositories/test_feature_repository.py`	Unit	Repository unit tests
`tests/integration/test_feature_integration.py`	Integration	End-to-end integration tests
`tests/unit/api/test_feature_routes.py`	Unit	API route unit tests

Unit Tests Required

List specific unit test cases:

Test Case	File	What It Tests
`test_happy_path`	`test_feature_service.py`	Normal operation with valid inputs
`test_error_handling`	`test_feature_service.py`	Error cases and edge conditions
`test_validation`	`test_feature_service.py`	Input validation logic

Example unit test structure:

class TestNewFeature:
    """Tests for new feature."""

    def test_happy_path(self):
        """Test normal operation."""
        # Arrange
        input_data = {...}

        # Act
        result = function_under_test(input_data)

        # Assert
        assert result["status"] == "success"

    def test_error_case(self):
        """Test error handling."""
        with pytest.raises(ValueError):
            function_under_test(None)

Integration Tests Required

List specific integration test cases:

Test Case	File	What It Tests
`test_end_to_end_flow`	`test_feature_integration.py`	Complete feature workflow
`test_database_persistence`	`test_feature_integration.py`	Data is correctly persisted
`test_concurrent_operations`	`test_feature_integration.py`	Concurrency handling

Test Coverage Requirements

Minimum coverage for new code: 80%
All public methods must have tests
Error paths must be tested

Manual Testing

{Steps for manual verification}

Alternatives Considered

IMPORTANT: Document alternative approaches that were considered and why they were rejected.

Alternative 1: {Alternative Approach Name}

Description: {Brief description of the alternative}

Pros:

{Advantage 1}
{Advantage 2}

Cons:

{Disadvantage 1}
{Disadvantage 2}

Why Rejected: {Clear explanation of why this wasn't chosen}

Alternative 2: {Another Alternative}

Description: {Brief description}

Pros:

{Advantage}

Cons:

{Disadvantage}

Why Rejected: {Explanation}

Comparison Matrix

Criteria	Chosen Approach	Alternative 1	Alternative 2
Complexity	Low	Medium	High
Performance	Good	Better	Best
Maintainability	High	Medium	Low
Implementation Time	1 week	2 weeks	3 weeks

Rollout Plan

Phase 1: Development

Implement core functionality
Write unit tests
Code review

Phase 2: Testing

Integration testing
Security review
Performance testing (if applicable)

Phase 3: Deployment

Deploy to staging
Verify in staging
Deploy to production
Monitor for issues

Open Questions

{Any unresolved questions that need answers}

References

{Links to relevant documentation}
{Links to similar implementations}


## Step 7: Expert Review (review.md)

Create a review document with feedback from multiple expert personas:

```markdown
# Expert Review: {Feature Name}

*Review Date: {date}*
*LLD Version: 1.0*

## Review Panel

| Role | Reviewer | Status |
|------|----------|--------|
| Frontend Engineer | Pixel | Pending |
| Backend Engineer | Byte | Pending |
| SRE/DevOps Engineer | Circuit | Pending |
| Security Engineer | Cipher | Pending |
| SMTS (Overall) | Sage | Pending |

---

## Frontend Engineer Review

**Reviewer:** Pixel
**Focus Areas:** UI/UX, React components, state management, API integration

### Assessment

#### Strengths
- {Positive aspects of the design from frontend perspective}

#### Concerns
- {Issues or risks identified}

#### New Libraries Required

| Library | Version | Purpose | Justification |
|---------|---------|---------|---------------|
| `library-name` | `latest` | {What it does} | {Why it's needed vs alternatives} |
| None | - | - | No new frontend dependencies required |

#### Better Alternatives Considered

{Are there better frontend approaches? Discuss alternatives like different state management, component libraries, etc.}

#### Recommendations
1. {Specific recommendation}
2. {Specific recommendation}

#### Questions for Author
- {Questions that need clarification}

### Verdict: {APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION}

---

## Backend Engineer Review

**Reviewer:** Byte
**Focus Areas:** API design, data models, business logic, database queries, performance

### Assessment

#### Strengths
- {Positive aspects from backend perspective}

#### N+1 Access Pattern Check (MANDATORY)
Inspect every data-access path in the design. Flag any pattern that reads from
a database or data source once per item (a `count()` / `find_one()` / `get()` /
`distinct()` or repository call inside a `for`/`while`/comprehension/per-item
callback, or a service that internally queries per element). State the fix: a
single bulk query or aggregation (`$group`/`$sum`/`$in`/batched fetch) outside
the loop. `asyncio.gather` over a per-item list is still N+1 round-trips; flag
it unless the item count is small and bounded.
- **N+1 patterns:** {None found / FLAGGED: <where + the per-item read and the bulk-query fix>}

#### Concerns
- {Issues or risks identified}

#### New Libraries Required

| Library | Version | Purpose | Justification |
|---------|---------|---------|---------------|
| `library-name` | `latest` | {What it does} | {Why it's needed vs alternatives} |
| None | - | - | No new backend dependencies required |

#### Better Alternatives Considered

{Are there better backend approaches? Discuss alternatives like different algorithms, data structures, caching strategies, etc.}

#### Recommendations
1. {Specific recommendation}
2. {Specific recommendation}

#### Questions for Author
- {Questions that need clarification}

### Verdict: {APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION}

---

## SRE/DevOps Engineer Review

**Reviewer:** Circuit
**Focus Areas:** Deployment, monitoring, scaling, infrastructure, reliability

### Assessment

#### Strengths
- {Positive aspects from SRE perspective}

#### Concerns
- {Issues or risks identified}

#### Infrastructure Dependencies

| Resource | Type | Purpose | Cost Impact |
|----------|------|---------|-------------|
| `resource-name` | AWS Service / Tool | {What it does} | {Estimated cost} |
| None | - | - | No new infrastructure required |

#### Better Alternatives Considered

{Are there better infrastructure approaches? Discuss alternatives like different AWS services, deployment strategies, monitoring tools, etc.}

#### Recommendations
1. {Specific recommendation}
2. {Specific recommendation}

#### Operational Checklist
- [ ] Monitoring/alerting considered
- [ ] Logging sufficient for debugging
- [ ] Graceful degradation planned
- [ ] Rollback strategy defined
- [ ] Resource requirements estimated

### Verdict: {APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION}

---

## Security Engineer Review

**Reviewer:** Cipher
**Focus Areas:** Authentication, authorization, input validation, data protection, OWASP

> **Before writing this section, read [security-patterns.md](../pr-review/personas/security-patterns.md)** — the catalog of security defects that have shipped and been fixed in this project. Design the feature so it does not reintroduce any of them (SSRF on outbound fetches, broken access control / info disclosure on new endpoints, weak defaults, token-boundary confusion, missing CSRF, injection, log/secret leakage, agent execution safety). Call out in the Concerns/Recommendations below which patterns this feature touches and how the design avoids them.

### Assessment

#### Strengths
- {Positive aspects from security perspective}

#### Concerns
- {Issues or risks identified}

#### Security Checklist
See [security-patterns.md#review-checklist](../pr-review/personas/security-patterns.md#review-checklist) for the full per-pattern list. Key items:
- [ ] Outbound fetches of stored/request-supplied URLs go through the SSRF guard (pattern #1)
- [ ] New GET endpoints strip backend URLs for non-admins; mutations 404-then-403 on resolved identity (pattern #2)
- [ ] No new secret ships with a working default; new env vars added to reserved-name + weak-secret lists (pattern #3)
- [ ] Inbound auth headers stripped on egress; JWTs verified; no client-supplied session id trusted (pattern #4)
- [ ] Every mutating endpoint carries the CSRF dependency (pattern #5)
- [ ] No untrusted input interpolated into nginx/query/HTML/href without escaping (pattern #6)
- [ ] No secrets/headers/OIDC claim values logged; secret fields write-only in responses (pattern #7)
- [ ] Mutating agent tools gated behind confirmation; agent endpoints authenticate (pattern #9)

#### Recommendations
1. {Specific recommendation}
2. {Specific recommendation}

### Verdict: {APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION}

---

## SMTS Overall Review

**Reviewer:** Sage
**Focus Areas:** Architecture, code quality, maintainability, alignment with project goals

### Executive Summary

{2-3 sentence summary of the design and overall assessment}

### Architecture Assessment

- **Alignment with existing patterns:** {Good/Needs Work}
- **Maintainability:** {Good/Needs Work}
- **Scalability:** {Good/Needs Work}
- **Testability:** {Good/Needs Work}

### Cross-Cutting Concerns

{Issues that span multiple review areas}

### Final Recommendations

1. **Must Fix (Blockers):**
   - {Critical issues that must be addressed}

2. **Should Fix (Important):**
   - {Important issues to address before implementation}

3. **Consider (Nice to Have):**
   - {Suggestions for improvement}

### Overall Verdict: {APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CHANGES / NEEDS REVISION}

---

## Review Summary

| Reviewer | Verdict | Blockers | Key Concerns |
|----------|---------|----------|--------------|
| Frontend | {verdict} | {count} | {summary} |
| Backend | {verdict} | {count} | {summary} |
| SRE/DevOps | {verdict} | {count} | {summary} |
| Security | {verdict} | {count} | {summary} |
| SMTS | {verdict} | {count} | {summary} |

### Next Steps

1. {Action item}
2. {Action item}
3. {Action item}

### Sign-Off

- [ ] All blockers resolved
- [ ] Design updated based on feedback
- [ ] Ready for implementation

Important Guidelines

Design Principles

Favor simple designs over unnecessary complexity
Prefer straightforward code over clever solutions
Design for maintainability by entry-level developers
Add observability from the start, not as an afterthought

Documentation Quality

Be Thorough: The LLD should be detailed enough that someone unfamiliar with the codebase can implement it
Use Diagrams: ASCII diagrams help visualize the design
Include Code: Show actual or pseudo-code for key functions
Specify Files: Always mention which files to create/modify and approximate line numbers
Consider All Aspects: Think about error handling, logging, testing, and deployment
Expert Reviews: Make the reviews realistic - identify actual issues, not just praise
Never announce the feature in README.md: feature documentation goes to the feature's own docs page (create one if it lacks one) and, on release, to docs/release-notes/ plus a single curated highlight in docs/overview/feature-release-highlights.md. The README's "What's New" section is limited to the 3 most-recent highlights and is rotated only by the release-notes skill; it has a CI-enforced 350-line budget. A design must not plan to add README sections or inline feature blurbs — call out the docs page it will add instead.

Example Usage

Example 1: User Description Mode

User: "Design a new feature for rate limiting on tool calls"

Ask clarifying questions about rate limiting requirements
Quick codebase review to understand existing architecture
Create .scratchpad/rate-limiting/
Write github-issue.md with rate limiting requirements
Deep codebase analysis of relevant services
Write lld.md with:
- Architecture showing rate limiter component
- Sequence diagram for rate-limited requests
- Redis/in-memory counter data structures
- API changes for rate limit headers
- Middleware implementation details
- Configuration options
Write review.md with expert feedback on:
- Frontend: How to display rate limit info to users
- Backend: Algorithm choice, storage considerations
- SRE: Redis availability, monitoring needs
- Security: Rate limit bypass prevention
- SMTS: Overall architecture fit
Write testing.md with:
- Functional curl tests for the rate limit headers endpoint
- registry_management.py tests for any new CLI flags
- Backwards-compat tests confirming existing endpoints still respond identically when under limit
- UX tests for surfacing rate limit feedback in the UI
- ECS/terraform tests for any new env vars (e.g. RATE_LIMIT_REDIS_URL)
- E2E test exercising multiple requests to trigger and recover from a rate-limited state
Present summary and seek guidance on recommendations

Example 2: GitHub Issue URL Mode

User: "https://github.com/agentic-community/mcp-gateway-registry/issues/456"

Fetch issue #456 using gh issue view 456 --repo agentic-community/mcp-gateway-registry --json title,body,labels,state,comments
Analyze the issue content:
- Extract: "Add support for federated registry syncing"
- Found: Problem statement, some acceptance criteria
- Missing: Specific sync frequency, conflict resolution strategy
Quick codebase review to understand registry architecture
Create .scratchpad/issue-456/ (folder named after the GitHub issue number)
Ask user only about gaps:
- "The issue mentions syncing but doesn't specify frequency. What sync interval should we design for?"
- "The issue discusses conflicts but doesn't specify resolution. Should we use last-write-wins or require manual resolution?"
Write github-issue.md summarizing the issue with clarifications
Deep codebase analysis of registry and storage layers
Write lld.md incorporating:
- Requirements from original issue
- Design elements proposed in issue comments
- Clarifications from user
- Technical details for implementation
Write review.md with expert feedback
Write testing.md with:
- Functional curl tests for new sync endpoints and existing endpoints that now honor sync state
- registry_management.py tests for any new sync-related CLI commands
- Backwards-compat tests confirming non-federated deployments are unaffected
- UX tests for any UI indicators showing federated/synced resources
- ECS/terraform tests for new sync config vars (e.g. FEDERATION_PEER_URLS, FEDERATION_SYNC_INTERVAL_SECONDS)
- E2E test exercising a two-registry sync cycle and conflict resolution
Present summary noting:
- What came from the original issue
- What was clarified during design
- Recommendations for implementation

Step 8: Write Testing Plan (testing.md)

Create a comprehensive testing plan document that captures executable, copy-pasteable tests covering every externally observable change introduced by the feature. The goal is for a reviewer or implementer to be able to walk through this document and verify the feature works end-to-end without having to invent test cases.

When Each Test Category Applies

Include a category only when it is relevant to the feature. Mark a category "Not Applicable" with a short justification when it does not apply.

Category	Include When
Functional Tests (curl)	Feature adds/modifies any HTTP endpoint
Functional Tests (registry_management.py)	Feature adds/modifies anything exposed via the management CLI
Backwards Compatibility Tests	Feature changes an existing endpoint, schema, CLI command, config default, or data model
UX Tests	Feature adds/changes any UI surface (web UI, CLI output formatting, error messages shown to users)
Deployment Surface Tests (Docker, ECS, Helm)	Feature adds or modifies any config parameter (env var, setting, Terraform variable, Helm value, secret) across Docker, ECS/Terraform, or Helm/EKS deployments
Nginx Routing / MCP Proxy Tests	Feature touches nginx config generation (`nginx_service.py`), auth server mcp-proxy (`/mcp-proxy/`), or any proxy_pass/location-block logic
E2E API Tests	Feature adds a new user-visible workflow that spans multiple endpoints or services

CRITICAL: Nginx Routing Safety

Any change that impacts nginx routing (in registry/core/nginx_service.py, auth_server/server.py mcp-proxy, or nginx template files) MUST include an end-to-end MCP client connectivity test. This is because:

Health checks do not exercise the nginx proxy path. They call backends directly (127.0.0.1), so a broken proxy_pass goes undetected by monitoring.
The REST API does not use the MCP proxy path. UI and API tests pass even when MCP routing is broken.
Only real MCP clients (Roo Code, Claude Code, Cursor) connecting through the gateway exercise the full path: CloudFront -> ALB -> nginx location block -> auth_request -> mcp-proxy hop -> upstream backend.

Required test for any nginx routing change:

# Verify ai-registry-tools (mcpgw) is reachable through the full proxy chain
TOKEN="<valid JWT>"
curl -X POST \
  -H "X-Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -H "Accept: application/json, text/event-stream" \
  -d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"initialize","params":{"protocolVersion":"2025-03-26","capabilities":{},"clientInfo":{"name":"test","version":"1.0"}},"id":1}' \
  "https://<registry-url>/airegistry-tools/mcp"

# Expected: 200 OK with JSON-RPC response containing serverInfo
# Failure: 502/404/405 or "Upstream MCP server error"

This test must pass on all deployment surfaces (Docker Compose, ECS, EKS) before merging. The airegistry-tools server is the canary for MCP proxy routing because it is always registered and always healthy.

Testing Plan Template

Use this template verbatim (fill in the placeholders, remove sections marked "Not Applicable" except to record the justification):

# Testing Plan: {Feature Name}

*Created: {date}*
*Related LLD: `./lld.md`*
*Related Issue: `./github-issue.md`*

## Overview

### Scope of Testing
{1-2 sentences describing what is being tested and why}

### Test Environments

| Environment | Purpose | How to Reach |
|-------------|---------|--------------|
| Local (docker-compose) | Primary dev verification | `docker-compose up -d` at repo root |
| AWS ECS (terraform) | Staging/prod parity | `terraform/aws-ecs/` deployment |

### Prerequisites

- [ ] Registry and Keycloak running (`docker ps | grep -E 'registry\|keycloak'`)
- [ ] Auth tokens generated: `cd credentials-provider && ./generate_creds.sh`
- [ ] Token file exists: `ls -la .oauth-tokens/ingress.json`
- [ ] {Any feature-specific prereqs, e.g. MongoDB seeded with X}

### Shared Variables

```bash
export REGISTRY_URL="http://localhost"             # or https://registry.<region>.<domain>
export TOKEN_FILE=".oauth-tokens/ingress.json"
export ACCESS_TOKEN=$(jq -r '.access_token' "$TOKEN_FILE")

1. Functional Tests

1.1 curl Tests (HTTP API)

For each new or modified endpoint, provide a copy-pasteable curl command, the expected response, and the assertion being verified.

Test 1.1.1: {Endpoint description, e.g. "Create resource X"}

Endpoint: POST /api/v1/{path}

Command:

curl -sS -X POST "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{path}" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
        "field1": "value1",
        "field2": 42
      }' \
  | jq

Expected Status: 200 OK (or 201 Created)

Expected Response:

{
  "id": "{id}",
  "status": "success"
}

Assertions:

Response contains id field
status == "success"
{Any side effect to verify, e.g. record exists in DB}

Negative Case:

# Missing required field should return 400
curl -sS -X POST "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{path}" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{}' -w "\n%{http_code}\n"

Expected: 400 with validation error body.

Test 1.1.2: {Next endpoint}

{Repeat the structure above for each endpoint}

1.2 registry_management.py CLI Tests

For each new or modified CLI command exposed via api/registry_management.py, provide the exact invocation and expected output.

Test 1.2.1: {Command description, e.g. "Register a new feature resource"}

Command:

cd api
uv run python registry_management.py {subcommand} \
  --token-file "../$TOKEN_FILE" \
  --registry-url "$REGISTRY_URL" \
  --{new-param} "{value}"

Expected Output (key fragments):

Successfully created {resource}: <id>

Assertions:

Exit code is 0
Output includes the created resource id
Follow-up list command shows the resource

Follow-up Verification:

uv run python registry_management.py list \
  --token-file "../$TOKEN_FILE" \
  --registry-url "$REGISTRY_URL"

Test 1.2.2: {Next command}

{Repeat the structure above}

2. Backwards Compatibility Tests

Include this section if the feature touches any existing endpoint, schema, CLI command, default value, or data model. Otherwise replace with: "Not Applicable - feature introduces only net-new surface area: {justification}".

2.1 Existing API Contract

Goal: confirm that existing clients continue to work without code changes.

Test 2.1.1: Legacy request shape still accepted

Command (pre-feature request body):

curl -sS -X POST "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{existing-endpoint}" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
        "legacy_field": "value"
      }' | jq

Assertions:

Returns 200 (not 400)
Response contains all previously documented fields
New optional fields either absent or have sensible defaults

2.2 Existing CLI Behavior

Test 2.2.1: CLI command without new flags behaves as before

uv run python registry_management.py {existing-command} \
  --token-file "../$TOKEN_FILE" \
  --registry-url "$REGISTRY_URL"

Assertions:

Exit code 0
Output format unchanged (diff against pre-change baseline if available)

2.3 Default Behavior When New Config Unset

Feature disabled by default (or matches prior behavior) when new env vars are unset
No new required config parameter breaks existing deployments

3. UX Tests

Include this section if the feature changes any user-facing surface (web UI, CLI output, error messages). Otherwise replace with: "Not Applicable - feature is internal only, with no UX changes."

3.1 Web UI Tests

For each UI change, describe the manual test steps.

Test 3.1.1: {UI flow, e.g. "Display new resource in listing"}

Steps:

Log in to the registry UI at $REGISTRY_URL
Navigate to {page}
Verify {visible element} renders correctly
{Action, e.g. click "Create"}
Verify {expected outcome}

Assertions:

Element visible at correct position
No console errors in browser devtools
Responsive behavior at mobile width works
Accessible: keyboard navigation and screen-reader labels present

3.2 CLI Output / Error Message Tests

Test 3.2.1: Error message is actionable

uv run python registry_management.py {command} --invalid-flag bad-value

Assertions:

Error clearly states what was invalid
Error suggests the correct usage
No stack trace leaked to user

4. Deployment Surface Tests (Docker, ECS, Helm)

Include this section whenever the feature adds or modifies ANY config parameter (env var, setting, Terraform variable, Helm value, secret). Otherwise replace with: "Not Applicable - feature introduces no new config parameters. Verified by reviewing diff of registry/core/config.py."

4.0 Unified Parameter Reference Updated

Before any surface-specific wiring tests, confirm the cross-surface index was updated.

Check	Verification Command
New parameter row(s) added to `docs/unified-parameter-reference.md`	`grep -n "<PARAM_NAME>" docs/unified-parameter-reference.md`
Each cell points to a file that actually contains the variable	`grep -rn "<PARAM_NAME>" .env.example terraform/aws-ecs/terraform.tfvars.example charts/`

Assertions:

Parameter appears in docs/unified-parameter-reference.md in the correct group (or a new group is added with justification)
Docker, Terraform, and Helm cells for the new row are either filled in or explicitly blank with a note in the PR description
Secrets are flagged with (secret) in the reference
The /api/config/full endpoint returns the new parameter (sensitive values masked)

4.1 Docker Deployment Wiring

For each new config parameter, confirm it is present in all Docker deployment files.

Config Parameter	Env Var Name	Verification Command
`feature_enabled`	`FEATURE_ENABLED`	`grep FEATURE_ENABLED .env.example docker-compose*.yml`
`feature_interval_seconds`	`FEATURE_INTERVAL_SECONDS`	`grep FEATURE_INTERVAL_SECONDS .env.example docker-compose*.yml`

Assertions:

Variable documented in .env.example with description and default
Variable present in .env with deployment value
Variable passed in docker-compose.yml environment block for the correct service(s)
Variable passed in docker-compose.podman.yml environment block
Variable passed in docker-compose.prebuilt.yml environment block
docker-compose up -d starts successfully with the new variable

4.2 Terraform / ECS Variable Wiring

For each new config parameter, confirm it is plumbed through the ECS deployment.

Config Parameter	Env Var Name	Added To	Verification Command
`feature_enabled`	`FEATURE_ENABLED`	`terraform/aws-ecs/variables.tf` + `ecs-services.tf`	`grep -rn FEATURE_ENABLED terraform/aws-ecs/`
`feature_interval_seconds`	`FEATURE_INTERVAL_SECONDS`	`terraform/aws-ecs/variables.tf` + `ecs-services.tf`	`grep -rn FEATURE_INTERVAL_SECONDS terraform/aws-ecs/`

Assertions:

Root variable defined in terraform/aws-ecs/variables.tf with description and default
Variable passed to module in terraform/aws-ecs/main.tf
Module variable defined in terraform/aws-ecs/modules/mcp-gateway/variables.tf
Variable mapped to container env in terraform/aws-ecs/modules/mcp-gateway/ecs-services.tf
Example value in terraform/aws-ecs/terraform.tfvars.example

4.3 Terraform Plan/Apply Verification

cd terraform/aws-ecs
terraform init
terraform validate
terraform plan -var 'feature_enabled=true' -var 'feature_interval_seconds=60'

Assertions:

terraform validate passes
terraform plan shows the new variable in the ECS task definition env block
No unintended changes to unrelated resources

4.4 Helm / EKS Variable Wiring

For each new config parameter, confirm it is plumbed through the Helm charts.

Config Parameter	Helm Value Path	Verification Command
`feature_enabled`	`registry.featureEnabled`	`grep -rn FEATURE_ENABLED charts/`
`feature_interval_seconds`	`registry.featureIntervalSeconds`	`grep -rn FEATURE_INTERVAL_SECONDS charts/`

Assertions:

Default value in charts/registry/values.yaml
Default value in charts/mcp-gateway-registry-stack/values.yaml
Sensitive values added to charts/registry/templates/secret.yaml (base64-encoded)
Variable mapped to container env in charts/registry/templates/deployment.yaml
helm template charts/registry renders the new env var correctly

4.5 Deploy and Verify on ECS

cd terraform/aws-ecs
terraform apply -var 'feature_enabled=true' -var 'feature_interval_seconds=60'

Post-Deploy Assertions:

ECS service reaches RUNNING state
CloudWatch logs show the feature initialized with the configured values
Health check endpoint returns 200 against the deployed ALB/CloudFront URL
Re-run the Functional Tests from section 1 against the deployed $REGISTRY_URL

4.6 Rollback Verification

terraform apply with feature_enabled=false disables the feature cleanly
Reverting to the previous task definition restores prior behavior (backwards compat holds in deployed env)

5. End-to-End API Tests

Include this section if the feature adds a user-visible workflow that spans multiple endpoints or services. Otherwise replace with: "Not Applicable - feature is a single-endpoint change, covered by Functional Tests section 1."

5.1 E2E Scenario: {Scenario Name}

Goal: {business outcome being exercised, e.g. "A tenant onboards, registers a server, invokes a tool, and tears down the resources"}

Setup:

# Generate token, set env vars (see Shared Variables above)
export RUN_ID=$(date +%s)

Steps (each step is executable):

Create prerequisite resources

curl -sS -X POST "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{pre-req}" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  -d '{ "name": "e2e-'$RUN_ID'" }'

Exercise the new feature

curl -sS -X POST "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{new-endpoint}" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $ACCESS_TOKEN" \
  -d '{ "ref": "e2e-'$RUN_ID'" }'

Verify cross-service side effect

curl -sS "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{downstream-check}/e2e-$RUN_ID" | jq

Teardown

curl -sS -X DELETE "$REGISTRY_URL/api/v1/{pre-req}/e2e-$RUN_ID"

Assertions:

All steps return expected status codes
Final state matches expected (resource visible in listing, metrics emitted, logs present)
Teardown leaves the system in its original state

5.2 Reuse of Existing E2E Harness

If api/test-management-api-e2e.sh already exercises adjacent flows, extend it rather than duplicating:

Add new test phase to api/test-management-api-e2e.sh
Document additions in api/test-management-api-e2e.md
Run full harness locally and against the ECS deployment

cd api
./test-management-api-e2e.sh --token-file ../$TOKEN_FILE --registry-url "$REGISTRY_URL"

6. Test Execution Checklist

Copy this checklist into the PR description when implementing the feature:

Section 1 (Functional) - all curl tests pass against local deployment
Section 1 (Functional) - all registry_management.py commands succeed
Section 2 (Backwards Compat) - verified or marked Not Applicable with justification
Section 3 (UX) - verified or marked Not Applicable with justification
Section 4 (Deployment Surfaces: Docker, ECS, Helm) - verified or marked Not Applicable with justification
Section 5 (E2E) - verified or marked Not Applicable with justification
Unit tests added in tests/unit/
Integration tests added in tests/integration/
uv run pytest tests/ -n 8 passes with no regressions


### Guidance for Generating testing.md

1. **Make tests copy-pasteable.** Use the exact env var conventions (`REGISTRY_URL`, `TOKEN_FILE`, `ACCESS_TOKEN`) and match the style of `api/test-management-api-e2e.sh`.
2. **Cover every new endpoint and every new CLI command.** If the LLD adds three endpoints and two CLI commands, section 1 must have at least five subsections.
3. **Anchor ECS tests on concrete files.** Reference `terraform/aws-ecs/ecs.tf`, `variables.tf`, and any module under `terraform/aws-ecs/modules/` that the parameter flows through. Do not write generic "deploy and verify" wording - name the files.
4. **Mark Not Applicable explicitly.** Do not silently omit sections - always include the heading with a short justification, so reviewers see that the category was considered.
5. **Align with backwards-compat rules.** If the LLD introduces a schema change, the backwards-compat section must test the pre-change request/response shapes.
6. **Do not invent endpoints or flags.** Every curl URL, every `registry_management.py` flag, and every Terraform variable must exist in the LLD or the current codebase.


## Step 9: Present Summary & Seek Guidance

**IMPORTANT:** After completing the design documents and expert review, present a clear summary to the user and ask for guidance on addressing recommendations.

### Summary Format

Present the following information in a clear, tabular format:

```markdown
## Design Summary

### Documents Created

| Document | Location | Description |
|----------|----------|-------------|
| GitHub Issue | `.scratchpad/{feature}/github-issue.md` | Issue specification |
| Low-Level Design | `.scratchpad/{feature}/lld.md` | Technical design |
| Expert Review | `.scratchpad/{feature}/review.md` | Multi-persona review |
| Testing Plan | `.scratchpad/{feature}/testing.md` | Functional, backwards-compat, UX, ECS, and E2E tests |

### Review Verdicts

| Reviewer | Verdict | Blockers | Key Recommendations |
|----------|---------|----------|---------------------|
| Frontend (Pixel) | {verdict} | {count} | {brief summary} |
| Backend (Byte) | {verdict} | {count} | {brief summary} |
| SRE (Circuit) | {verdict} | {count} | {brief summary} |
| Security (Cipher) | {verdict} | {count} | {brief summary} |
| SMTS (Sage) | {verdict} | {count} | {brief summary} |

### Configuration Parameters

| Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
|-----------|------|---------|-------------|
| `PARAM_NAME` | type | value | {description} |

### New Dependencies

| Package/Resource | Type | Required By |
|------------------|------|-------------|
| `package-name` | Python | Backend |
| None | - | No new dependencies |

### New Tests Required

| Test File | Type | Coverage |
|-----------|------|----------|
| `tests/unit/test_feature.py` | Unit | Service layer |
| `tests/integration/test_feature.py` | Integration | End-to-end |

### Estimated Effort

| Category | Lines of Code |
|----------|---------------|
| New code | ~{X} |
| Tests | ~{X} |
| Modified | ~{X} |
| **Total** | **~{X}** |

Seeking Guidance

After presenting the summary, explicitly ask the user for guidance:

## Action Required

### Blockers (Must Address)

The following issues were identified as **blockers** and should be addressed before implementation:

1. {Blocker description from review}
2. {Blocker description from review}

**These will be incorporated into the LLD.**

### Recommendations (Need Your Input)

The following recommendations were made by reviewers. Please indicate which ones to incorporate:

| # | Recommendation | Reviewer | Priority | Incorporate? |
|---|----------------|----------|----------|--------------|
| 1 | {recommendation} | Backend | Should Fix | ? |
| 2 | {recommendation} | SRE | Should Fix | ? |
| 3 | {recommendation} | Security | Nice to Have | ? |

### Questions for You

1. Should I update the LLD to address the blockers and your selected recommendations?
2. Are there any additional requirements or constraints I should consider?
3. Would you like me to proceed with creating the GitHub issue?

Handling User Response

Based on user response:

If user wants LLD updates: Update the lld.md file with the agreed-upon changes
If user approves as-is: Proceed to offer GitHub issue creation
If user has additional feedback: Incorporate and regenerate affected sections

Alternative Approaches Discussion

If reviewers identified better alternatives, explicitly call this out:

### Alternative Approaches Identified

Reviewers suggested these alternative approaches that may be worth considering:

| Alternative | Proposed By | Trade-offs |
|-------------|-------------|------------|
| {approach} | {reviewer} | {pros/cons summary} |

Would you like me to explore any of these alternatives further?

name	new-feature-design
description	Design and document new features with GitHub issue, low-level design (LLD), expert review, and testing plan. Creates structured documentation in .scratchpad/ with issue spec, technical design with diagrams and pseudo-code, multi-persona expert review, and a testing plan covering functional (curl and registry_management.py), backwards-compatibility, UX, ECS/terraform, and E2E API tests. Supports starting from a user description OR an existing GitHub issue URL. Folder naming: issue-{number}/ for existing issues, {feature-name}/ for new features.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"mcp-gateway-registry","version":"1.6"}

new-feature-design

このリポジトリの他の Skills

このリポジトリの他の Skills

New Feature Design Skill

Input Modes

Detecting Input Mode

Workflow

User Description Mode Workflow

GitHub Issue URL Mode Workflow

GitHub Issue URL Mode

Step 1: Fetch GitHub Issue

Step 2: Analyze Issue Content

Step 3: Create Issue Summary

Step 4: Clarify Requirements

User Description Mode

Step 1: Gather Requirements

Step 2: Quick Codebase Review

Step 3: Create Design Folder

Folder Naming Convention

Folder Structure

Step 4: Write GitHub Issue (github-issue.md)

Template: New Issue Specification (User Description Mode)

Template: Issue Summary from URL (GitHub Issue URL Mode)

Step 5: Deep Codebase Analysis

What to Analyze

How to Analyze

Document Your Findings

Step 6: Write Low-Level Design (lld.md)

Architecture

System Context Diagram

Sequence Diagram

Component Diagram

Data Models

New Models

Model Changes

Database Schema Changes

Data Access Plan (avoid N+1)

API Design

New Endpoints

POST /api/v1/{endpoint}

API Changes

Configuration Parameters

New Environment Variables

Settings Class Updates

Configuration Validation

Deployment Surface Checklist

Unified Parameter Reference (must be updated for every new parameter)

Docker Deployment (5 files)

Terraform / ECS Deployment (5+ files)

Helm / EKS Deployment (4 files)

System Config Page (Backend API + Frontend UI)

New Dependencies

Python Packages

Adding Dependencies

No New Dependencies

Implementation Details

Step-by-Step Implementation

Step 1: {First Step}

Step 2: {Second Step}

Error Handling

Logging

Observability

Tracing

Metrics

Logging Points

Scaling Considerations

Current Load Assumptions

Horizontal Scaling

Bottlenecks

Caching Strategy

File Changes

New Files

Modified Files

API Client Updates (IMPORTANT)

Estimated Lines of Code

Testing Strategy

New Test Files

Unit Tests Required

Integration Tests Required

Test Coverage Requirements