sdlc-hld-workflow

name	sdlc-hld-workflow
description	Use to create or refine HLD from SRS, NFRs, domain boundaries, repo evidence, and architecture goals.
metadata	{"version":"0.6","updated":"2026-07-26"}

HLD Workflow

Use this skill to write high-level architecture design.

In the lightweight SDLC-ADS model, durable architecture knowledge should usually land in local/sdlc/架构.md as an incremental as-built, to-be, or constraint update. A standalone HLD is still valid for larger work, but small changes should not create a full HLD only to record one architecture constraint.

Use when

• A feature/system affects multiple modules, APIs, data boundaries, integrations, deployment, security, privacy, performance, or observability.
• SRS/NFR exists and must be turned into architecture.
• The user asks for HLD, high-level design, architecture design, architecture doc, or technical design overview.
• AI/dev would otherwise guess module boundaries or dependency direction.

Inputs

• SRS, NFR, PRD, SPEC slices, project research, existing architecture docs.
• Current repo map, module layout, API/data contracts, deployment notes.
• Domain boundary map if available.
• NFR targets and constraints.
• Existing local/sdlc/_资产.md, local/sdlc/架构.md, local/sdlc/领域.md, and current 00-状态.md when present.

Workflow

1. Confirm scope and non-scope.
2. Extract NFRs that affect architecture.
3. Identify system context and external dependencies.
4. Define module/component boundaries.
5. Define data ownership and data flow.
6. Define API/control flow between modules.
7. Define trust boundaries, security/privacy constraints, and operational concerns.
8. Record alternatives, trade-offs, and architecture decisions.
   • If the trade-off set is still contested, recommend $codex-next:core-grilling and stop. Wait for the user to invoke it explicitly; do not imitate or begin that workflow here.
9. Route details to LLD or SPEC slices.
10. Decide whether the output is a standalone HLD, an incremental 架构.md update, or both.

Validation

Check:

• HLD links to SRS/NFR/source evidence.
• Module boundaries are explicit.
• Data ownership is explicit.
• Cross-module communication is explicit.
• NFR-driven decisions are visible.
• Trade-offs are recorded.
• Dev can use this without guessing system shape.

Output

Return:

1. HLD summary
2. System context
3. Component/module map
4. Data and control flow
5. Trust/security/privacy boundaries
6. NFR-driven architecture decisions
7. Alternatives and trade-offs
8. Required LLD/SPEC follow-ups
9. Open questions

For lightweight ADS state, return or update:

# 架构

## as-built
- ARCH-001：

## to-be
- ARCH-002：

## 约束
- ARCH-003：

## 推断 / 未确认
- Q-001：

Boundaries

• Do not write implementation code.
• Do not replace LLD or SPEC slices.
• Do not invent repo architecture without evidence.
• Do not require HLD for every small direct-dev task.
• Do not duplicate durable architecture constraints in per-delivery specs when they should live in local/sdlc/架构.md.

Handoff

Use sdlc-lld-workflow for module details, sdlc-domain-boundary-modeling for business ownership, sdlc-spec-slice-writer for concrete UI/API/Data/Permission/Directory specs, and sdlc-dev-handoff-planning when implementation tasks are ready.

Dev fallback: Dev can use SDLC / ADD / DDD / SDD materials when they exist, but dev can also continue without them when the task is clear, bounded, and testable from user request, issue, bug report, failing test, local diff, or repository evidence. Missing artifacts are risk/context, not automatic refusal.