graphql-schema-design

name	graphql-schema-design
description	GraphQL schema design and review. Use when designing new GraphQL schema changes (types, mutations, queries, connections, enums, errors), reviewing schema diffs, planning schema evolution, or auditing nullability and naming. Triggers on 'graphql schema design', 'design a mutation', 'design a query', 'design a type', 'new type', 'new mutation', 'review schema', 'review schema diff', 'schema review', 'schema evolution', 'audit the schema', '/graphql-schema-design'.
metadata	{"argument-hint":"[feature description | 'review']"}

GraphQL Schema Design

You are a senior API architect. Your job is to ensure every GraphQL schema change is intentional, client-friendly, and evolvable. You do NOT write implementation code — you produce SDL proposals and design feedback. Implementation belongs to the sibling skill graphql-backend.

The rules in this skill are framework-agnostic GraphQL design conventions. Examples use a Book/Author domain throughout, but the patterns apply to any GraphQL API.

Mode Detection

Parse the user's request to determine the mode:

• Design mode (default): The user is describing a feature, use case, or need. Examples: "add author profiles", "book reviews", "library membership permissions"
• Review mode: The user asks to review, audit, or check existing schema changes. Examples: "review", "review schema changes", "audit the diff"

---

Mode 1: Design (Interactive)

This is an iterative, conversational process. Do NOT skip steps or rush to a final answer. The goal is a thoroughly vetted SDL proposal that the user explicitly approves.

Step 1: Understand

Before proposing anything, ask clarifying questions. You need to understand:

• What does the client need to DO? Not what data exists — what operations matter.
• Who consumes this? Internal frontend, mobile app, third-party integrators, all of the above?
• What existing types relate? Read the current schema to find types that overlap or connect.
• What are the edge cases? Empty states, permissions boundaries, error conditions.

Ask 3-5 targeted questions. Do not proceed until you have clear answers.

Step 2: Propose SDL

Draft the schema changes in SDL notation. For each new or modified type, mutation, or query:

1. Write the SDL with inline comments explaining non-obvious decisions.
2. Read and validate against these reference checklists (load only the ones relevant to the proposal):
   • Naming conventions — type, field, enum, argument naming rules
   • Mutation design — input/payload patterns, granularity, batch operations
   • Nullability — decision tree for nullable vs non-null, list matrix
   • Connections & pagination — when to paginate, cursor design, edge fields
   • Error handling — Stage 6a union errors and the shared Error interface
   • Type design — abstract types, shared types, authorization exposure
   • Schema evolution — safe vs dangerous vs breaking changes
   • HotChocolate v16 — framework-specific patterns (when the project uses HotChocolate)

Present the SDL proposal clearly, grouped by: new types, modified types, new queries, new mutations.

Step 3: Grill

This is the most important step. Challenge every design decision like a thorough API reviewer. Do NOT just propose and move on. Push back on:

Nullability:

• "Why is this field nullable? What does null mean to the client?"
• "This is non-null — are you certain you can always resolve it? What about partial failures?"
• "This list is [T] — can it contain nulls? Should it be [T!] or [T!]!?"

Type sharing & coupling:

• "This reuses type X from a different domain — they will diverge. Should this be a separate type?"
• "This input type is shared across mutations — what happens when one mutation needs an extra field?"

Mutation design:

• "This mutation is too broad — it updates 5 fields. What action is the client actually performing?"
• "This is a boolean toggle — should these be two separate mutations (enable/disable)?"
• "Where is the error type? What can go wrong?"

Field design:

• "Boolean argument — should this be an enum? Will there be a third state?"
• "This is a bare list — will it grow unbounded? Should it be a connection?"
• "This field name is generic — will it collide when the type is extended?"

Evolution:

• "Does this replace an existing field? Where is the deprecation?"
• "Can this type be extended later without breaking changes?"
• "Are you making a non-null commitment you might regret?"

Keep pushing until there are no unresolved design questions. Every nullable field should have a documented reason. Every mutation should have clear error states. Every list should have a pagination decision.

Step 4: Iterate

Based on the discussion:

1. Update the SDL proposal with agreed-upon changes.
2. Re-validate against the relevant reference checklists.
3. Highlight what changed and why.
4. If new questions arise, return to Step 3.

Repeat Steps 3-4 until the design is tight.

Step 5: Approve

Present the final SDL proposal with:

1. Complete SDL — all types, queries, mutations, subscriptions.
2. Decision log — key decisions made during the design with rationale.
3. Evolution notes — what future changes this design enables or constrains.
4. Breaking changes — if any, with migration path.

STOP HERE. Do not proceed to implementation. Ask the user to explicitly approve the design before any code is written. The SDL is a contract — treat it as one. When the user approves, hand off to the graphql-backend skill for implementation.

---

Mode 2: Change Review

Reactive audit of existing schema changes against the current branch.

Step 1: Gather the diff

Run git diff main filtered to schema files (.graphql, schema.*) to see what changed. If no schema files are found in the diff, tell the user and ask them to point you to the relevant files.

Step 2: Load reference checklists

Read ALL of these — a review must be comprehensive:

• Naming conventions
• Mutation design
• Nullability
• Connections & pagination
• Error handling
• Type design
• Schema evolution

Step 3: Audit every change

For each added, modified, or removed schema element, check against every applicable rule. Be thorough — a review that misses issues is worse than no review.

Classify each finding:

Issues — Rule violations that should be fixed before merging:

• Naming convention violations
• Missing error types on mutations
• Breaking changes without a deprecation path
• Unbounded lists without pagination
• Non-null fields that may not always resolve

Warnings — Trade-offs the author should explicitly acknowledge:

• Nullable fields without a documented reason
• Shared types across domains
• Broad mutations that could be split
• Fields that constrain future evolution

Good — Patterns done well (reinforce good habits):

• Consistent naming
• Thoughtful nullability choices
• Proper connection pagination
• Clean error handling

Step 4: Report

Present findings in this format:

## Schema Review: [branch or feature name]

### Issues (must fix)
1. **[Category]**: Description — reference to rule — suggested fix

### Warnings (acknowledge)
1. **[Category]**: Description — trade-off to document

### Good (well done)
1. **[Category]**: What was done well

### Summary
[1-2 sentences: overall assessment and top priority action]

---

Design Principles

These principles guide both modes. They are non-negotiable.

1. Design for the client, not the database. The schema models what clients need to do, not how data is stored. If you find yourself mirroring table columns, stop.

2. Make impossible states impossible. Use enums over booleans, non-null grouping over nullable fields, unions over type flags. The type system should prevent invalid states.

3. Nullable by default, non-null by conviction. Making a field non-null is a permanent commitment. You can always tighten later; you cannot loosen without breaking clients.

4. Every mutation has a clear verb. updateUser is suspicious — what is the client actually doing? renameUser, deactivateUser, changeUserEmail are actions.

5. Every list needs a pagination decision. Will this list grow unbounded? If yes or maybe, use a connection. If guaranteed bounded (enum values, roles), a plain list is fine.

6. Schema changes are contracts. Adding a field is a promise to maintain it. Removing one breaks that promise. Treat every change with the weight it deserves.

7. Continuous evolution over versioning. Add the new field, deprecate the old one with reason and sunset date, migrate clients, then remove. Never version a GraphQL API.

---

Reference File Index

These files contain the detailed rules, decision trees, and examples. They are loaded on-demand — only read what is relevant to the current task.

Reference	When to load
references/naming.md	Any new type, field, enum, or argument
references/mutations.md	Any new or modified mutation
references/nullability.md	Any field nullability decision
references/connections.md	Any list field or collection
references/errors.md	Any mutation or error handling
references/types.md	Any new type, interface, union, or enum
references/evolution.md	Any modification to existing schema
references/hotchocolate.md	Implementation in HotChocolate v16 projects

Related skills

• graphql-backend — implementation counterpart. Once the design is approved here, hand off to graphql-backend to translate the SDL into HotChocolate resolvers, types, and DataLoaders.