菜单
Use when reviewed requirements still carry ambiguous business nouns, overlapping concepts, or possible bounded contexts, and the team needs a shared domain model before spec writing, API design, or data modeling.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when a bug, failing test, regression, or unexpected behavior needs a root-cause-first debugging loop before code changes, especially when brownfield seams, recent releases, or historical defect matches make guesswork unsafe.
Use when E2E tests must go beyond shallow happy-path checks — multi-step user journeys, stateful sessions, cross-boundary state consistency, failure-mode edges — or when the suite passes but production still breaks. Platform- and framework-agnostic (web, mobile, desktop; Playwright, XCUITest, Cypress).
Use when discovery has narrowed an idea enough that the team must make a go/no-go, pivot, or scope-down decision based on technical, economic, operational, or timeline viability before requirements, architecture, or major implementation.
The mandatory gateway for all new engineering work. Triage and route new products, apps, features, migrations, tech-debt, or any 'not sure where to start' request to the correct lifecycle path. Use before starting design or implementation. Do not use for ongoing tasks, specific debugging, or PR reviews.
Use when discovery needs evidence about market demand, competitors, pricing pressure, or underserved segments for a new product or expansion idea before feasibility, user research, or requirements are finalized.
Use when intake has identified the likely lifecycle path but the problem statement, solution direction, or key trade-offs are still too fuzzy for requirements, research, or architecture work to start cleanly
| name | pc-domain-modeling |
| description | Use when reviewed requirements still carry ambiguous business nouns, overlapping concepts, or possible bounded contexts, and the team needs a shared domain model before spec writing, API design, or data modeling. |
| metadata | {"phase":"01-specification","inputs":["requirements-doc"],"outputs":["domain-model"],"prerequisites":["pc-requirements-engineering"],"quality_gate":"Domain model reviewed, ubiquitous language documented and agreed upon by team","roles":["architect","developer"],"methodologies":["all"],"effort":"medium"} |
Model the business language before modeling storage, APIs, or implementation.
Domain modeling turns reviewed requirements into a stable business-language contract.
See context and anti-pattern notes.
I/O contract notes define required inputs and authority.
Extract the nouns and verb phrases that represent real business concepts:
Prefer concepts from the problem space, not solution-space placeholders like table, queue, endpoint, or job.
Map how entities relate and where the relationship is authoritative:
Create a glossary of domain terms with precise definitions. Resolve synonyms:
Record legacy or tenant-specific terms separately when they must remain visible but should not silently dominate the new model.
Introduce bounded contexts only when the requirements justify a real language or responsibility split:
Do not force DDD vocabulary onto a simple slice that only needs one coherent domain model.
Walk the model against real scenarios from the requirements:
The model should make those scenarios easier to explain without leaking into schema or endpoint design.
Produce only declared outputs at their documented quality boundary.
