System Design Proposal Builder

SkillMedia

Creates a decision-complete target system design from requirements and constraints. Use before implementation planning; not for requirements baselines, reviews, audits, or code changes.

Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.

Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.

Then ask your AI: use the System Design Proposal Builder skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills in plugins/architecture-suite/skills/ln-73-system-design-proposal-builder/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Goal: Create a proportionate, evidence-backed target system design that turns requirements into explicit boundaries, contracts, data flow, failure behavior, operations, and tradeoffs. Change only the approved design document; do not implement, audit, or approve the delivery.

Execution contract: The ordered checkboxes are the Definition of Done. Track every item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with concrete evidence, CLEARED with evidence that its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, or tool failure is not proof. Reconcile items after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING and count only PROVEN and CLEARED; apply the skill's verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve user intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. Scale depth to material risk without silently skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety ordering; otherwise choose the verification method appropriate to each obligation.

Tool Routing

NeedPreferred capabilityFallback
Requirements and constraintsApproved requirements, baseline, decisions, and direct stakeholder inputMark material gaps and ask the smallest decision question
Current implementation and conventionsRepository search, manifests, entrypoints, and architecture artifactsTreat as greenfield only when the user or repository establishes that fact; otherwise mark current state UNKNOWN and return REVISE or BLOCKED when the gap can change boundaries, compatibility, or migration
External capabilities and limitsCurrent official documentation and specificationsMark claims UNVERIFIED; avoid vendor-dependent commitment
EstimatesReproducible arithmetic from sourced workload assumptionsUse ranges and sensitivity; never present estimates as measurements
Document mutationMinimal patch to the approved target-design artifactReturn BLOCKED if scope or path is unsafe

Use patterns as candidate solutions, not goals. Introduce infrastructure only when a requirement, failure mode, ownership boundary, or measured horizon pays for its lifecycle cost.

Artifact Rules

  • Reuse a clear target-design document; otherwise use docs/architecture/target-design.md.
  • Read available baseline, current-state, decision, interface, diagram, and migration artifacts by path; none is mandatory.
  • Label facts, assumptions, estimates, proposed decisions, and unresolved choices separately.
  • Compare credible alternatives for consequential decisions, including the simplest feasible option; when constraints permit only one, document why rather than inventing another.
  • Prefer reversible choices and the simplest topology fitting the system. For a new application, consider a modular monolith before independent services; do not force that shape onto libraries, plugins, or an established topology.
  • Do not silently change an accepted decision; record the conflict and required governance action.

Checklist

1. Frame the Design

  • Resolve business outcome, actors, journeys, scope, non-goals, horizon, readers, language, and the approved canonical destination before editing.
  • Read repository instructions and inspect relevant architecture artifacts and current implementation.
  • Extract functional requirements and measurable quality drivers, preserving their source and status.
  • Identify architecture-critical unknowns and ask only questions whose answers change the target shape.
  • Return BLOCKED when a required business boundary or safety constraint cannot be responsibly assumed.

2. Estimate Before Choosing Components

  • Estimate average and peak request or event rates, concurrency, payload and bandwidth, storage growth, retention, and recovery volume where relevant.
  • Show formulas, ranges, growth horizon, and assumptions; identify the variables that can reverse a choice.
  • Identify likely first bottlenecks and explicit thresholds for deferred scaling mechanisms.
  • Separate availability, latency, durability, consistency, security, cost, and operability requirements from implementation preferences.
  • Reject speculative scale and list complex mechanisms intentionally deferred.

3. Define Domains, Data, and Contracts

  • Map business capabilities, domains or modules, ownership, invariants, and allowed dependency direction.
  • Define systems of record, data models at architecture depth, lifecycle, retention, consistency, and transaction boundaries.
  • Define public APIs, events, commands, schemas, errors, idempotency, ordering, versioning, and compatibility expectations.
  • Define trust boundaries, identities, authorization, sensitive data, secrets, abuse controls, and audit needs proportionate to risk.
  • Keep framework and vendor details outside the core model unless they are genuine constraints.

4. Build HLD and Critical LLD

  • Describe system context, deployable units, stores, queues, external systems, responsibilities, and labeled data flows.
  • Trace success, overload, dependency failure, partial failure, retry, timeout, degradation, recovery, and cancellation for critical journeys.
  • Deep-dive only components whose correctness, scale, security, or reversibility risk warrants implementation-level detail.
  • Define observability, SLI measurement points, health, deployment strategy, rollback, backup, and operator actions.
  • Define ownership, team impact, cost drivers, and operational burden for the proposed topology.

5. Decide and Validate

  • Compare credible alternatives against requirements, estimates, failure behavior, complexity, cost, migration, and future triggers.
  • State selected and rejected options with consequences, sensitivity points, and assumptions that would reopen the decision.
  • Identify significant decisions that deserve their own compact decision records without requiring another workflow.
  • Define architecture acceptance evidence appropriate to each material driver: contract checks, load/failure experiments, security validation, recovery proof, or observability signals. Specify prerequisites and pass criteria; do not execute them during design.
  • Outline current-to-target implications and compatibility needs without expanding into a full implementation plan.

6. Write and Report

  • Write context, drivers, estimates, domains, contracts, HLD, critical LLD, failure and operations model, security, alternatives, decisions, validation, open questions, and evolution triggers.
  • Preserve existing content outside the approved scope and link shared artifacts only by document path or title.
  • Re-read the proposal for unsupported facts, hidden decisions, mixed abstraction, and unjustified machinery.
  • Use READY only when the design is decision-complete enough for implementation planning; use REVISE for material but solvable gaps; use BLOCKED when required intent, evidence, authority, or destination is unavailable.

Self-Check

  • Reconcile before returning. Check item-level evidence, requirement coverage, contradictions, scope, verdict, and applicable cleanup. Correct the report or authorized artifacts. Reuse valid evidence; do not automatically rescan the repository or rerun successful commands. Repeat checks only for relevant changes, failures, or unresolved evidence. Disclose remaining gaps.

Output Contract

Report in the user's language, in this order; retain all five fields and state each fact once. Small results may use one line per field; omit empty tables and do not copy linked artifacts:

  1. Result: Skill-specific verdict and supported outcome.
  2. Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
  3. Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
  4. Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
  5. Completion: Checklist: X/Y complete; Incomplete: None or each UNPROVEN item's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual risks and required decisions.

Skill-specific evidence: Artifact path; requirements, estimates, boundaries, contracts, HLD/critical LLD, selected decisions, alternatives, evidence, and reopen triggers. Summarize validation/transition needs, compatibility, rollout, rollback, observability, and only unresolved choices that affect implementation planning.

Signals

GitHub stars
559
Forks
83
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Catalog kind
skill
Gateway key
ln-73-system-design-proposal-builder
Source
github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills