Domain Analysis

Subdomain Identification & Bounded Context Analysis

Overview

This public intake copy packages packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/domain-analysis from https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Subdomain Identification & Bounded Context Analysis This skill analyzes codebases to identify subdomains (Core, Supporting, Generic) and suggest bounded contexts following Domain-Driven Design Strategic Design principles.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Output Format, Domain: {Name}, Cross-Domain Cohesion, Issues Detected, Suggested Bounded Contexts, Analysis Checklist.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Analyzing domain boundaries in any codebase
• Identifying Core, Supporting, and Generic subdomains
• Mapping bounded contexts from problem space to solution space
• Assessing domain cohesion and detecting coupling issues
• Planning domain-driven refactoring
• Understanding business capabilities in code

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Entities (domain models with identity)
2. Patterns: @Entity, class, domain models
3. Focus: Business concepts, not technical classes
4. Services (business operations)
5. Patterns: Service, Manager, *Handler
6. Focus: Business logic, not technical utilities
7. Use Cases (business workflows)

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Analysis Process

Phase 1: Extract Concepts

Scan codebase for business concepts (not infrastructure):

1. Entities (domain models with identity)

   • Patterns: @Entity, class, domain models
   • Focus: Business concepts, not technical classes

2. Services (business operations)

   • Patterns: *Service, *Manager, *Handler
   • Focus: Business logic, not technical utilities

3. Use Cases (business workflows)

   • Patterns: *UseCase, *Command, *Handler
   • Focus: Business processes, not CRUD

4. Controllers/Resolvers (entry points)

   • Patterns: *Controller, *Resolver, API endpoints
   • Focus: Business capabilities, not technical routes

Phase 2: Group by Ubiquitous Language

For each concept, determine:

Primary Language Context

• What business vocabulary does this belong to?
• Examples:
  • Subscription, Invoice, Payment → Billing language
  • Movie, Video, Episode → Content language
  • User, Authentication → Identity language

Linguistic Boundaries

• Where do term meanings change?
• Same term, different meaning = different bounded context
• Example: "Customer" in Sales vs "Customer" in Support

Concept Relationships

• Which concepts naturally belong together?
• Which share business vocabulary?
• Which reference each other?

Phase 3: Identify Subdomains

A subdomain has:

• Distinct business capability
• Independent business value
• Unique vocabulary
• Multiple related entities working together
• Cohesive set of business operations

Common Domain Patterns:

• Billing/Subscription: Payments, invoices, plans
• Content/Catalog: Media, products, inventory
• Identity/Access: Users, authentication, authorization
• Analytics: Metrics, dashboards, insights
• Notifications: Messages, alerts, communications

Classify Each Subdomain:

Use this decision tree:

Is it a competitive advantage?
  YES → Core Domain
  NO → Does it require business-specific knowledge?
        YES → Supporting Subdomain
        NO → Generic Subdomain

Phase 4: Assess Cohesion

High Cohesion Indicators ✅

• Concepts share Ubiquitous Language
• Concepts frequently used together
• Direct business relationships
• Changes to one affect others in group
• Solve same business problem

Low Cohesion Indicators ❌

• Different business vocabularies mixed
• Concepts rarely used together
• No direct business relationship
• Changes don't affect others
• Solve different business problems

Cohesion Score Formula:

Score = (
  Linguistic Cohesion (0-3) +    // Shared vocabulary
  Usage Cohesion (0-3) +         // Used together
  Data Cohesion (0-2) +          // Entity relationships
  Change Cohesion (0-2)          // Change together
) / 10

8-10: High Cohesion ✅
5-7:  Medium Cohesion ⚠️
0-4:  Low Cohesion ❌

Phase 5: Detect Low Cohesion Issues

Rule 1: Linguistic Mismatch

• Problem: Different business vocabularies mixed
• Example: User (identity) + Subscription (billing) in same service
• Action: Suggest separation into different bounded contexts

Rule 2: Cross-Domain Dependencies

• Problem: Tight coupling between domains
• Example: Service A directly instantiates entities from Domain B
• Action: Suggest interface-based integration

Rule 3: Mixed Responsibilities

• Problem: Single class handles multiple business concerns
• Example: Service handling both billing and content
• Action: Suggest splitting by subdomain

Rule 4: Generic in Core

• Problem: Generic functionality in core business logic
• Example: Email sending in billing service
• Action: Extract to Generic Subdomain

Rule 5: Unclear Boundaries

• Problem: Cannot determine which domain concept belongs to
• Example: Entity with relationships to multiple domains
• Action: Clarify boundaries, possibly split concept

Phase 6: Map Bounded Contexts

For each subdomain identified, suggest bounded context:

Bounded Context Characteristics:

• Name reflects Ubiquitous Language
• Contains complete domain model
• Has explicit integration points
• Clear linguistic boundary

Integration Patterns:

• Shared Kernel: Shared model between contexts (use sparingly)
• Customer/Supplier: Downstream depends on upstream
• Conformist: Downstream conforms to upstream
• Anti-corruption Layer: Translation layer between contexts
• Open Host Service: Published interface for integration
• Published Language: Well-documented integration protocol

Imported: Output Format

Domain Map

For each domain/subdomain:

## Examples

### Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

```text
Use @domain-analysis to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @domain-analysis against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @domain-analysis for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @domain-analysis using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Indicators: Complex business logic, frequent changes, domain experts needed
• Indicators: Supports Core Domain, moderate complexity, business-specific rules
• Indicators: Well-understood problem, low differentiation, standard functionality
• Primary nature: Linguistic boundary, not technical
• Key rule: Inside boundary, all Ubiquitous Language terms are unambiguous
• Goal: Align 1 subdomain to 1 bounded context (ideal)
• Focus on business language, not code structure

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Core Principles

Subdomain Classification

Core Domain: Competitive advantage, highest business value, requires best developers

• Indicators: Complex business logic, frequent changes, domain experts needed

Supporting Subdomain: Essential but not differentiating, business-specific

• Indicators: Supports Core Domain, moderate complexity, business-specific rules

Generic Subdomain: Common functionality, could be outsourced

• Indicators: Well-understood problem, low differentiation, standard functionality

Bounded Context

An explicit linguistic boundary where domain terms have specific, unambiguous meanings.

• Primary nature: Linguistic boundary, not technical
• Key rule: Inside boundary, all Ubiquitous Language terms are unambiguous
• Goal: Align 1 subdomain to 1 bounded context (ideal)

Imported: Best Practices

Do's ✅

• Focus on business language, not code structure
• Let Ubiquitous Language guide boundaries
• Measure cohesion objectively
• Identify clear integration points
• Classify every subdomain (Core/Supporting/Generic)
• Look for linguistic boundaries first

Don'ts ❌

• Don't group by technical layers
• Don't force single global model
• Don't ignore linguistic differences
• Don't couple domains directly
• Don't create contexts by architecture
• Don't eliminate all dependencies (some are necessary)

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in packages/skills-catalog/skills/(architecture)/domain-analysis, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @accessibility - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @ai-cold-outreach - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @ai-pricing - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @ai-sdr - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

• EXAMPLES.md
• QUICK-REFERENCE.md
• README.md

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Quick Reference

Subdomain Decision Tree

Analyze business capability
└─ Is it competitive advantage?
   ├─ YES → Core Domain
   └─ NO → Is it business-specific?
      ├─ YES → Supporting Subdomain
      └─ NO → Generic Subdomain

Cohesion Quick Check

Same vocabulary? → High linguistic cohesion
Used together? → High usage cohesion
Direct relationships? → High data cohesion
Change together? → High change cohesion

All high → Strong subdomain candidate
Mix of high/low → Review boundaries
All low → Likely wrong grouping

Bounded Context Signals

Clear boundary signs:
✅ Distinct Ubiquitous Language
✅ Concepts have unambiguous meaning
✅ Different meanings across contexts
✅ Clear integration points

Unclear boundary signs:
❌ Same terms with same meanings everywhere
❌ Concepts used identically across system
❌ No clear linguistic differences
❌ Tight coupling everywhere

Imported: Domain: {Name}

Type: Core Domain | Supporting Subdomain | Generic Subdomain

Ubiquitous Language: {key business terms}

Business Capability: {what business problem it solves}

Key Concepts:

• {Concept} (Entity|Service|UseCase) - {brief description}

Subdomains (if applicable):

1. {Subdomain} (Core|Supporting|Generic)
   • Concepts: {list}
   • Cohesion: {score}/10
   • Dependencies: → {other domains}

Suggested Bounded Context: {Name}Context

• Linguistic boundary: {where terms have specific meaning}
• Integration: {how it should integrate with other contexts}

Dependencies:

• → {OtherDomain} via {interface/API}
• ← {OtherDomain} via {interface/API}

Cohesion Score: {score}/10

### Cohesion Matrix

```markdown

#### Imported: Cross-Domain Cohesion

| Domain A | Domain B | Cohesion | Issue              | Recommendation          |
| -------- | -------- | -------- | ------------------ | ----------------------- |
| Billing  | Identity | 2/10     | ❌ Direct coupling | Use interface           |
| Content  | Billing  | 6/10     | ⚠️ Usage tracking  | Event-based integration |

Low Cohesion Report

#### Imported: Issues Detected

### Priority: High

**Issue**: {description}

- **Location**: {file/class/method}
- **Problem**: {what's wrong}
- **Concepts**: {involved concepts}
- **Cohesion**: {score}/10
- **Recommendation**: {suggested fix}

### Priority: Medium

{similar format}

Bounded Context Map

#### Imported: Suggested Bounded Contexts

### {ContextName}Context

**Contains Subdomains**:

- {Subdomain1} (Core)
- {Subdomain2} (Supporting)

**Ubiquitous Language**:

- Term: Definition in this context

**Integration Requirements**:

- Consumes from: {OtherContext} via {pattern}
- Publishes to: {OtherContext} via {pattern}

**Implementation Notes**:

- Separate persistence
- Independent deployment
- Explicit API boundaries

Imported: Analysis Checklist

For Each Concept:

• What business language does it belong to?
• What domain/subdomain is it part of?
• Is it Core, Supporting, or Generic?
• What other concepts does it relate to?
• Are dependencies within same domain?
• Any linguistic mismatches?

For Each Domain:

• What is the Ubiquitous Language?
• What are the key concepts?
• What are the subdomains?
• Which is the Core Domain?
• What are cross-domain dependencies?
• Is internal cohesion high?
• Are boundaries clear?

For Cohesion Analysis:

• Calculate cohesion scores
• Identify low cohesion areas
• Map cross-domain dependencies
• Flag linguistic mismatches
• Note tight coupling
• Suggest boundary clarifications

Imported: Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Big Ball of Mud

• Everything connected to everything
• No clear boundaries
• Mixed vocabularies
• Prevention: Explicit bounded contexts

All-Inclusive Model

• Single model for entire business
• Impossible global definitions
• Creates conflicts
• Prevention: Embrace multiple contexts

Mixed Linguistic Concepts

• Different vocabularies in same context
• Example: User/Permission with Forum/Post
• Prevention: Keep linguistic associations

Imported: Notes

• This is strategic analysis, not tactical implementation
• Focus on WHAT domains exist, not HOW to implement
• Some cross-domain dependencies are normal
• Low cohesion doesn't always mean "bad," it means "needs attention"
• Generic Subdomains naturally have lower cohesion
• Always validate with domain experts when possible

Imported: Validation Criteria

Good domain identification has:

• ✅ Clear boundaries with distinct Ubiquitous Language
• ✅ High internal cohesion within domains
• ✅ Explicit cross-domain dependencies
• ✅ Business alignment with capabilities
• ✅ Actionable recommendations for issues