Domain Driven Design V3

Domain-Driven Design

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-bundle-ddd-evented-architecture/skills/domain-driven-design from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-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.

Domain-Driven Design

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 requirements, Limitations.

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.

• You need to model a complex business domain with explicit boundaries.
• You want to decide whether full DDD is worth the added complexity.
• You need to connect strategic design decisions to implementation patterns.
• You are planning CQRS, event sourcing, sagas, or projections from domain needs.
• The problem is simple CRUD with low business complexity.
• You only need localized bug fixes.

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. Run a viability check before committing to full DDD.
2. Produce strategic artifacts first: subdomains, bounded contexts, language glossary.
3. Route to specialized skills based on current task.
4. Define success criteria and evidence for each stage.
5. Business rules are complex or fast-changing.
6. Multiple teams are causing model collisions.
7. Integration contracts are unstable.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Instructions

1. Run a viability check before committing to full DDD.
2. Produce strategic artifacts first: subdomains, bounded contexts, language glossary.
3. Route to specialized skills based on current task.
4. Define success criteria and evidence for each stage.

Viability check

Use full DDD only when at least two of these are true:

• Business rules are complex or fast-changing.
• Multiple teams are causing model collisions.
• Integration contracts are unstable.
• Auditability and explicit invariants are critical.

Routing map

• Strategic model and boundaries: @ddd-strategic-design
• Cross-context integrations and translation: @ddd-context-mapping
• Tactical code modeling: @ddd-tactical-patterns
• Read/write separation: @cqrs-implementation
• Event history as source of truth: @event-sourcing-architect and @event-store-design
• Long-running workflows: @saga-orchestration
• Read models: @projection-patterns
• Decision log: @architecture-decision-records

If templates are needed, open references/ddd-deliverables.md.

Imported: Output requirements

Always return:

• Scope and assumptions
• Current stage (strategic, tactical, or evented)
• Explicit artifacts produced
• Open risks and next step recommendation

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @domain-driven-design-v3 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-driven-design-v3 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-driven-design-v3 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-driven-design-v3 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.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Examples

Use @domain-driven-design to assess if this billing platform should adopt full DDD.
Then route to the right next skill and list artifacts we must produce this week.

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.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

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

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-bundle-ddd-evented-architecture/skills/domain-driven-design, 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

• @airflow-dag-patterns-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @aws-serverless-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @bash-linux-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @concise-planning-v3 - 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.

• ddd-deliverables.md
• ddd-deliverables.md

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Limitations

• This skill does not replace direct workshops with domain experts.
• It does not provide framework-specific code generation.
• It should not be used as a justification to over-engineer simple systems.