Standing Mandates
- NEVER draft all 8 sections in one shot — finish and confirm a section before moving on.
- ALWAYS produce at least 2 Alternatives in §6. One option is a proposal, not a review.
- ALWAYS run
devils-advocate against the Proposed Design before writing §7.
- NEVER fill optional sections unless the user confirms they apply. Empty optional sections train reviewers to skim.
Design Review Writer
Interactive guide that drives section-by-section discovery and writes the document in the team's fixed 8-section template. The user brings the topic; this skill drives questions, invokes the right collaborator skills, and assembles the artifact.
When to Use / When Not to Use
| Use |
Skip |
| New feature/system, multiple reasonable designs exist |
One-line bug fix or refactor |
| Cross-team impact or hard-to-reverse choices |
Internal-only tweak with no reviewers |
| Reviewers will use the doc as the decision artifact |
Decision is already made — use adr-writer directly |
If the user already knows the decision, stop and invoke adr-writer. Design Reviews are for exploration; ADRs are for capture.
Process
- Frame the topic — get one-sentence intent, trigger, audience. If symptomatic, invoke
problem-reframer.
- Fill §2 Background + §3 Goals/Non-Goals — pull constraints; force Non-Goals.
- Fill §4 Requirements — split functional/non-functional, quantify NFRs.
- Diverge — invoke
brainstorming for 3-5 alternatives; write §6 before §5 to avoid anchoring.
- Converge — pick one as §5 Proposed Design (diagrams + flows; prefer Mermaid).
- Stress test —
devils-advocate → bias-auditor → assumption-extractor; then write §7 Trade-offs and §8 Impact Analysis.
- Decide optional sections — only fill the ones the user confirms apply.
- Assemble + metadata — Author, Reviewers, Status=Draft, Created today. Write §1 Summary last.
Full per-step playbook — including domain skill routing, optional-section signal table, and fallback when a related skill is missing — in references/process-detail.md. Read it when you reach the matching step.
Output Template
Produce the document in this exact structure. Section numbering and headers are fixed.
# Design Review: [기능/시스템명]
## Metadata
- **Author**: [이름]
- **Reviewers**: [이름 또는 팀]
- **Status**: Draft | In Review | Approved | Rejected
- **Created**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **Last Updated**: YYYY-MM-DD
- **Related**: [RFC #, ADR #, Ticket #]
## 1. Summary
- 무엇을, 왜 만드는지 3줄 이내 요약
## 2. Background & Context
- 현재 상황과 해결하려는 문제, 배경
## 3. Goals & Non-Goals
### Goals
- 이번에 달성할 것
### Non-Goals
- 이번 스코프에서 제외할 것
## 4. Requirements
### Functional
- 기능 요구사항
### Non-Functional
- 성능, 가용성, 보안, 확장성 등
## 5. Proposed Design
### High-Level Architecture
- 전체 구조 다이어그램
### Sequence / Flow
- 주요 시나리오 흐름
## 6. Alternatives Considered
- 검토한 옵션과 채택/탈락 사유
## 7. Trade-offs
- 채택안의 한계와 감수 비용
## 8. Impact Analysis
- 영향받는 서비스/팀/사용자 범위
---
## Optional Sections
### Migration / Rollout *(optional)*
- 배포 전략, 호환성, Feature Flag/Canary
### Rollback *(optional)*
- 롤백 조건과 절차
### Observability *(optional)*
- 메트릭, 로그/트레이싱, 알람
### Testing Strategy *(optional)*
- 테스트 레벨, 부하/장애 시나리오
### Security & Compliance *(optional)*
- 인증/인가, 민감 데이터, 규제
### Operational Concerns *(optional)*
- 장애 대응, 런북, 비용
### Open Questions *(optional)*
- 미결정 사항, 추가 검증 항목
### Timeline & Milestones *(optional)*
- 단계별 일정과 산출물
---
## Review Comments
- 리뷰어별 코멘트 / 결정 요약 형태로 정리
What Claude Does / What You Do
| Claude |
You |
| Drives the section-by-section interview |
Provide real context, constraints, numbers |
Invokes brainstorming / devils-advocate / bias-auditor at the right moment |
Veto an invocation if you've already done that thinking |
| Quantifies vague requirements ("fast" → "<200ms p99") |
Confirm numbers reflect actual SLOs |
| Names Non-Goals reviewers might assume are in scope |
Confirm what's excluded |
| Drafts ≥ 2 alternatives in §6 with rejection reasons |
Add any alternative the team already discussed |
| Auto-fills Created/Last Updated with today's date |
Set Author and Reviewers |
| Flags one-sided trade-offs and forces honest §7 |
Approve only when costs are stated, not hidden |
Storage Convention
docs/design-reviews/
YYYY-MM-DD-<short-slug>.md
When the Design Review is Approved, invoke adr-writer to produce the matching ADR. Cross-link both documents in their Related: metadata.
Quick Checklist
Related Skills
brainstorming, devils-advocate, problem-reframer — divergence and stress testing
architecture-designer / domain-driven-design / microservices-architect — produce §5 diagrams
bias-auditor, tradeoff-articulator, assumption-extractor, second-order-thinker — honest §7-§8
doc-coauthoring — section-by-section co-write mechanics
adr-writer — once Approved, convert to ADR
Fallback if any related skill is not installed: see references/process-detail.md.
1---2name: design-review-writer3description: Use when drafting a Design Review for a new feature or system. Triggers: "design review 써줘", "디자인 리뷰 문서", "RFC 초안", "write a design review", "이 기능 설계 같이 잡자". Fixed 8-section template.4---56## Standing Mandates78- NEVER draft all 8 sections in one shot — finish and confirm a section before moving on.9- ALWAYS produce at least 2 Alternatives in §6. One option is a proposal, not a review.10- ALWAYS run `devils-advocate` against the Proposed Design before writing §7.11- NEVER fill optional sections unless the user confirms they apply. Empty optional sections train reviewers to skim.1213# Design Review Writer1415Interactive guide that drives section-by-section discovery and writes the document in the team's fixed 8-section template. The user brings the topic; this skill drives questions, invokes the right collaborator skills, and assembles the artifact.1617## When to Use / When Not to Use1819| Use | Skip |20|-----|------|21| New feature/system, multiple reasonable designs exist | One-line bug fix or refactor |22| Cross-team impact or hard-to-reverse choices | Internal-only tweak with no reviewers |23| Reviewers will use the doc as the decision artifact | Decision is already made — use `adr-writer` directly |2425If the user already knows the decision, **stop and invoke `adr-writer`**. Design Reviews are for exploration; ADRs are for capture.2627## Process28291. **Frame the topic** — get one-sentence intent, trigger, audience. If symptomatic, invoke `problem-reframer`.302. **Fill §2 Background + §3 Goals/Non-Goals** — pull constraints; force Non-Goals.313. **Fill §4 Requirements** — split functional/non-functional, quantify NFRs.324. **Diverge** — invoke `brainstorming` for 3-5 alternatives; write §6 **before** §5 to avoid anchoring.335. **Converge** — pick one as §5 Proposed Design (diagrams + flows; prefer Mermaid).346. **Stress test** — `devils-advocate` → `bias-auditor` → `assumption-extractor`; then write §7 Trade-offs and §8 Impact Analysis.357. **Decide optional sections** — only fill the ones the user confirms apply.368. **Assemble + metadata** — Author, Reviewers, Status=Draft, Created today. Write **§1 Summary last**.3738Full per-step playbook — including domain skill routing, optional-section signal table, and fallback when a related skill is missing — in `references/process-detail.md`. Read it when you reach the matching step.3940## Output Template4142Produce the document in this **exact** structure. Section numbering and headers are fixed.4344```markdown45# Design Review: [기능/시스템명]4647## Metadata48- **Author**: [이름]49- **Reviewers**: [이름 또는 팀]50- **Status**: Draft | In Review | Approved | Rejected51- **Created**: YYYY-MM-DD52- **Last Updated**: YYYY-MM-DD53- **Related**: [RFC #, ADR #, Ticket #]5455## 1. Summary56- 무엇을, 왜 만드는지 3줄 이내 요약5758## 2. Background & Context59- 현재 상황과 해결하려는 문제, 배경6061## 3. Goals & Non-Goals62### Goals63- 이번에 달성할 것6465### Non-Goals66- 이번 스코프에서 제외할 것6768## 4. Requirements69### Functional70- 기능 요구사항7172### Non-Functional73- 성능, 가용성, 보안, 확장성 등7475## 5. Proposed Design76### High-Level Architecture77- 전체 구조 다이어그램7879### Sequence / Flow80- 주요 시나리오 흐름8182## 6. Alternatives Considered83- 검토한 옵션과 채택/탈락 사유8485## 7. Trade-offs86- 채택안의 한계와 감수 비용8788## 8. Impact Analysis89- 영향받는 서비스/팀/사용자 범위9091---9293## Optional Sections9495### Migration / Rollout *(optional)*96- 배포 전략, 호환성, Feature Flag/Canary9798### Rollback *(optional)*99- 롤백 조건과 절차100101### Observability *(optional)*102- 메트릭, 로그/트레이싱, 알람103104### Testing Strategy *(optional)*105- 테스트 레벨, 부하/장애 시나리오106107### Security & Compliance *(optional)*108- 인증/인가, 민감 데이터, 규제109110### Operational Concerns *(optional)*111- 장애 대응, 런북, 비용112113### Open Questions *(optional)*114- 미결정 사항, 추가 검증 항목115116### Timeline & Milestones *(optional)*117- 단계별 일정과 산출물118119---120121## Review Comments122- 리뷰어별 코멘트 / 결정 요약 형태로 정리123```124125## What Claude Does / What You Do126127| Claude | You |128|--------|-----|129| Drives the section-by-section interview | Provide real context, constraints, numbers |130| Invokes `brainstorming` / `devils-advocate` / `bias-auditor` at the right moment | Veto an invocation if you've already done that thinking |131| Quantifies vague requirements ("fast" → "<200ms p99") | Confirm numbers reflect actual SLOs |132| Names Non-Goals reviewers might assume are in scope | Confirm what's excluded |133| Drafts ≥ 2 alternatives in §6 with rejection reasons | Add any alternative the team already discussed |134| Auto-fills Created/Last Updated with today's date | Set Author and Reviewers |135| Flags one-sided trade-offs and forces honest §7 | Approve only when costs are stated, not hidden |136137## Storage Convention138139```140docs/design-reviews/141 YYYY-MM-DD-<short-slug>.md142```143144When the Design Review is Approved, invoke `adr-writer` to produce the matching ADR. Cross-link both documents in their `Related:` metadata.145146## Quick Checklist147148- [ ] Topic stated in one sentence, not symptomatic149- [ ] Non-Goals section has at least 1 entry150- [ ] All NFRs are quantified151- [ ] §6 lists ≥ 2 alternatives with rejection reasons152- [ ] §7 trade-offs survived a devil's-advocate pass153- [ ] §8 includes at least one second-order impact154- [ ] Optional sections are either filled meaningfully or omitted155- [ ] §1 Summary written *after* §2-§8156- [ ] Reviewers named, Status set, Created date today157158## Related Skills159160- `brainstorming`, `devils-advocate`, `problem-reframer` — divergence and stress testing161- `architecture-designer` / `domain-driven-design` / `microservices-architect` — produce §5 diagrams162- `bias-auditor`, `tradeoff-articulator`, `assumption-extractor`, `second-order-thinker` — honest §7-§8163- `doc-coauthoring` — section-by-section co-write mechanics164- `adr-writer` — once Approved, convert to ADR165166Fallback if any related skill is not installed: see `references/process-detail.md`.