# Apex Design > Use this skill when turning a software change or new initiative into an implementable, reviewable plan before building — including a short or one-line request (such as a feature or page asked for in a single sentence) that should be scoped through clarifying questions first. Apply it to feature planning, architecture decisions, technical designs, API or schema evolution, data migrations, service boundaries, build-versus-buy choices, and reliability planning that need explicit requirements, alternatives, risks, contracts, and a sequenced task plan. It can be invoked directly or as a command, and it produces a persistent planning workspace that the implementation, review, and investigation workflows consume. Do not use it when a change is already decided and only needs implementation. - Skill: `zeybek/apex-design` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 10 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add zeybek/apex-design` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/zeybek/apex-design/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Integrations & APIs - License: MIT - Author: zeybek (https://skillmd.com/u/zeybek) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/zeybek/apex-design --- # Apex Design Turn an ambiguous or consequential request into an implementable, reviewable decision and a sequenced plan. Optimize for the required outcomes and constraints, not for a preferred architecture style. A one-line request is not a small request: its uncertainty is what earns a full, deliberate planning pass. Scale the written output to risk, and never the thinking. ## Workflow ### 1. Frame the decision - State the problem, desired outcome, scope, non-goals, constraints, and decision owner. - Separate verified facts, assumptions, and unresolved questions. - Identify what must be decided now and what can remain reversible. ### 2. Inspect the existing system - Read repository instructions, relevant code, diagrams, tests, schemas, operations documentation, and recent decisions. - Collect the domain vocabulary the repository already uses (type, table, event, endpoint, and label names) and record it as facts. Read [domain-language.md](references/domain-language.md) when the request introduces business concepts, when the code and the conversation name things differently, or when the same word appears with different meanings in different modules. - Map current responsibilities, dependencies, data flow, failure behavior, and operational ownership. - Explain why the current design does not satisfy the requested outcome before proposing a replacement. ### 3. Clarify with the user Read [clarifying-questions.md](references/clarifying-questions.md). After discovering everything the repository and request already answer, run an interactive clarifying-question loop on the decisions you cannot infer — audience, primary goal, the domain concepts and their names, who the domain expert is, priorities among competing qualities, constraints, explicit scope and non-goals, and success criteria. - Ask in small, prioritized batches; offer concrete options with a recommended default. - State the assumption you will proceed with if a question goes unanswered. - Record each resolved answer as a numbered decision (`D-01`, `D-02`, …). - Iterate until the remaining unknowns are safe assumptions with revisit conditions, not open scope. ### 4. Define quality scenarios Read [quality-attributes.md](references/quality-attributes.md) when a goal is stated as an adjective such as "scalable", "secure", or "maintainable". Convert vague goals into prioritized, measurable scenarios with identifiers (`R-01`, `R-02`, …), each naming the outcome its measure serves. Include important failure and abuse scenarios. ### 5. Develop credible alternatives Read [architecture-tradeoffs.md](references/architecture-tradeoffs.md) when more than one option is credible. Include the current design when retaining it is credible. Compare alternatives against the same outcomes, quality scenarios, constraints, delivery cost, and operational burden. ### 6. Choose and pressure-test - Recommend one option and state why it wins under the stated priorities. - Identify tradeoffs, sensitivities, failure modes, irreversible decisions, and assumptions that could invalidate the choice. - Prefer reversible steps when evidence is weak. For public interfaces, persistent data, events, or rolling deployments, read [contracts-and-migrations.md](references/contracts-and-migrations.md). ### 7. Make the design executable Specify enough detail for implementation and review: - component responsibilities and ownership; - data and control flow; - external and internal contracts; - domain rules and invariants, stated in the glossary's terms, with validation and failure behavior; - security, privacy, and access boundaries; - observability and operational ownership; - migration, rollout, rollback or roll-forward; - verification strategy and acceptance evidence. Break the work into atomic, dependency-ordered tasks (`T-01`, `T-02`, …), each with the files it touches, a concrete verification, an acceptance condition, and the decisions and requirements it satisfies. Avoid implementation detail that does not affect a decision, contract, or risk. ### 8. Record the decision and write the workspace Use [decision-record.md](references/decision-record.md) for the decision itself. Then persist the result as a planning workspace following [planning-workspace.md](references/planning-workspace.md): create `.apex-design//` in the target repository with `brief.md`, `glossary.md`, `requirements.md`, `design.md`, `plan.md`, and `progress.md`, plus the workspace `README.md` index, scaled to the risk of the work. Carry the `D-`, `R-`, and `T-` identifiers across the files so the reasoning stays traceable. This workspace is the handoff that the implementation, review, and investigation workflows read. Finish by presenting the decision digest and the glossary to the decision owner in a few lines and confirming them. Only then mark the brief `planned`. The point of the plan is that the people who own the system understand it; a workspace nobody has read is an artifact, not a plan. ## Output Standard A strong design enables another engineer to understand the decision, challenge its assumptions, implement it from the plan, verify it, operate it, and recognize when it should be revisited. ## Method Gotchas - Discover before you ask: a question whose answer is already in the repository wastes trust; an assumption that should have been a question produces the wrong plan. - Scope creep hides in vaguely written non-goals; state what you are deliberately not solving as precisely as what you are. - The current design is a real alternative — evaluate it on the same axes instead of strawmanning it to justify a rewrite. - A "simple" option that ignores a required quality scenario is not simple, it is incomplete; price the missing work before comparing. - Reversibility is a feature: when evidence is weak, prefer a cheaper undoable step over a confident one-way decision. - Most design disagreements are really disagreements about priorities; surface the priority order before debating mechanisms. - The workspace records the decision; it does not make it. Do not let producing files substitute for the reasoning behind them. - Same word, two modules, two meanings is two contexts, not duplication; do not unify them to tidy the model. - A measurable target is a proxy; write down the outcome it serves, or you will cut memory when the goal was cost. - The domain expert is not the decision owner by default; a plausible business rule inferred from the code is an assumption until someone who knows the business confirms it. ## Worked Example Request (one line): "Build me a landing page." 1. Frame: the outcome is a page that converts a defined visitor into a defined action; the decision owner is the requester. Reversible to rebuild, but the primary goal shapes everything downstream. 2. Inspect: the repository has an existing component library and brand tokens; record those as facts so they are not re-asked. The marketing code calls a signed-up visitor a `Lead` while the product code calls the same person a `User` once they activate; record both names and contexts. 3. Clarify: ask the few decisions that change the plan — who the audience is, the single primary call to action, must-have sections, how success is measured, and who confirms the sign-up rules. Record answers as `D-01` (audience), `D-02` (primary CTA: start free trial), `D-03` (launch deadline), `D-04` (this page produces a `Lead`; it never creates a `User`). 4. Quality scenarios: `R-01` first contentful paint under two seconds on a mid-range phone (serves: trial sign-ups from mobile traffic); `R-02` the CTA is reachable by keyboard and screen reader; abuse scenario `R-03` the contact form resists spam submissions. 5. Alternatives: (a) a static page in the existing framework; (b) a page builder dependency; (c) a bespoke service. Compare on delivery cost, performance, and maintainability. 6. Choose (a): it meets the performance and accessibility scenarios with the existing stack and no new dependency; record the spam-control risk with a control. 7. Executable: tasks `T-01` scaffold the route, `T-02` build the hero and CTA, `T-03` add the form with validation and spam control, each with a concrete verify and acceptance. 8. Workspace: write `.apex-design/001-landing-page/` with the brief, glossary (`Lead` in marketing, `User` in product, forbidden synonym `Signup`), requirements, design, plan, and progress board, carrying the `D-`/`R-`/`T-` identifiers. Present the decision digest, confirm it with the owner, and mark the brief `planned`. ## Design Checklist - [ ] Problem, outcome, scope, non-goals, and decision owner are written down. - [ ] Everything inferable was discovered before asking, and remaining ambiguity was resolved as numbered decisions. - [ ] Domain terms are recorded in `glossary.md` with their context, a domain expert is named, and no concept was merged or renamed without a decision. - [ ] Vague goals are converted into prioritized, measurable quality and abuse scenarios with identifiers. - [ ] The current design is included as an alternative and compared on the same axes. - [ ] One option is recommended with an explicit reason it wins under the stated priorities. - [ ] Contracts, failure behavior, migration, rollback, and verification are specified. - [ ] The plan is a sequence of atomic tasks, each with files, verify, acceptance, and the decisions and requirements it satisfies. - [ ] A `.apex-design//` workspace persists the brief, glossary, requirements, design, plan, and progress with traceable identifiers, scaled to risk. - [ ] The decision owner confirmed the decision digest and glossary before the brief moved to `planned`.