ln-71-system-design-baseline-builder
Creates a project baseline of architecture drivers and constraints. Use before design or planning; not for target design, plan review, implementation, or architecture audit.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills /tmp/ln-71-system-design-baseline-builder && cp -r /tmp/ln-71-system-design-baseline-builder/plugins/architecture-suite/skills/ln-71-system-design-baseline-builder ~/.claude/skills/ln-71-system-design-baseline-builderSKILL.md
# System Design Baseline Builder **Goal:** Create or update one durable source of truth for the project's architecture-driving requirements and constraints. Change only the approved architecture document; do not design the solution, review a plan, audit implementation, edit product code, or invent missing targets. **Execution contract:** Treat the ordered checkbox workflow below as this skill's Definition of Done. Track every checkbox as `PENDING`, then resolve it to `PROVEN` with concrete evidence, `CLEARED` with evidence that its conditional trigger is absent, or `UNPROVEN`; reading, mentioning, delegating, skipping, or tool failure is not proof. Before returning, resolve every `PENDING`, count only `PROVEN` and `CLEARED` items as complete, apply this skill's verdict, decision, and approval rules to every `UNPROVEN`, and prepend **Checklist: X/Y complete**<br>**Incomplete: None | section/item — reason; outcome impact; exact next action**; list every `UNPROVEN` item. ## Tool Routing | Need | Preferred capability | Fallback | |---|---|---| | Repository rules and document conventions | Native file reads plus focused search | User-provided convention with an explicit limitation | | Existing requirements and architecture artifacts | Narrow repository search and direct reads | Conversation evidence marked with its source | | Current workload or service evidence | Metrics, dashboards, logs, manifests, or checked-in reports | Mark `UNKNOWN`; never manufacture production numbers | | Current external limits or standards | Official documentation or specifications | Mark the claim `UNVERIFIED` | | Document mutation | Minimal patch to the approved Markdown artifact | Return `BLOCKED` if no safe writable path is authorized | Use external research only when a time-sensitive fact changes a constraint. Do not browse for values that must come from product owners, operators, the repository, or measured workload. ## Artifact Rules - Prefer an existing unambiguous architecture-requirements document. - Otherwise use `docs/architecture/system-design-baseline.md`. - Read before writing, preserve unrelated content, and update facts in place instead of creating parallel truth. - Classify applicability separately as `APPLICABLE` or `NOT_APPLICABLE`, with evidence for exclusions. - Rank each applicable item as `DRIVER`, `SUPPORTING`, or `INFORMATIONAL`. - Classify evidence separately as `CONFIRMED`, `ASSUMED`, or `UNKNOWN`. - Record source, owner, confirmation date, and review trigger for each architecture driver. - Separate observed current values, required targets, hard limits, and future evolution triggers. - Use measurable quality-attribute scenarios; avoid words such as "fast", "scalable", or "secure" without a response measure. - Treat the baseline as versioned project knowledge, not an immutable promise. ## Checklist ### 1. Establish Scope and Destination - [ ] Resolve the project, business outcome, intended readers, approved documentation scope, and language. - [ ] Read applicable repository instructions and inspect Git state so unrelated changes remain untouched. - [ ] Search for existing requirement, architecture, SLO, recovery, security, cost, and ownership documents. - [ ] Select one canonical artifact: reuse a clear equivalent or choose the default path; explain why no duplicate will be created. - [ ] Return `BLOCKED` if the destination is ambiguous and choosing one could split project truth. ### 2. Build the Evidence Ledger - [ ] Extract confirmed business goals, actors, critical journeys, scope, non-goals, and decision horizon. - [ ] Record sources for current workload, data volume, service behavior, platform limits, and existing commitments. - [ ] Separate repository facts from stakeholder choices and estimates. - [ ] Detect contradictions between documents, code, configuration, and stated requirements; preserve both claims until resolved. - [ ] Ask only for choices whose absence materially changes architecture; mark all other gaps `UNKNOWN`. ### 3. Define and Prioritize Architecture Drivers - [ ] **Business and scope:** Record actors, critical journeys, business horizon, scope, non-goals, and externally committed outcomes. - [ ] **Demand and data scale:** Record current and target users, rates, concurrency, payloads, growth, retention, and forecast horizon where relevant. - [ ] **User-observable service quality:** Define SLIs and SLOs for availability, latency, throughput, error rate, correctness, or freshness with measurement windows. - [ ] **Data semantics and recovery:** Define consistency, ordering, idempotency, reconciliation, durability, backup, RTO, RPO, and acceptable data loss at affected boundaries. - [ ] **Security, privacy, and compliance:** Define trust boundaries, data classification, residency, access, audit, and destructive-action constraints. - [ ] **Operations and economics:** Define ownership, operational capacity, cost envelope, supported regions, delivery cadence, and platform or vendor constraints. - [ ] **Evolution:** Record thresholds, business events, or evidence that justify revisiting an assumption, target, or deferred capability. - [ ] Separate applicability, criticality, and evidence status; do not use `UNKNOWN` to mean unimportant or `NOT_APPLICABLE`. - [ ] Prioritize the few scenarios most likely to shape architecture and express each as source/stimulus/environment/artifact/response/measure. ### 4. Write the Baseline - [ ] Create or update the artifact with: identity and status; business context; scope and non-goals; critical scenarios; workload and data; quality targets; recovery; consistency; security; cost and operations; constraints; assumptions and unknowns; review triggers. - [ ] Give every material parameter its theme, applicability, criticality, evidence status, value or range, source, owner, as-of date, and review trigger. - [ ] Keep calculations reproducible and label estimates separately from observed measurements. - [ ] Link shared archi
Documents implemented current-state architecture from repository evidence. Use for onboarding or migration baselines; not for target design, audit verdicts, or code changes.
Creates a decision-complete target system design from requirements and constraints. Use before implementation planning; not for requirements baselines, reviews, audits, or code changes.
Records one architecture decision with context, alternatives, tradeoffs, and consequences. Use for a significant choice; not for broad design, audit, or implementation.
Creates evidence-backed current or target architecture diagrams when the diagram is the primary deliverable. Not for UI design, architecture audit, or invented structure.
Plans a reversible architecture migration with compatibility, data movement, rollout, and rollback. Use for current-to-target transitions; not execution, generic planning, or delivery review.
Audits documentation and code comments for structure, coverage, factual accuracy, and maintainability. Use for documentation trust reviews; not code, test, or architecture audits.
Audits cross-cutting code health across security, delivery, maintainability, dependencies, diagnosability, concurrency, and lifecycle. Use when no specialist audit is primary.
Audits whether an existing test suite proves important behavior as a sustainable portfolio. Use when test confidence or lifecycle control is uncertain; not to implement tests or review one delivery.