CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

domain-driven-design

Model software around the business domain using bounded contexts, aggregates, and ubiquitous language. Use when the user mentions "domain modeling", "bounded context", "aggregate root", "ubiquitous language", "anti-corruption layer", "context mapping", "domain events", or "strategic design". Also trigger when splitting a monolith into services, defining microservice boundaries, or aligning code structure with business processes. Covers entities vs value objects, domain events, and context mapping strategies. For architecture layers, see clean-architecture. For complexity, see software-design-philosophy.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

Well-structured reference-style skill with exemplary progressive disclosure — a lean overview linking six real, one-level-deep reference files — and consistently actionable, example-driven guidance. The main cost is token efficiency: textbook concept explanations and an irrelevant author biography restate knowledge Claude already has and could be cut or pushed to references.

Suggestions

Trim or remove the six "Core concept" and "Why it works" paragraphs (textbook DDD Claude already knows) and lead each section with the key insights and code-application table, moving any needed rationale into the reference files.

Delete the "About the Author" section and the affiliate-linked book plug, or compress "Further Reading" to a single line — neither helps Claude execute the skill.

Add a short ordered workflow (e.g., 1. apply Quick Diagnostic, 2. score 0–10 against the framework, 3. report score + specific improvements to reach 10/10) so the review sequence and its checkpoints are explicit rather than inferred from separate sections.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — dense insight bullets and code-application tables — but each of the six sections opens with textbook "Core concept" and "Why it works" explanations of DDD that Claude already knows, and the "About the Author" section plus the affiliate-linked book plug are pure padding. It is not a 2 because the majority of the content (tables, Common Mistakes, Quick Diagnostic) earns its place, and not a 4 because several padded sections are clearly trimmable.

3 / 5

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: specific naming rules (`policy.underwrite()`, not `policy.process()`), design rules ("`Order` stores `customerId`, not a `Customer` object"), repository idioms (`findPendingOrders()`, not `getByStatusCode(3)`), a fix column for every common mistake, and a defined 0–10 scoring protocol. Not a 5 because guidance stays at the pattern level with no copy-paste-ready artifacts covering common end-to-end cases.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Quick Diagnostic is an explicit question-by-question checklist with "If No → Action" checkpoints, and the Scoring section defines an iterate-until-10/10 feedback loop with required outputs (current score plus specific improvements). Not a 5 because no explicit ordered sequence connects scoring, diagnosis, and reporting — the intended workflow must be inferred.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview and each of the six framework sections ends with a clearly signaled one-level-deep link ("See: references/bounded-contexts.md") to a real, substantive file; a consolidated, annotated Reference Files list aids navigation, and no reference nests further references. All six referenced bundle files exist and match the inline links.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

91%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description that explicitly answers what the skill does and when to use it, with an unusually rich set of natural DDD trigger terms and explicit cross-references to disambiguate sibling skills. The only weaknesses are topical rather than operational phrasing of capabilities and minor overlap risk on the broad monolith/microservice triggers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several specific actions and pattern areas — "Model software around the business domain using bounded contexts, aggregates, and ubiquitous language" and "Covers entities vs value objects, domain events, and context mapping strategies" — but the actions are topical coverage rather than the fully concrete operation list of the anchor-5 example, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both "what" (model around the business domain with the listed patterns; covers entities vs value objects, events, mapping strategies) and "when" ("Use when the user mentions … Also trigger when …") are explicitly and concretely answered, matching the anchor-5 example structure. It is not a 4 because the "when" clause is fully explicit with concrete trigger phrases rather than merely present.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger terms are comprehensive and natural — "domain modeling", "bounded context", "aggregate root", "ubiquitous language", "anti-corruption layer", "context mapping", "domain events", "strategic design" — plus scenario phrasings like "splitting a monolith into services" and "defining microservice boundaries" that a user would actually say.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

DDD-specific terms like "aggregate root" and "anti-corruption layer" are unambiguous, and the description even disambiguates siblings ("For architecture layers, see clean-architecture"), but the broad triggers around "splitting a monolith into services" and "defining microservice boundaries" create minor overlap risk with closely related architecture skills. Not a 5 because that overlap on general-architecture triggers is real, not minimal.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

valeriibeck-star/claude-skills

Path

skills/domain-driven-design/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.