agentleFS
Anmolop97Anmolop97/Agent-Skills/skills/tactical-ddd/SKILL.md

tactical-ddd

Skill1 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub

Detects anemic domain models, validates and refactors them into rich domain models, and enforces tactical DDD patterns (Entities, Value Objects, Aggregates, Domain Services, Domain Events). Use when the user asks to validate, review, or check domain models or DDD code; detect anemia; refactor domain objects; improve encapsulation; or mentions terms like "anemic model", "rich domain", "aggregate", "value object", "domain event", "ubiquitous language", "is this good DDD", "does this follow DDD", or "check my domain". Do NOT use for module or service boundary design, architectural decomposition, strategic DDD context mapping, or code outside the domain layer (DTOs, controllers, infrastructure adapters).

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Prefer Value Objects over Entities.

    line 31
  2. Distinctive:

    If intent was validate/review: stop here. Report findings using the output format below.

    line 33
  3. Distinctive:

    Add business guards at the top of each method

    line 39
  4. Distinctive:

    When reviewing code, report:

    line 73
  5. Distinctive:

    When refactoring, show a before/after diff for each class touched.

    line 87

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Tactical DDD — Rich Domain Modeling

Workflow

Determine the user's intent first:

IntentPhases to run
"validate / review / check / is this correct?"Phase 1 + 2 only → report findings, ask before refactoring
"fix / refactor / improve / clean up"Phase 1 + 2 + 3
"how should I design / model this?"Load reference.md directly

Phase 1 — Detect

Load detection.md and scan the target code for anemia signals. Produce a severity score and list of affected classes.

Phase 2 — Assess

For each affected class, determine the correct building block:

Has unique identity tracked over time?Has invariants tying multiple objects?→ Building Block
Yes—Entity
No—Value Object
Yes (root) + children with shared invariantsYesAggregate
Operation spans multiple Aggregates/doesn't belong to any—Domain Service

Prefer Value Objects over Entities. Prefer small Aggregates over large ones.

If intent was validate/review: stop here. Report findings using the output format below. Ask "Would you like me to apply these fixes?" before proceeding.

Phase 3 — Refactor

Load refactoring.md for step-by-step moves. Apply in this order:

  1. Replace setter chains with a single expressive method
  2. Move service logic into the Aggregate that owns it
  3. Add business guards at the top of each method
  4. Publish a Domain Event after each successful state change
  5. Replace primitive types with Value Objects

For deep pattern questions (boundary design, event modeling, service vs. entity decision), load reference.md.


Quick Anemia Signals (scan first)

public setX() / public setY()        → behaviour should be encapsulated
service.doX(entity, ...)              → logic likely belongs in entity
entity.setA(); entity.setB(); ...     → setter chain = missing intent method
no domain methods beyond getters      → pure data bag

Golden Rules

  1. Behaviour with data — Objects own both state and the operations that change it
  2. Ubiquitous Language — Method names come from the domain, not CRUD (commitTo, not setStatus)
  3. Small Aggregates — Root + Value Objects by default; add child Entities only for true invariants
  4. One transaction = one Aggregate — Cross-Aggregate rules use eventual consistency via Domain Events
  5. Reference by ID — Never hold object references to other Aggregates
  6. Value Objects first — Use Entities only when individual identity is essential
  7. Domain Services sparingly — Excessive services → anemic model
  8. Protect invariants — The Aggregate is the last line of defence; never trust the caller

Output Format

When reviewing code, report:

## Anemia Diagnosis: <ClassName>

Severity: [None | Mild | Moderate | Severe]

Issues:
- <description of problem>

Recommended refactoring:
- <specific move from refactoring.md>

When refactoring, show a before/after diff for each class touched.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.