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
- NTCoding/claude-skillztheir own version, first seen Mar 13, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- NTCoding/claude-skillz★ 342same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository31 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/react-best-practices/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- antigravity-skills-managerSkill
- api-design-principlesSkill
- auth-implementation-patternsSkill
- claude-apiSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- context-optimizationSkill
- debugging-and-error-recoverySkill
- deployment-engineerSkill
- docxSkill
- doubt-driven-developmentSkill
- excalidraw-studioSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- gh-fix-ciSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- interview-meSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- not-your-babysitterSkill
- pdfSkill
- pptxSkill
- react-best-practicesSkill
- security-auditSkill
- shadcnSkill
- antigravity-skills-managerSkill
- source-driven-developmentSkill
- the-foolSkill
- token-optimizerSkill
- unit-testing-test-generateSkill
- webapp-testingSkill
- web-artifacts-builderSkill
- xlsxSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 31
Prefer Value Objects over Entities.
- Distinctive: line 33
If intent was validate/review: stop here. Report findings using the output format below.
- Distinctive: line 39
Add business guards at the top of each method
- Distinctive: line 73
When reviewing code, report:
- Distinctive: line 87
When refactoring, show a before/after diff for each class touched.
≈ “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.
Files
Tactical DDD — Rich Domain Modeling
Workflow
Determine the user's intent first:
| Intent | Phases 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 invariants | Yes | Aggregate |
| 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:
- Replace setter chains with a single expressive method
- Move service logic into the Aggregate that owns it
- Add business guards at the top of each method
- Publish a Domain Event after each successful state change
- 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 bagGolden Rules
- Behaviour with data — Objects own both state and the operations that change it
- Ubiquitous Language — Method names come from the domain, not CRUD (
commitTo, notsetStatus) - Small Aggregates — Root + Value Objects by default; add child Entities only for true invariants
- One transaction = one Aggregate — Cross-Aggregate rules use eventual consistency via Domain Events
- Reference by ID — Never hold object references to other Aggregates
- Value Objects first — Use Entities only when individual identity is essential
- Domain Services sparingly — Excessive services → anemic model
- 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.
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
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.

