docs-components-design
Skill7 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Maintain technical design docs for services, components, workers, modules, and APIs. Use when implementation design, contracts, schema, integrations, runtime behavior, or operational concerns change.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
Use assets/doc-starters/component-design-doc.md when creating or substantially rewriting a doc in docs/designs/.
- Very specific: line 13
Read references/component-design-example.md when you need a worked example of the expected technical depth.
- Very specific: line 30
Default location is docs/designs/
- Distinctive: line 40
Keep feature and architecture boundaries clean.
- Distinctive: line 44
Verify against the repo.
- Distinctive: line 49
Avoid path dumps and copied code
- Distinctive: line 50
Keep only the technical detail needed to understand and maintain the component
- Distinctive: line 55
Prefer concise summaries of contracts, schemas, and state over long pasted definitions
- Distinctive: line 56
If one component supports multiple features, describe the reusable implementation capability rather than a single feature narrative
≈ “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
Docs Components Design
Maintain technical design docs for implementation units. Put contracts, state, runtime behavior, and operational detail here rather than in feature or architecture docs.
Resource Map
- Use
assets/doc-starters/component-design-doc.mdwhen creating or substantially rewriting a doc indocs/designs/. - Read
references/component-design-example.mdwhen you need a worked example of the expected technical depth.
When to Use
- New service, worker, module, integration surface, or shared component
- Changes to interfaces, contracts, schema, queues, state machines, or external integrations
- Changes to concurrency, retries, failure handling, security boundaries, or operational behavior
- Technical design updates that should not live in feature docs
Do Not Use
- System or domain topology docs that belong in
docs-architecture - User-facing feature behavior and goals that belong in
docs-feature-design
Workflow
- Identify the implementation unit and current doc path.
- Default location is
docs/designs/ - Reuse an existing design doc when one already exists
- Capture the technical shape of the change.
- Problem and scope
- Interfaces and contracts
- Data model or state changes
- Runtime behavior, failure modes, and operations
- Security and ownership boundaries
- Keep feature and architecture boundaries clean.
- Link to relevant feature docs instead of retelling the product story
- Link to architecture docs instead of restating system topology
- Verify against the repo.
- Commands, migrations, contracts, and runtime behavior match the current code
- Design decisions still reflect the active implementation
- Trim low-value detail.
- Avoid path dumps and copied code
- Keep only the technical detail needed to understand and maintain the component
Writing Rules
- Technical detail belongs here
- Prefer concise summaries of contracts, schemas, and state over long pasted definitions
- If one component supports multiple features, describe the reusable implementation capability rather than a single feature narrative
- Make trade-offs, failure modes, and ownership explicit
- The Technical Design sub-sections (Interfaces, Data Model, Runtime, Security) are a baseline — add domain-specific sections (Processing Flow, Algorithm, Examples, Configuration) at the same level when they clarify the design better than generic sub-sections would
Quality Checklist
- The doc clearly names the component or service scope
- Contracts, state, and runtime behavior are accurate
- Operational and security details are current
- Feature behavior is linked out rather than embedded
- Architecture context is referenced rather than duplicated
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.

