system-context-builder
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Produce a C4 Level 1 (System Context) diagram and description showing the system, its users, and external dependencies. Use when working on solution architecture, C4 diagrams, APIs, ADRs, or system design.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memory-designerSkill
- ai-cost-optimizerSkill
- ai-evaluation-builderSkill
- ai-latency-optimizerSkill
- ai-solution-architectSkill
- ai-workflow-builderSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- human-in-the-loop-designerSkill
- multi-agent-plannerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prompt-reviewerSkill
- adr-generatorSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- component-diagram-builderSkill
- container-diagram-builderSkill
- data-flow-analyzerSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- observability-plannerSkill
- scalability-advisorSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- go-to-market-plannerSkill
- pricing-strategy-advisorSkill
- mcp-best-practicesSkill
- mcp-client-generatorSkill
- mcp-security-reviewSkill
- mcp-server-generatorSkill
- mcp-tool-generatorSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- analytics-instrumentation-plannerSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- epic-generatorSkill
- feature-prioritizationSkill
- idea-validatorSkill
- north-star-metric-advisorSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- persona-generatorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- problem-statement-builderSkill
- product-discovery-assistantSkill
- product-vision-builderSkill
- sprint-plannerSkill
- story-mappingSkill
- user-story-generatorSkill
- value-proposition-designerSkill
- chunking-strategy-advisorSkill
- embedding-strategy-advisorSkill
- hybrid-search-advisorSkill
- knowledge-ingestion-plannerSkill
- rag-architecture-designerSkill
- retriever-optimizerSkill
- ai-governance-advisorSkill
- ai-threat-modelingSkill
- guardrails-builderSkill
- owasp-llm-reviewerSkill
- prompt-injection-detectorSkill
- skill-nameSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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 52
Use Mermaid C4-style or flowchart:
- Distinctive: line 113
Follow C4 Model Level 1 strictly.
- Distinctive: line 114
Use consistent naming from solution architecture components at abstract level.
- Distinctive: line 117
Keep diagram readable: max 7±2 nodes.
≈ “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
System Context Builder
Purpose
Produce a C4 Level 1 (System Context) diagram and description showing the system, its users, and external dependencies.
Input: Solution architecture or PRD, stakeholder list (optional)
Output: System Context document with Mermaid diagram, actor descriptions, and external system inventory
Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.
Workflow
Step 1: Identify the system boundary
Define:
- System name and one-sentence purpose
- What is inside the system boundary
- What is explicitly outside
Step 2: Identify actors (users and personas)
List all human actors:
| Actor | Type (user/admin/operator) | Goal | Interaction |
Map to personas from product skills if available.
Step 3: Identify external systems
List all external systems the solution interacts with:
| System | Purpose | Protocol | Data exchanged | Owned by |
Include: identity providers, payment, email, analytics, third-party APIs.
Step 4: Draw context diagram
Use Mermaid C4-style or flowchart:
flowchart LR
actor1[Actor] --> system[System]
system --> ext1[External System]Rules:
- One central system node
- Actors on the left/top
- External systems on the right/bottom
- Label every arrow with action or data flow
Step 5: Document trust boundaries
Identify security boundaries between system and externals.
Step 6: Validate
Run Validation checklist.
Decision Rules
| Condition | Action |
| No solution architecture or PRD | Stop; request input or run solution-architecture |
| Actor overlaps with external system | Clarify: human actor vs software system |
| More than 10 external systems | Group into categories; detail in appendix |
| Undocumented integration | Mark as "TBD"; add to open questions |
| System boundary unclear | Ask user to confirm scope before diagramming |
Validation
- System boundary explicitly defined
- All actors from PRD/user flows represented
- All external integrations listed
- Mermaid diagram renders with labeled relationships
- Trust boundaries identified
- No container-level detail (defer to container-diagram-builder)
- Diagram matches written descriptions
Anti-patterns
- Missing externals — ignoring auth provider, payment, email services.
- Container in context — showing databases or internal services at Level 1.
- Unlabeled arrows — relationships without action/data description.
- Actor = system — treating batch jobs or admin tools as users without clarity.
- Scope creep — including future-phase systems without marking as planned.
Best Practices
- Follow C4 Model Level 1 strictly.
- Use consistent naming from solution architecture components at abstract level.
- Mark planned vs current integrations.
- Align actors with PRD user flows.
- Keep diagram readable: max 7±2 nodes.
Output Structure
# System Context: [System Name]
## System
**Name:** [name]
**Purpose:** [one sentence]
**Boundary:** [what's in/out]
## Actors
| Actor | Type | Goal | Interactions |
|-------|------|------|--------------|
## External Systems
| System | Purpose | Protocol | Data | Status |
|--------|---------|----------|------|--------|
## Context Diagram
```mermaid
[diagram]Trust Boundaries
| Boundary | Controls |
Open Questions
- [Question]
---
# Next Skills
| Outcome | Recommended Skill |
|---------|-------------------|
| Decompose into containers | `architecture/container-diagram-builder` |
| Design APIs for externals | `architecture/api-designer` |
| Update solution architecture | `architecture/solution-architecture` |
| Record integration decisions | `architecture/adr-generator` |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.

