MCP HubMCP Hub
스킬 목록으로 돌아가기

adapt-architecture

pjt222
업데이트됨 2 days ago
7 조회
17
2
17
GitHub에서 보기
디자인design

정보

이 스킬은 스트랭글러 피그(Strangler Fig) 마이그레이션과 병렬 운영 같은 패턴을 사용하여 시스템 아키텍처를 점진적으로 발전시키는 구조화된 접근법을 제공합니다. 이를 통해 모놀리식에서 마이크로서비스로의 전환이나 하위 시스템 교체와 같은 작업을 빅뱅 방식의 전환 없이 안전하고 점진적으로 수행할 수 있습니다. 사전 평가를 통해 시스템이 변환 가능한 상태로 확인되었고, 롤백 안전성을 보장하면서 점진적인 전환을 필요로 할 때 이 스킬을 사용하세요.

빠른 설치

Claude Code

추천
기본
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
플러그인 명령대체
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git 클론대체
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/adapt-architecture

Claude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요

문서

Adapt Architecture

Execute structural metamorphosis — transform system architecture from current form to target form while keep operational continuity. Use strangler fig migration, chrysalis phases, interface preservation. System never stops working during transformation.

When Use

  • Form assessment (see assess-form) classified system as READY
  • System must evolve architecture to meet new requirements without downtime
  • Migrating from monolith to microservices (or reverse)
  • Replacing core subsystem while dependent systems keep operating
  • Evolving data model while keep backward compatibility
  • Any architectural change must be gradual, not big-bang

Inputs

  • Required: Current form assessment (from assess-form or equivalent analysis)
  • Required: Target architecture (what system should become)
  • Required: Operational continuity requirements (what must not break during transformation)
  • Optional: Available transformation budget (time, people, compute)
  • Optional: Rollback requirements (how far back must retreat?)
  • Optional: Parallel running duration (how long run old and new together)

Steps

Step 1: Design Transformation Blueprint

Plan metamorphosis path from current form to target form.

  1. Map transformation as sequence of intermediate forms:
    • Current form → Intermediate form 1 → ... → Target form
    • Each intermediate form must be operationally viable (serves traffic, passes tests)
    • No intermediate form harder to maintain than current form
  2. Identify transformation seams:
    • Where can current form be "cut" to insert new architecture?
    • Natural seams: existing interfaces, module boundaries, data partitions
    • Artificial seams: interfaces created specifically to enable cut (anti-corruption layers)
  3. Choose metamorphosis pattern:
    • Strangler fig: new system grows around old, gradually replaces it
    • Chrysalis: old system wrapped in new shell; internals replaced while shell preserves external interface
    • Budding: new system grows alongside old; traffic gradually shifts (see scale-colony for colony budding)
    • Metamorphic migration: phased replacement of components in dependency order (leaves first, roots last)
  4. Design interface preservation layer:
    • External consumers must not experience disruption
    • API versioning, backward-compatible contracts, adapter patterns
    • Preservation layer is temporary scaffolding — plan its removal
Metamorphosis Patterns:
┌───────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Strangler Fig │ New code intercepts routes one by one;            │
│               │ old code handles everything else until replaced   │
│               │ ┌──────────┐                                     │
│               │ │ Old ████ │ → │ Old ██ New ██ │ → │ New ████ │  │
│               │ └──────────┘                                     │
├───────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Chrysalis     │ Wrap old system in new interface; replace         │
│               │ internals while external shell stays stable       │
│               │ ┌──────────┐     ┌──[new]───┐     ┌──[new]───┐  │
│               │ │ old core │ → │ old core │ → │ new core │  │
│               │ └──────────┘     └──────────┘     └──────────┘  │
├───────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Budding       │ New system runs in parallel; traffic shifts       │
│               │ ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐     ┌──────┐ ┌──────┐         │
│               │ │ Old  │ │ New  │  →  │ Old  │ │ New  │         │
│               │ │ 100% │ │  0%  │     │  0%  │ │ 100% │         │
│               │ └──────┘ └──────┘     └──────┘ └──────┘         │
└───────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Got: Transformation blueprint shows intermediate forms, seams, chosen metamorphosis pattern, interface preservation strategy. Each step concrete and testable.

If fail: No clean seam? System may need preliminary dissolution (see dissolve-form) to create seams before transformation. Intermediate forms not operationally viable? Transformation steps too large — decompose into smaller increments.

Step 2: Build Scaffolding

Construct temporary infrastructure that supports metamorphosis.

  1. Create anti-corruption layer:
    • Thin translation layer between old and new systems
    • Routes requests to appropriate system (old or new) based on migration state
    • Translates data formats between old and new representations
    • This layer is "cocoon" that protects transformation
  2. Set up parallel running infrastructure:
    • Both old and new systems must be deployable together
    • Feature flags control which system handles which traffic
    • Comparison mechanisms validate that old and new produce equivalent results
  3. Establish rollback checkpoints:
    • At each intermediate form, verify rollback to previous form possible
    • Rollback must be faster than forward transformation step
    • Data migration must be reversible (or data must be dual-written during transition)
  4. Build validation harness:
    • Automated tests verify operational continuity at each intermediate form
    • Performance benchmarks detect regression
    • Data integrity checks catch migration errors

Got: Scaffolding infrastructure (anti-corruption layer, parallel running, rollback, validation) in place before any transformation begins. Scaffolding itself tested and verified.

If fail: Scaffolding too expensive? Simplify: minimum viable scaffolding is feature flag and rollback procedure. Anti-corruption layers and parallel running add safety but not always necessary for smaller transformations.

Step 3: Execute Progressive Cutover

Migrate functionality from old form to new form incrementally.

  1. Order components for migration:
    • Start with least-coupled, lowest-risk component (build confidence)
    • Progress toward more critical, more coupled components
    • Save most coupled/critical component for last (by then team has experience)
  2. For each component: a. Implement new version behind anti-corruption layer b. Run parallel: both old and new process same inputs c. Compare outputs — should be equivalent (or differences should be expected and documented) d. When confident, switch traffic to new version (feature flag flip) e. Monitor for anomalies (increase monitoring sensitivity post-cutover) f. After stability period, decommission old version of this component
  3. Maintain continuous delivery throughout:
    • Each cutover step is normal deployment, not special event
    • System always in known, tested, operational state
    • Cutover causes issues? Roll back to previous state (still operational)

Got: Functionality migrates component by component with validation at each step. System always operational. Each cutover builds confidence for next.

If fail: Parallel running reveals discrepancies? New implementation has bug — fix before cutting over. Cutover causes performance degradation? New component may need optimization or anti-corruption layer adding too much overhead. Team loses confidence mid-migration? Pause and stabilize — half-migrated system in known state far better than rushed full migration.

Step 4: Manage Chrysalis Phase

Navigate most vulnerable period — when system between forms.

  1. Acknowledge chrysalis reality:
    • During migration, system is partly old and partly new
    • This hybrid state inherently more complex than either pure state
    • Complexity peaks at midpoint of migration, then decreases
  2. Chrysalis discipline:
    • No new features during chrysalis phase (transformation only)
    • Minimal external changes (freeze non-essential deployments)
    • Increased monitoring and on-call coverage
    • Daily check-ins on migration progress and system health
  3. Mid-chrysalis assessment:
    • At halfway point, assess: target form still right goal?
    • Anything changed (market, requirements, team) that affects target?
    • Should transformation continue, pause, or redirect?
  4. Protect chrysalis:
    • Keep rollback path clear at all times
    • Document current hybrid state thoroughly (future debuggers will need it)
    • Resist temptation to "clean up" temporary scaffolding before migration complete

Got: Chrysalis phase managed as deliberate, time-bounded period with increased discipline and monitoring. Team understands temporary complexity is cost of safe transformation.

If fail: Chrysalis phase drags too long? Hybrid state becomes new normal — worse than either old or new. Set time limit. Limit reached? Either accelerate remaining migration or accept hybrid state as "new form" and stabilize it.

Step 5: Complete Metamorphosis and Stabilize

Finish transformation. Remove scaffolding.

  1. Final cutover:
    • Migrate last component(s) to new form
    • Run full validation suite against complete new system
    • Performance test under production-equivalent load
  2. Remove scaffolding:
    • Decommission anti-corruption layer (no longer needed)
    • Remove feature flags related to migration
    • Clean up parallel running infrastructure
    • Archive (don't delete) old system code for reference
  3. Post-metamorphosis stabilization:
    • Run in new form for 2-4 weeks with enhanced monitoring
    • Address any issues that emerge under real-world conditions
    • Update documentation to reflect new architecture
  4. Retrospective:
    • What went well in transformation?
    • What was harder than expected?
    • What would do differently next time?
    • Update team's transformation playbook

Got: Transformation complete. System operates in new form. Scaffolding removed. Documentation updated. Team captured learnings for future transformations.

If fail: New form unstable after cutover? Maintain rollback path and continue stabilization. Stabilization takes more than planned period? Design issue in new architecture — consider whether targeted fixes or partial rollback of most problematic component appropriate.

Checks

  • Transformation blueprint shows viable intermediate forms
  • Scaffolding (anti-corruption layer, rollback, validation harness) in place before migration starts
  • Components migrate in order from lowest to highest risk
  • Parallel running validates equivalence at each step
  • Chrysalis phase time-bounded with feature freeze discipline
  • All scaffolding removed after transformation completes
  • Post-metamorphosis stabilization period passes without critical issues
  • Retrospective captures learnings

Pitfalls

  • Big-bang migration: Transform everything at once. Abandons safety of incremental cutover. Maximizes blast radius. Always migrate incrementally
  • Permanent scaffolding: Anti-corruption layers and feature flags never removed become technical debt. Plan scaffolding removal as part of transformation, not afterthought
  • Chrysalis denial: Pretend hybrid state is normal. Leads to feature development on unstable foundations. Acknowledge chrysalis phase and enforce discipline
  • Target fixation: Becoming so committed to target architecture that signs of better alternative ignored. Mid-chrysalis assessment exists for this reason
  • Transformation fatigue: Long migrations exhaust teams. Keep each transformation step small enough to complete in days, not weeks. Celebrate milestones to maintain momentum

See Also

  • assess-form — prerequisite assessment determines if system ready for transformation
  • dissolve-form — for systems too rigid to transform directly; dissolution creates seams needed here
  • repair-damage — recovery skill for when transformation introduces damage
  • shift-camouflage — surface adaptation may suffice without deep architectural change
  • coordinate-swarm — swarm coordination informs sequencing of transformation across distributed systems
  • scale-colony — growth pressure is common trigger for architectural adaptation
  • implement-gitops-workflow — GitOps provides deployment infrastructure for progressive cutover
  • review-software-architecture — complementary review skill for evaluating target architecture

GitHub 저장소

pjt222/agent-almanac
경로: i18n/caveman/skills/adapt-architecture
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams

연관 스킬

executing-plans

디자인

executing-plans 스킬은 검토 체크포인트가 포함된 통제된 배치로 실행할 완전한 구현 계획이 있을 때 사용합니다. 이 스킬은 계획을 불러와 비판적으로 검토한 후, 소규모 배치(기본값 3개 작업)로 작업을 실행하면서 각 배치 사이에 진행 상황을 아키텍트 검토를 위해 보고합니다. 이를 통해 내재된 품질 관리 체크포인트를 갖춘 체계적인 구현이 보장됩니다.

스킬 보기

requesting-code-review

디자인

이 스킬은 코드 변경 사항을 요구 사항에 따라 분석하기 위해 코드 리뷰어 하위 에이전트를 호출합니다. 작업 완료 후, 주요 기능 구현 후, 또는 메인 브랜치에 병합하기 전에 사용해야 합니다. 이 리뷰는 현재 구현체와 원래 계획을 비교하여 문제를 조기에 발견하는 데 도움이 됩니다.

스킬 보기

connect-mcp-server

디자인

이 스킬은 개발자들이 HTTP, stdio 또는 SSE 전송 방식을 통해 MCP 서버를 Claude Code에 연결하는 포괄적인 가이드를 제공합니다. GitHub, Notion 및 사용자 정의 API와 같은 외부 서비스를 통합하기 위한 설치, 구성, 인증 및 보안을 다룹니다. MCP 통합 설정, 외부 도구 구성 또는 Claude의 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 작업 시 활용하세요.

스킬 보기

web-cli-teleport

디자인

이 스킬은 작업 분석을 기반으로 개발자가 Claude Code 웹 인터페이스와 CLI 인터페이스 중 선택할 수 있도록 돕고, 두 환경 간 원활한 세션 텔레포트를 가능하게 합니다. 웹, CLI 또는 모바일 환경 전환 시 세션 상태와 컨텍스트를 관리하여 워크플로를 최적화합니다. 다양한 단계에서 서로 다른 도구가 필요한 복잡한 프로젝트에 사용하세요.

스킬 보기