返回技能列表

adapt-architecture

pjt222
更新于 2 days ago
1 次查看
17
2
17
在 GitHub 上查看
设计design

关于

This skill provides a structured approach for gradually evolving system architecture, using patterns like the strangler fig migration and parallel running. It enables safe, incremental changes such as monolith-to-microservices migrations or subsystem replacements without big-bang cutovers. Use it when a prior assessment has deemed the system ready for transformation and you need progressive cutover with rollback safety.

快速安装

Claude Code

推荐
主要方式
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
插件命令备选方式
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git 克隆备选方式
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/adapt-architecture

在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能

技能文档

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 仓库

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

相关推荐技能

executing-plans

设计

该Skill用于当开发者提供完整实施计划时,以受控批次方式执行代码实现。它会先审阅计划并提出疑问,然后分批次执行任务(默认每批3个任务),并在批次间暂停等待审查。关键特性包括分批次执行、内置检查点和架构师审查机制,确保复杂系统实现的可控性。

查看技能

requesting-code-review

设计

该Skill可在完成任务、实现主要功能或合并代码前自动调度代码审查子代理,确保实现符合需求和计划。它支持通过指定git SHA范围进行精准的代码变更审查,帮助开发者在关键节点及时发现潜在问题。核心原则是"早审查、勤审查",适用于开发流程的各个关键阶段。

查看技能

connect-mcp-server

设计

这个Skill指导开发者如何将MCP服务器连接到Claude Code,支持HTTP、stdio和SSE三种传输协议。它涵盖了从安装配置到认证安全的完整流程,适用于集成GitHub、Notion、数据库等外部服务。当开发者需要添加集成、配置外部工具或提及MCP相关功能时,这个Skill能提供实用的操作指南。

查看技能

web-cli-teleport

设计

该Skill帮助开发者根据任务特性选择Claude Code的Web或CLI界面,并指导如何在两种环境间无缝迁移会话。它能分析任务复杂度、迭代需求等要素,推荐最优工作界面和工作流。关键特性包括会话状态管理、环境切换指导和上下文优化建议。

查看技能