Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
前端设计需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

domain-analysis领域分析

Agent Skill

domain-analysis 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

2,864

周安装

117

GitHub Stars

2,215

下载量

917
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:domain-analysis(领域分析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/domain-analysis
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills --skill domain-analysis
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills --skill domain-analysis

简介

domain-analysis 识别代码库中的子域边界并提出有界上下文划分建议,遵循 DDD 原则。

  • 适用于分析领域边界、映射业务能力或评估系统耦合度与内聚性。
  • 自动分类 Core、Supporting 和 Generic 子域,辅助重构与架构演进。
  • 输出结构化领域地图,驱动后续服务设计与团队协同。
  • 使用前请确保对业务逻辑有基本了解,以便准确判断上下文划分。

SKILL.md

Subdomain Identification & Bounded Context Analysis

This skill analyzes codebases to identify subdomains (Core, Supporting, Generic) and suggest bounded contexts following Domain-Driven Design Strategic Design principles.

When to Use

Apply this skill when:

  • Analyzing domain boundaries in any codebase
  • Identifying Core, Supporting, and Generic subdomains
  • Mapping bounded contexts from problem space to solution space
  • Assessing domain cohesion and detecting coupling issues
  • Planning domain-driven refactoring
  • Understanding business capabilities in code

Core Principles

Subdomain Classification

Core Domain: Competitive advantage, highest business value, requires best developers

  • Indicators: Complex business logic, frequent changes, domain experts needed

Supporting Subdomain: Essential but not differentiating, business-specific

  • Indicators: Supports Core Domain, moderate complexity, business-specific rules

Generic Subdomain: Common functionality, could be outsourced

  • Indicators: Well-understood problem, low differentiation, standard functionality

Bounded Context

An explicit linguistic boundary where domain terms have specific, unambiguous meanings.

  • Primary nature: Linguistic boundary, not technical
  • Key rule: Inside boundary, all Ubiquitous Language terms are unambiguous
  • Goal: Align 1 subdomain to 1 bounded context (ideal)

Analysis Process

Phase 1: Extract Concepts

Scan codebase for business concepts (not infrastructure):

  1. Entities (domain models with identity)

- Patterns: @Entity, class, domain models - Focus: Business concepts, not technical classes

  1. Services (business operations)

- Patterns: *Service, *Manager, *Handler - Focus: Business logic, not technical utilities

  1. Use Cases (business workflows)

- Patterns: *UseCase, *Command, *Handler - Focus: Business processes, not CRUD

  1. Controllers/Resolvers (entry points)

- Patterns: *Controller, *Resolver, API endpoints - Focus: Business capabilities, not technical routes

Phase 2: Group by Ubiquitous Language

For each concept, determine:

Primary Language Context

  • What business vocabulary does this belong to?
  • Examples:

- Subscription, Invoice, Payment → Billing language - Movie, Video, Episode → Content language - User, Authentication → Identity language

Linguistic Boundaries

  • Where do term meanings change?
  • Same term, different meaning = different bounded context
  • Example: "Customer" in Sales vs "Customer" in Support

Concept Relationships

  • Which concepts naturally belong together?
  • Which share business vocabulary?
  • Which reference each other?

Phase 3: Identify Subdomains

A subdomain has:

  • Distinct business capability
  • Independent business value
  • Unique vocabulary
  • Multiple related entities working together
  • Cohesive set of business operations

Common Domain Patterns:

  • Billing/Subscription: Payments, invoices, plans
  • Content/Catalog: Media, products, inventory
  • Identity/Access: Users, authentication, authorization
  • Analytics: Metrics, dashboards, insights
  • Notifications: Messages, alerts, communications

Classify Each Subdomain:

Use this decision tree:

Is it a competitive advantage?
  YES → Core Domain
  NO → Does it require business-specific knowledge?
        YES → Supporting Subdomain
        NO → Generic Subdomain

Phase 4: Assess Cohesion

High Cohesion Indicators

  • Concepts share Ubiquitous Language
  • Concepts frequently used together
  • Direct business relationships
  • Changes to one affect others in group
  • Solve same business problem

Low Cohesion Indicators

  • Different business vocabularies mixed
  • Concepts rarely used together
  • No direct business relationship
  • Changes don't affect others
  • Solve different business problems

Cohesion Score Formula:

Score = (
  Linguistic Cohesion (0-3) +    // Shared vocabulary
  Usage Cohesion (0-3) +         // Used together
  Data Cohesion (0-2) +          // Entity relationships
  Change Cohesion (0-2)          // Change together
) / 10

8-10: High Cohesion ✅
5-7:  Medium Cohesion ⚠️
0-4:  Low Cohesion ❌

Phase 5: Detect Low Cohesion Issues

Rule 1: Linguistic Mismatch

  • Problem: Different business vocabularies mixed
  • Example: User (identity) + Subscription (billing) in same service
  • Action: Suggest separation into different bounded contexts

Rule 2: Cross-Domain Dependencies

  • Problem: Tight coupling between domains
  • Example: Service A directly instantiates entities from Domain B
  • Action: Suggest interface-based integration

Rule 3: Mixed Responsibilities

  • Problem: Single class handles multiple business concerns
  • Example: Service handling both billing and content
  • Action: Suggest splitting by subdomain

Rule 4: Generic in Core

  • Problem: Generic functionality in core business logic
  • Example: Email sending in billing service
  • Action: Extract to Generic Subdomain

Rule 5: Unclear Boundaries

  • Problem: Cannot determine which domain concept belongs to
  • Example: Entity with relationships to multiple domains
  • Action: Clarify boundaries, possibly split concept

Phase 6: Map Bounded Contexts

For each subdomain identified, suggest bounded context:

Bounded Context Characteristics:

  • Name reflects Ubiquitous Language
  • Contains complete domain model
  • Has explicit integration points
  • Clear linguistic boundary

Integration Patterns:

  • Shared Kernel: Shared model between contexts (use sparingly)
  • Customer/Supplier: Downstream depends on upstream
  • Conformist: Downstream conforms to upstream
  • Anti-corruption Layer: Translation layer between contexts
  • Open Host Service: Published interface for integration
  • Published Language: Well-documented integration protocol

Output Format

Domain Map

For each domain/subdomain:

## Domain: {Name}

**Type**: Core Domain | Supporting Subdomain | Generic Subdomain

**Ubiquitous Language**: {key business terms}

**Business Capability**: {what business problem it solves}

**Key Concepts**:

- {Concept} (Entity|Service|UseCase) - {brief description}

**Subdomains** (if applicable):

1. {Subdomain} (Core|Supporting|Generic)
   - Concepts: {list}
   - Cohesion: {score}/10
   - Dependencies: → {other domains}

**Suggested Bounded Context**: {Name}Context

- Linguistic boundary: {where terms have specific meaning}
- Integration: {how it should integrate with other contexts}

**Dependencies**:

- → {OtherDomain} via {interface/API}
- ← {OtherDomain} via {interface/API}

**Cohesion Score**: {score}/10

Cohesion Matrix

## Cross-Domain Cohesion

| Domain A | Domain B | Cohesion | Issue              | Recommendation          |
| -------- | -------- | -------- | ------------------ | ----------------------- |
| Billing  | Identity | 2/10     | ❌ Direct coupling | Use interface           |
| Content  | Billing  | 6/10     | ⚠️ Usage tracking  | Event-based integration |

Low Cohesion Report

## Issues Detected

### Priority: High

**Issue**: {description}

- **Location**: {file/class/method}
- **Problem**: {what's wrong}
- **Concepts**: {involved concepts}
- **Cohesion**: {score}/10
- **Recommendation**: {suggested fix}

### Priority: Medium

{similar format}

Bounded Context Map

## Suggested Bounded Contexts

### {ContextName}Context

**Contains Subdomains**:

- {Subdomain1} (Core)
- {Subdomain2} (Supporting)

**Ubiquitous Language**:

- Term: Definition in this context

**Integration Requirements**:

- Consumes from: {OtherContext} via {pattern}
- Publishes to: {OtherContext} via {pattern}

**Implementation Notes**:

- Separate persistence
- Independent deployment
- Explicit API boundaries

Best Practices

Do's ✅

  • Focus on business language, not code structure
  • Let Ubiquitous Language guide boundaries
  • Measure cohesion objectively
  • Identify clear integration points
  • Classify every subdomain (Core/Supporting/Generic)
  • Look for linguistic boundaries first

Don'ts ❌

  • Don't group by technical layers
  • Don't force single global model
  • Don't ignore linguistic differences
  • Don't couple domains directly
  • Don't create contexts by architecture
  • Don't eliminate all dependencies (some are necessary)

Analysis Checklist

For Each Concept:

  • What business language does it belong to?
  • What domain/subdomain is it part of?
  • Is it Core, Supporting, or Generic?
  • What other concepts does it relate to?
  • Are dependencies within same domain?
  • Any linguistic mismatches?

For Each Domain:

  • What is the Ubiquitous Language?
  • What are the key concepts?
  • What are the subdomains?
  • Which is the Core Domain?
  • What are cross-domain dependencies?
  • Is internal cohesion high?
  • Are boundaries clear?

For Cohesion Analysis:

  • Calculate cohesion scores
  • Identify low cohesion areas
  • Map cross-domain dependencies
  • Flag linguistic mismatches
  • Note tight coupling
  • Suggest boundary clarifications

Quick Reference

Subdomain Decision Tree

Analyze business capability
└─ Is it competitive advantage?
   ├─ YES → Core Domain
   └─ NO → Is it business-specific?
      ├─ YES → Supporting Subdomain
      └─ NO → Generic Subdomain

Cohesion Quick Check

Same vocabulary? → High linguistic cohesion
Used together? → High usage cohesion
Direct relationships? → High data cohesion
Change together? → High change cohesion

All high → Strong subdomain candidate
Mix of high/low → Review boundaries
All low → Likely wrong grouping

Bounded Context Signals

Clear boundary signs:
✅ Distinct Ubiquitous Language
✅ Concepts have unambiguous meaning
✅ Different meanings across contexts
✅ Clear integration points

Unclear boundary signs:
❌ Same terms with same meanings everywhere
❌ Concepts used identically across system
❌ No clear linguistic differences
❌ Tight coupling everywhere

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Big Ball of Mud

  • Everything connected to everything
  • No clear boundaries
  • Mixed vocabularies
  • Prevention: Explicit bounded contexts

All-Inclusive Model

  • Single model for entire business
  • Impossible global definitions
  • Creates conflicts
  • Prevention: Embrace multiple contexts

Mixed Linguistic Concepts

  • Different vocabularies in same context
  • Example: User/Permission with Forum/Post
  • Prevention: Keep linguistic associations

Notes

  • This is strategic analysis, not tactical implementation
  • Focus on WHAT domains exist, not HOW to implement
  • Some cross-domain dependencies are normal
  • Low cohesion doesn't always mean "bad," it means "needs attention"
  • Generic Subdomains naturally have lower cohesion
  • Always validate with domain experts when possible

Validation Criteria

Good domain identification has:

  • ✅ Clear boundaries with distinct Ubiquitous Language
  • ✅ High internal cohesion within domains
  • ✅ Explicit cross-domain dependencies
  • ✅ Business alignment with capabilities
  • ✅ Actionable recommendations for issues

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.11%
按下载量换算340

Claude

30.59%
按下载量换算281

Cursor

16.35%
按下载量换算150

Gemini CLI

8.48%
按下载量换算78

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills