@jakkrichm/create-nexus-devflow 2.0.0 → 2.0.2

package/template/.agents/skills/architecture/examples.md

@@ -1,94 +1,94 @@
-# Architecture Examples
-
-> Real-world architecture decisions by project type.
-
----
-
-## Example 1: MVP E-commerce (Solo Developer)
-
-```yaml
-Requirements:
-  - <1000 users initially
-  - Solo developer
-  - Fast to market (8 weeks)
-  - Budget-conscious
-
-Architecture Decisions:
-  App Structure: Monolith (simpler for solo)
-  Framework: Next.js (full-stack, fast)
-  Data Layer: Prisma direct (no over-abstraction)
-  Authentication: JWT (simpler than OAuth)
-  Payment: Stripe (hosted solution)
-  Database: PostgreSQL (ACID for orders)
-
-Trade-offs Accepted:
-  - Monolith → Can't scale independently (team doesn't justify it)
-  - No Repository → Less testable (simple CRUD doesn't need it)
-  - JWT → No social login initially (can add later)
-
-Future Migration Path:
-  - Users > 10K → Extract payment service
-  - Team > 3 → Add Repository pattern
-  - Social login requested → Add OAuth
-```
-
----
-
-## Example 2: SaaS Product (5-10 Developers)
-
-```yaml
-Requirements:
-  - 1K-100K users
-  - 5-10 developers
-  - Long-term (12+ months)
-  - Multiple domains (billing, users, core)
-
-Architecture Decisions:
-  App Structure: Modular Monolith (team size optimal)
-  Framework: NestJS (modular by design)
-  Data Layer: Repository pattern (testing, flexibility)
-  Domain Model: Partial DDD (rich entities)
-  Authentication: OAuth + JWT
-  Caching: Redis
-  Database: PostgreSQL
-
-Trade-offs Accepted:
-  - Modular Monolith → Some module coupling (microservices not justified)
-  - Partial DDD → No full aggregates (no domain experts)
-  - RabbitMQ later → Initial synchronous (add when proven needed)
-
-Migration Path:
-  - Team > 10 → Consider microservices
-  - Domains conflict → Extract bounded contexts
-  - Read performance issues → Add CQRS
-```
-
----
-
-## Example 3: Enterprise (100K+ Users)
-
-```yaml
-Requirements:
-  - 100K+ users
-  - 10+ developers
-  - Multiple business domains
-  - Different scaling needs
-  - 24/7 availability
-
-Architecture Decisions:
-  App Structure: Microservices (independent scale)
-  API Gateway: Kong/AWS API GW
-  Domain Model: Full DDD
-  Consistency: Event-driven (eventual OK)
-  Message Bus: Kafka
-  Authentication: OAuth + SAML (enterprise SSO)
-  Database: Polyglot (right tool per job)
-  CQRS: Selected services
-
-Operational Requirements:
-  - Service mesh (Istio/Linkerd)
-  - Distributed tracing (Jaeger/Tempo)
-  - Centralized logging (ELK/Loki)
-  - Circuit breakers (Resilience4j)
-  - Kubernetes/Helm
-```
+# Architecture Examples
+
+> Real-world architecture decisions by project type.
+
+---
+
+## Example 1: MVP E-commerce (Solo Developer)
+
+```yaml
+Requirements:
+  - <1000 users initially
+  - Solo developer
+  - Fast to market (8 weeks)
+  - Budget-conscious
+
+Architecture Decisions:
+  App Structure: Monolith (simpler for solo)
+  Framework: Next.js (full-stack, fast)
+  Data Layer: Prisma direct (no over-abstraction)
+  Authentication: JWT (simpler than OAuth)
+  Payment: Stripe (hosted solution)
+  Database: PostgreSQL (ACID for orders)
+
+Trade-offs Accepted:
+  - Monolith → Can't scale independently (team doesn't justify it)
+  - No Repository → Less testable (simple CRUD doesn't need it)
+  - JWT → No social login initially (can add later)
+
+Future Migration Path:
+  - Users > 10K → Extract payment service
+  - Team > 3 → Add Repository pattern
+  - Social login requested → Add OAuth
+```
+
+---
+
+## Example 2: SaaS Product (5-10 Developers)
+
+```yaml
+Requirements:
+  - 1K-100K users
+  - 5-10 developers
+  - Long-term (12+ months)
+  - Multiple domains (billing, users, core)
+
+Architecture Decisions:
+  App Structure: Modular Monolith (team size optimal)
+  Framework: NestJS (modular by design)
+  Data Layer: Repository pattern (testing, flexibility)
+  Domain Model: Partial DDD (rich entities)
+  Authentication: OAuth + JWT
+  Caching: Redis
+  Database: PostgreSQL
+
+Trade-offs Accepted:
+  - Modular Monolith → Some module coupling (microservices not justified)
+  - Partial DDD → No full aggregates (no domain experts)
+  - RabbitMQ later → Initial synchronous (add when proven needed)
+
+Migration Path:
+  - Team > 10 → Consider microservices
+  - Domains conflict → Extract bounded contexts
+  - Read performance issues → Add CQRS
+```
+
+---
+
+## Example 3: Enterprise (100K+ Users)
+
+```yaml
+Requirements:
+  - 100K+ users
+  - 10+ developers
+  - Multiple business domains
+  - Different scaling needs
+  - 24/7 availability
+
+Architecture Decisions:
+  App Structure: Microservices (independent scale)
+  API Gateway: Kong/AWS API GW
+  Domain Model: Full DDD
+  Consistency: Event-driven (eventual OK)
+  Message Bus: Kafka
+  Authentication: OAuth + SAML (enterprise SSO)
+  Database: Polyglot (right tool per job)
+  CQRS: Selected services
+
+Operational Requirements:
+  - Service mesh (Istio/Linkerd)
+  - Distributed tracing (Jaeger/Tempo)
+  - Centralized logging (ELK/Loki)
+  - Circuit breakers (Resilience4j)
+  - Kubernetes/Helm
+```

package/template/.agents/skills/architecture/pattern-selection.md

@@ -1,68 +1,68 @@
-# Pattern Selection Guidelines
-
-> Decision trees for choosing architectural patterns.
-
-## Main Decision Tree
-
-```
-START: What's your MAIN concern?
-
-┌─ Data Access Complexity?
-│  ├─ HIGH (complex queries, testing needed)
-│  │  → Repository Pattern + Unit of Work
-│  │  VALIDATE: Will data source change frequently?
-│  │     ├─ YES → Repository worth the indirection
-│  │     └─ NO  → Consider simpler ORM direct access
-│  └─ LOW (simple CRUD, single database)
-│     → ORM directly (Prisma, Drizzle)
-│     Simpler = Better, Faster
-│
-├─ Business Rules Complexity?
-│  ├─ HIGH (domain logic, rules vary by context)
-│  │  → Domain-Driven Design
-│  │  VALIDATE: Do you have domain experts on team?
-│  │     ├─ YES → Full DDD (Aggregates, Value Objects)
-│  │     └─ NO  → Partial DDD (rich entities, clear boundaries)
-│  └─ LOW (mostly CRUD, simple validation)
-│     → Transaction Script pattern
-│     Simpler = Better, Faster
-│
-├─ Independent Scaling Needed?
-│  ├─ YES (different components scale differently)
-│  │  → Microservices WORTH the complexity
-│  │  REQUIREMENTS (ALL must be true):
-│  │    - Clear domain boundaries
-│  │    - Team > 10 developers
-│  │    - Different scaling needs per service
-│  │  IF NOT ALL MET → Modular Monolith instead
-│  └─ NO (everything scales together)
-│     → Modular Monolith
-│     Can extract services later when proven needed
-│
-└─ Real-time Requirements?
-   ├─ HIGH (immediate updates, multi-user sync)
-   │  → Event-Driven Architecture
-   │  → Message Queue (RabbitMQ, Redis, Kafka)
-   │  VALIDATE: Can you handle eventual consistency?
-   │     ├─ YES → Event-driven valid
-   │     └─ NO  → Synchronous with polling
-   └─ LOW (eventual consistency acceptable)
-      → Synchronous (REST/GraphQL)
-      Simpler = Better, Faster
-```
-
-## The 3 Questions (Before ANY Pattern)
-
-1. **Problem Solved**: What SPECIFIC problem does this pattern solve?
-2. **Simpler Alternative**: Is there a simpler solution?
-3. **Deferred Complexity**: Can we add this LATER when needed?
-
-## Red Flags (Anti-patterns)
-
-| Pattern | Anti-pattern | Simpler Alternative |
-|---------|-------------|-------------------|
-| Microservices | Premature splitting | Start monolith, extract later |
-| Clean/Hexagonal | Over-abstraction | Concrete first, interfaces later |
-| Event Sourcing | Over-engineering | Append-only audit log |
-| CQRS | Unnecessary complexity | Single model |
-| Repository | YAGNI for simple CRUD | ORM direct access |
+# Pattern Selection Guidelines
+
+> Decision trees for choosing architectural patterns.
+
+## Main Decision Tree
+
+```
+START: What's your MAIN concern?
+
+┌─ Data Access Complexity?
+│  ├─ HIGH (complex queries, testing needed)
+│  │  → Repository Pattern + Unit of Work
+│  │  VALIDATE: Will data source change frequently?
+│  │     ├─ YES → Repository worth the indirection
+│  │     └─ NO  → Consider simpler ORM direct access
+│  └─ LOW (simple CRUD, single database)
+│     → ORM directly (Prisma, Drizzle)
+│     Simpler = Better, Faster
+│
+├─ Business Rules Complexity?
+│  ├─ HIGH (domain logic, rules vary by context)
+│  │  → Domain-Driven Design
+│  │  VALIDATE: Do you have domain experts on team?
+│  │     ├─ YES → Full DDD (Aggregates, Value Objects)
+│  │     └─ NO  → Partial DDD (rich entities, clear boundaries)
+│  └─ LOW (mostly CRUD, simple validation)
+│     → Transaction Script pattern
+│     Simpler = Better, Faster
+│
+├─ Independent Scaling Needed?
+│  ├─ YES (different components scale differently)
+│  │  → Microservices WORTH the complexity
+│  │  REQUIREMENTS (ALL must be true):
+│  │    - Clear domain boundaries
+│  │    - Team > 10 developers
+│  │    - Different scaling needs per service
+│  │  IF NOT ALL MET → Modular Monolith instead
+│  └─ NO (everything scales together)
+│     → Modular Monolith
+│     Can extract services later when proven needed
+│
+└─ Real-time Requirements?
+   ├─ HIGH (immediate updates, multi-user sync)
+   │  → Event-Driven Architecture
+   │  → Message Queue (RabbitMQ, Redis, Kafka)
+   │  VALIDATE: Can you handle eventual consistency?
+   │     ├─ YES → Event-driven valid
+   │     └─ NO  → Synchronous with polling
+   └─ LOW (eventual consistency acceptable)
+      → Synchronous (REST/GraphQL)
+      Simpler = Better, Faster
+```
+
+## The 3 Questions (Before ANY Pattern)
+
+1. **Problem Solved**: What SPECIFIC problem does this pattern solve?
+2. **Simpler Alternative**: Is there a simpler solution?
+3. **Deferred Complexity**: Can we add this LATER when needed?
+
+## Red Flags (Anti-patterns)
+
+| Pattern | Anti-pattern | Simpler Alternative |
+|---------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Microservices | Premature splitting | Start monolith, extract later |
+| Clean/Hexagonal | Over-abstraction | Concrete first, interfaces later |
+| Event Sourcing | Over-engineering | Append-only audit log |
+| CQRS | Unnecessary complexity | Single model |
+| Repository | YAGNI for simple CRUD | ORM direct access |

package/template/.agents/skills/architecture/patterns-reference.md

@@ -1,50 +1,50 @@
-# Architecture Patterns Reference
-
-> Quick reference for common patterns with usage guidance.
-
-## Data Access Patterns
-
-| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
-|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
-| **Active Record** | Simple CRUD, rapid prototyping | Complex queries, multiple sources | Low |
-| **Repository** | Testing needed, multiple sources | Simple CRUD, single database | Medium |
-| **Unit of Work** | Complex transactions | Simple operations | High |
-| **Data Mapper** | Complex domain, performance | Simple CRUD, rapid dev | High |
-
-## Domain Logic Patterns
-
-| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
-|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
-| **Transaction Script** | Simple CRUD, procedural | Complex business rules | Low |
-| **Table Module** | Record-based logic | Rich behavior needed | Low |
-| **Domain Model** | Complex business logic | Simple CRUD | Medium |
-| **DDD (Full)** | Complex domain, domain experts | Simple domain, no experts | High |
-
-## Distributed System Patterns
-
-| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
-|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
-| **Modular Monolith** | Small teams, unclear boundaries | Clear contexts, different scales | Medium |
-| **Microservices** | Different scales, large teams | Small teams, simple domain | Very High |
-| **Event-Driven** | Real-time, loose coupling | Simple workflows, strong consistency | High |
-| **CQRS** | Read/write performance diverges | Simple CRUD, same model | High |
-| **Saga** | Distributed transactions | Single database, simple ACID | High |
-
-## API Patterns
-
-| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
-|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
-| **REST** | Standard CRUD, resources | Real-time, complex queries | Low |
-| **GraphQL** | Flexible queries, multiple clients | Simple CRUD, caching needs | Medium |
-| **gRPC** | Internal services, performance | Public APIs, browser clients | Medium |
-| **WebSocket** | Real-time updates | Simple request/response | Medium |
-
----
-
-## Simplicity Principle
-
-**"Start simple, add complexity only when proven necessary."**
-
-- You can always add patterns later
-- Removing complexity is MUCH harder than adding it
-- When in doubt, choose simpler option
+# Architecture Patterns Reference
+
+> Quick reference for common patterns with usage guidance.
+
+## Data Access Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **Active Record** | Simple CRUD, rapid prototyping | Complex queries, multiple sources | Low |
+| **Repository** | Testing needed, multiple sources | Simple CRUD, single database | Medium |
+| **Unit of Work** | Complex transactions | Simple operations | High |
+| **Data Mapper** | Complex domain, performance | Simple CRUD, rapid dev | High |
+
+## Domain Logic Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **Transaction Script** | Simple CRUD, procedural | Complex business rules | Low |
+| **Table Module** | Record-based logic | Rich behavior needed | Low |
+| **Domain Model** | Complex business logic | Simple CRUD | Medium |
+| **DDD (Full)** | Complex domain, domain experts | Simple domain, no experts | High |
+
+## Distributed System Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **Modular Monolith** | Small teams, unclear boundaries | Clear contexts, different scales | Medium |
+| **Microservices** | Different scales, large teams | Small teams, simple domain | Very High |
+| **Event-Driven** | Real-time, loose coupling | Simple workflows, strong consistency | High |
+| **CQRS** | Read/write performance diverges | Simple CRUD, same model | High |
+| **Saga** | Distributed transactions | Single database, simple ACID | High |
+
+## API Patterns
+
+| Pattern | When to Use | When NOT to Use | Complexity |
+|---------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| **REST** | Standard CRUD, resources | Real-time, complex queries | Low |
+| **GraphQL** | Flexible queries, multiple clients | Simple CRUD, caching needs | Medium |
+| **gRPC** | Internal services, performance | Public APIs, browser clients | Medium |
+| **WebSocket** | Real-time updates | Simple request/response | Medium |
+
+---
+
+## Simplicity Principle
+
+**"Start simple, add complexity only when proven necessary."**
+
+- You can always add patterns later
+- Removing complexity is MUCH harder than adding it
+- When in doubt, choose simpler option

package/template/.agents/skills/architecture/trade-off-analysis.md

@@ -1,77 +1,77 @@
-# Trade-off Analysis & ADR
-
-> Document every architectural decision with trade-offs.
-
-## Decision Framework
-
-For EACH architectural component, document:
-
-```markdown
-## Architecture Decision Record
-
-### Context
-- **Problem**: [What problem are we solving?]
-- **Constraints**: [Team size, scale, timeline, budget]
-
-### Options Considered
-
-| Option | Pros | Cons | Complexity | When Valid |
-|--------|------|------|------------|-----------|
-| Option A | Benefit 1 | Cost 1 | Low | [Conditions] |
-| Option B | Benefit 2 | Cost 2 | High | [Conditions] |
-
-### Decision
-**Chosen**: [Option B]
-
-### Rationale
-1. [Reason 1 - tied to constraints]
-2. [Reason 2 - tied to requirements]
-
-### Trade-offs Accepted
-- [What we're giving up]
-- [Why this is acceptable]
-
-### Consequences
-- **Positive**: [Benefits we gain]
-- **Negative**: [Costs/risks we accept]
-- **Mitigation**: [How we'll address negatives]
-
-### Revisit Trigger
-- [When to reconsider this decision]
-```
-
-## ADR Template
-
-```markdown
-# ADR-[XXX]: [Decision Title]
-
-## Status
-Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by [ADR-YYY]
-
-## Context
-[What problem? What constraints?]
-
-## Decision
-[What we chose - be specific]
-
-## Rationale
-[Why - tie to requirements and constraints]
-
-## Trade-offs
-[What we're giving up - be honest]
-
-## Consequences
-- **Positive**: [Benefits]
-- **Negative**: [Costs]
-- **Mitigation**: [How to address]
-```
-
-## ADR Storage
-
-```
-docs/
-└── architecture/
-    ├── adr-001-use-nextjs.md
-    ├── adr-002-postgresql-over-mongodb.md
-    └── adr-003-adopt-repository-pattern.md
-```
+# Trade-off Analysis & ADR
+
+> Document every architectural decision with trade-offs.
+
+## Decision Framework
+
+For EACH architectural component, document:
+
+```markdown
+## Architecture Decision Record
+
+### Context
+- **Problem**: [What problem are we solving?]
+- **Constraints**: [Team size, scale, timeline, budget]
+
+### Options Considered
+
+| Option | Pros | Cons | Complexity | When Valid |
+|--------|------|------|------------|-----------|
+| Option A | Benefit 1 | Cost 1 | Low | [Conditions] |
+| Option B | Benefit 2 | Cost 2 | High | [Conditions] |
+
+### Decision
+**Chosen**: [Option B]
+
+### Rationale
+1. [Reason 1 - tied to constraints]
+2. [Reason 2 - tied to requirements]
+
+### Trade-offs Accepted
+- [What we're giving up]
+- [Why this is acceptable]
+
+### Consequences
+- **Positive**: [Benefits we gain]
+- **Negative**: [Costs/risks we accept]
+- **Mitigation**: [How we'll address negatives]
+
+### Revisit Trigger
+- [When to reconsider this decision]
+```
+
+## ADR Template
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-[XXX]: [Decision Title]
+
+## Status
+Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded by [ADR-YYY]
+
+## Context
+[What problem? What constraints?]
+
+## Decision
+[What we chose - be specific]
+
+## Rationale
+[Why - tie to requirements and constraints]
+
+## Trade-offs
+[What we're giving up - be honest]
+
+## Consequences
+- **Positive**: [Benefits]
+- **Negative**: [Costs]
+- **Mitigation**: [How to address]
+```
+
+## ADR Storage
+
+```
+docs/
+└── architecture/
+    ├── adr-001-use-nextjs.md
+    ├── adr-002-postgresql-over-mongodb.md
+    └── adr-003-adopt-repository-pattern.md
+```