prd-v06-architecture-design

Position in workflow: v0.5 Technical Stack Selection → v0.6 Architecture Design → v0.6 Technical Specification

Architecture defines how your system components connect. This skill transforms stack selections into a coherent system design with explicit boundaries and integration patterns.

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.3-v0.5:

• TECH-* technology decisions (from v0.5 Technical Stack Selection) — Tech choices become components; Build items become internal services, Buy/Integrate items become external connections
• RISK-* risk entries (from v0.5 Risk Discovery Interview) — High-priority RISK-* entries must have architectural mitigations; drives design decisions on failover, security, scaling
• FEA-* feature entries (from v0.3 Features Value Planning) — Features determine what components must be built; complex features may require distributed patterns
• ARC-* existing architecture decisions (from prior products if brownfield) — Inherited patterns constrain new designs (monolith with microservice, library reuse, auth pattern, etc.)

This skill assumes v0.5 Technical Stack Selection is complete with TECH- entries providing technology foundations.

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• ARC-* entries (architecture decisions, status-based) — Decisions for structure, integration, security, performance, data, DevOps with rationale, alternatives considered, and consequences. No confidence scores; decisions have Status: Proposed/Accepted/Superseded
• System boundary diagram — Visual representation showing trust boundaries, components, and external integrations
• RISK-to-Architecture mapping — Validation showing every high-priority RISK-* has corresponding ARC-* mitigation or explicit acceptance
• Conformance rules (on ARC- entries) — for any decision that makes a structural claim ("X must not depend on Y", "all Z go through one adapter"), a machine-checkable rule. This turns the architecture into the expected topology (the blueprint graph) the v0.7 build is diffed against, and feeds the architecture_conformance readiness dimension. See docs/DEVELOPMENT_GRAPH.md.

All ARC- entries should include:

• Category: Structure/Integration/Security/Performance/Data/DevOps
• Context: What prompted this decision (derived from TECH-/RISK-/FEA- inputs)
• Decision: What was chosen
• Rationale: Why (not just what)
• Alternatives Rejected: Options considered and why not chosen
• Consequences: What this enables and constrains
• Related IDs: TECH-XXX, RISK-XXX, FEA-XXX references

Example ARC- entry (Structure):

ARC-001: Monolith with Module Boundaries
Category: Structure
Context: Team of 2 developers; unclear domain boundaries at v0.6; TECH-001 (Next.js) supports monolith pattern
Decision: Single Next.js application with domain-based module folders (auth/, reports/, data-sources/), clear module interfaces

Rationale:
  - TECH-001 (Next.js) designed for monoliths
  - Avoids ops complexity of microservices
  - Can extract services later when scaling needs emerge
  - Enables fast iteration for MVP

Alternatives Rejected:
  - Microservices: Premature (team too small); adds ops burden
  - Serverless: Harder to share code; cold start latency concerns (impacts UJ-001 response time)
  - Layered monolith: Less clear boundaries; module pattern better for future extraction

Consequences:
  - Enables: Fast iteration, simple deployment, shared state across domains
  - Constrains: Single scaling unit (can't scale auth independently); must be disciplined about module boundaries

Related IDs: TECH-001 (Next.js), RISK-005 (scaling concerns), FEA-001..FEA-020 (all features in one deployment)
Status: Accepted

Example ARC- entry (Security, addressing RISK-):

ARC-005: JWT with HTTP-Only Cookies
Category: Security
Context: Need session management for authenticated users; RISK-008 (security compliance) and TECH-003 (Clerk auth) guide this
Decision: JWTs stored in HTTP-only cookies, 1-hour expiry, refresh via /refresh endpoint

Rationale:
  - HTTP-only prevents XSS token theft (mitigates RISK-008 surface area)
  - Short expiry limits damage window if token stolen
  - Refresh flow handles long sessions gracefully
  - TECH-003 (Clerk) handles token lifecycle, we just enforce storage pattern

Alternatives Rejected:
  - localStorage: Vulnerable to XSS (RISK-008 violation)
  - Long-lived tokens: Increases risk exposure time (RISK-008)
  - Server sessions: Scaling complexity; would require Redis (not in TECH-)

Consequences:
  - Enables: Stateless auth, horizontal scaling
  - Constrains: Must handle refresh flow in frontend; logout requires token invalidation

Related IDs: TECH-003 (Clerk handles token generation), RISK-008 (security compliance), BR-010 (auth requirements)
Status: Accepted

Architecture Decision Categories

| Category | What It Covers | Example Decisions | |----------|----------------|-------------------| | Structure | Component organization, boundaries | Monolith vs microservices, module structure | | Integration | External service connections | API gateway pattern, webhook handlers | | Security | Auth, authorization, data protection | JWT strategy, role-based access | | Performance | Scaling, caching, optimization | CDN strategy, database indexing | | Data | Storage, flow, consistency | Event sourcing, CQRS, replication | | DevOps | Deployment, monitoring, CI/CD | Container orchestration, observability |

Design Process

1. Pull TECH- decisions — What technologies are we building with?
2. Pull RISK- constraints — What must the architecture account for?
3. Pull FEA- features — What must the system do?
4. Define system boundaries — What's in/out of scope?
5. Map component relationships — How do parts connect?
6. Document integration patterns — How do Buy/Integrate items connect?
7. Create ARC- entries — Record decisions with rationale

System Boundary Definition

Before designing components, define what's inside and outside your system:

Inside (Build):

• Core business logic
• Differentiating features
• Custom workflows

Outside (Buy/Integrate):

• Authentication provider
• Payment processor
• Email service
• Analytics

Boundary Questions:

• Where does data enter the system?
• Where does data leave the system?
• What trust boundaries exist?
• What must be fast vs. can be eventual?

Component Relationship Patterns

For Build Components

| Pattern | When to Use | Example | |---------|-------------|---------| | Monolith | MVP, small team, unclear boundaries | Single Next.js app | | Modular Monolith | Growing codebase, clear domains | Modules with defined interfaces | | Microservices | Clear boundaries, scaling needs | Separate auth, billing, core services |

Rule for MVP: Start monolith, extract services when you have evidence of need.

For Buy/Integrate Components

| Pattern | When to Use | Example | |---------|-------------|---------| | Direct Integration | Simple, trusted service | Call Stripe API directly | | Adapter Layer | Want to swap providers later | Abstract over auth provider | | Event Bridge | Async, decoupled | Webhooks → event queue → handlers |

Integration Architecture Patterns

Pattern: Vendor Abstraction

When you Buy a service but want flexibility to switch:

┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│           Your Application          │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│       Payment Abstraction Layer     │
│   interface PaymentProvider {       │
│     charge(amount, token): Result   │
│   }                                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│  StripeAdapter  │  PaddleAdapter    │
└─────────────────┴───────────────────┘

When to use: High switching cost, multiple viable providers, strategic flexibility needed.

Pattern: Webhook Handler

When integrating with external events:

External Service → Webhook Endpoint → Event Queue → Handler
                        ↓
                   Signature Verify
                        ↓
                   Idempotency Check
                        ↓
                   Enqueue for processing

When to use: External services push events (Stripe, GitHub, etc.).

ARC- Output Template

ARC-XXX: [Decision Title]
Category: [Structure | Integration | Security | Performance | Data | DevOps]
Context: [What prompted this decision]
Decision: [What we decided]
Rationale: [Why this choice]

Alternatives Rejected:
  - [Option A]: [Why not]
  - [Option B]: [Why not]

Consequences:
  - Enables: [What this makes possible]
  - Constrains: [What this limits]

Conformance Rule (optional — for structural claims):
  - Rule: [e.g. "engine/ must not import the UI framework"]
  - Check: [type · scope · target, e.g. forbidden_import · engine/** · vscode]
  (verified against the as-built code in v0.7 → architecture_conformance; see docs/DEVELOPMENT_GRAPH.md)

Related IDs: [TECH-XXX, RISK-XXX, FEA-XXX]
Status: [Proposed | Accepted | Superseded]

Example ARC- entry:

ARC-001: Monolith with Module Boundaries
Category: Structure
Context: Need to choose application structure for MVP launch
Decision: Single Next.js application with domain-based module folders

Rationale:
  - Team of 2 developers, single deployment simplifies ops
  - Unclear domain boundaries at this stage
  - Can extract services later when patterns emerge

Alternatives Rejected:
  - Microservices: Premature; adds ops complexity without proven need
  - Serverless functions: Harder to share code, cold start concerns

Consequences:
  - Enables: Fast iteration, simple deployment, shared state
  - Constrains: Single scaling unit, must be disciplined about module boundaries

Related IDs: TECH-001 (Next.js), RISK-005 (scaling concerns)
Status: Accepted

Example ARC- entry (Security):

ARC-005: JWT with HTTP-Only Cookies
Category: Security
Context: Need session management strategy for authenticated users
Decision: JWTs stored in HTTP-only cookies, 1-hour expiry, refresh via /refresh endpoint

Rationale:
  - HTTP-only prevents XSS access to tokens
  - Short expiry limits damage from stolen tokens
  - Refresh flow handles long sessions gracefully

Alternatives Rejected:
  - localStorage: Vulnerable to XSS
  - Long-lived tokens: Security risk if compromised
  - Server-side sessions: Scaling complexity, Redis dependency

Consequences:
  - Enables: Stateless auth, horizontal scaling
  - Constrains: Must handle refresh flow in frontend, logout requires invalidation strategy

Related IDs: TECH-001 (Clerk handles this), RISK-008 (security compliance)
Status: Accepted

System Diagram Elements

When creating architecture diagrams, include:

| Element | Symbol | Purpose | |---------|--------|---------| | Service/Component | Box | Internal services, modules | | External System | Cloud/cylinder | Third-party services, DBs | | Trust Boundary | Dashed line | Security perimeters | | Data Flow | Arrow | How data moves | | Integration Point | Diamond | Where systems connect |

Example Diagram Structure

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    TRUST BOUNDARY                        │
│  ┌─────────────┐     ┌─────────────┐    ┌────────────┐  │
│  │   Frontend  │────▶│   API       │───▶│  Database  │  │
│  │   (Next.js) │     │  (tRPC)     │    │  (Supabase)│  │
│  └─────────────┘     └──────┬──────┘    └────────────┘  │
│                             │                            │
└─────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┘
                              │
              ┌───────────────┼───────────────┐
              ▼               ▼               ▼
        ┌──────────┐   ┌──────────┐   ┌──────────┐
        │  Stripe  │   │  Clerk   │   │  Resend  │
        │ (payments)│  │  (auth)  │   │ (email)  │
        └──────────┘   └──────────┘   └──────────┘
                    EXTERNAL SERVICES

RISK- to Architecture Mapping

Every high-priority risk should have an architectural response:

| Risk | Architecture Response | |------|----------------------| | RISK-001: API dependency outage | ARC-010: Add retry + circuit breaker | | RISK-003: Data breach | ARC-005: Encryption at rest + transit | | RISK-007: Scaling bottleneck | ARC-012: Cache layer, read replicas |

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Anti-Pattern | Signal | Fix | |--------------|--------|-----| | Architecture astronaut | Over-engineering for 1000x scale | Design for 10x current needs | | Missing boundaries | Everything can call everything | Define clear interfaces | | Ignoring RISK- | Architecture doesn't address risks | Map each High RISK- to ARC- | | Vendor lock-in | No abstraction over critical services | Add adapter layer for switching | | Diagram without decisions | Pretty pictures, no ARC- records | Every box needs documented rationale | | Premature microservices | 5 services for MVP | Start monolith, extract later |

Quality Gates

Before proceeding to Technical Specification:

• [ ] All TECH- Build items have component placement
• [ ] All TECH- Buy/Integrate items have integration pattern
• [ ] High-priority RISK- entries have architectural mitigation
• [ ] Trust boundaries clearly defined
• [ ] Data flow documented
• [ ] ARC- entries created for major decisions

Downstream Connections

ARC- entries feed into:

| Consumer | What It Uses | Example | |----------|--------------|---------| | Technical Specification | ARC- informs API design | ARC-001 (monolith) → unified API surface | | v0.7 Build Execution | ARC- defines EPIC scope | ARC-003 (auth module) → EPIC-02 | | Development Graph (v0.7) | ARC- conformance rules become code checks | ARC-004 (no UI import in engine/) → architecture_conformance verdict | | Infrastructure Setup | ARC- drives deployment | ARC-010 (edge caching) → CDN config | | Security Review | Security ARC- entries | ARC-005 → pen test scope |

Detailed References

• Architecture pattern examples: See references/examples.md
• ARC- entry template: See assets/arc.md
• Diagram templates: See references/diagrams.md