nw-ddd-strategic
Strategic DDD — bounded context discovery, context mapping patterns, subdomain classification, ubiquitous language, and organizational alignment
Best use case
nw-ddd-strategic is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Strategic DDD — bounded context discovery, context mapping patterns, subdomain classification, ubiquitous language, and organizational alignment
Teams using nw-ddd-strategic should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/nw-ddd-strategic/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How nw-ddd-strategic Compares
| Feature / Agent | nw-ddd-strategic | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Strategic DDD — bounded context discovery, context mapping patterns, subdomain classification, ubiquitous language, and organizational alignment
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Strategic DDD
Domain discovery and boundary definition at the organizational level. Strategic DDD answers: "Where are the boundaries?" and "How do contexts relate?"
## Subdomain Classification
Subdomains exist in the problem space. Classify before modeling.
| Type | Competitive advantage | Build or buy | DDD investment | Staffing |
|------|----------------------|--------------|----------------|----------|
| Core | Yes, unique differentiator | Build in-house | Full strategic + tactical | Senior talent |
| Supporting | No, enables core | Build (simplified) or outsource | Pragmatic tactical | Mid-level |
| Generic | No, commodity | Buy/integrate (Stripe, Auth0) | Minimal/none | Junior/integration |
**Decision heuristic**: If two competitors solve this the same way, it's Generic. If your approach gives you an edge, it's Core. Everything else is Supporting.
## Bounded Context Discovery
A bounded context is a software boundary within which a model is consistent. Different from subdomains (problem-space). They should align but are independent concepts.
### Discovery Techniques
**Language divergence** (primary signal): When the same word means different things to different groups, you've found a boundary. "Account" in billing vs. "Account" in identity. "Product" in catalog vs. "Product" in inventory.
**Organizational structure**: Teams that communicate frequently often share a context. Teams with formal handoffs often have separate contexts. Conway's Law applies.
**Consistency requirements**: Where true invariants must be maintained transactionally defines aggregate boundaries, which cluster into contexts.
**EventStorming Big Picture**: Domain events placed on timeline. When events cluster into distinct swimlanes with different actors and vocabulary, those are context candidates.
**Domain Storytelling**: Actors perform activities on work objects. When actors, activities, or work objects change meaning, you've crossed a boundary.
### Boundary Validation Checklist
- [ ] Each context has its own ubiquitous language (no term means two things)
- [ ] One team owns one context (no shared ownership)
- [ ] Context is independently deployable (no mandatory co-deployment)
- [ ] Internal model changes don't ripple to other contexts
- [ ] Data that crosses boundaries is explicitly mapped (no implicit sharing)
### Common Mistakes
1. **Context = microservice**: A context may contain multiple services; a service may handle a subdomain within a larger context
2. **Too large**: Conflicting models coexist, vocabulary is ambiguous -- split
3. **Too small**: Excessive cross-context communication, simple operations need sagas -- merge
4. **Database-first**: Sharing a database between contexts couples their models implicitly
## Context Mapping Patterns
Nine patterns describing how bounded contexts relate. Draw the context map before writing code.
### Mutually Dependent
**Partnership**: Two contexts evolve together. Both teams coordinate releases. Use when: genuinely reciprocal dependency, tight collaboration feasible. Risk: high coordination cost.
**Shared Kernel**: Small shared model subset both contexts depend on. Must be small, explicitly versioned, jointly owned. Changes require agreement from both teams.
### Upstream/Downstream
**Customer-Supplier**: Upstream serves downstream's needs. Downstream negotiates what upstream provides. Structured relationship with explicit API contracts.
**Conformist**: Downstream adopts upstream's model as-is. No negotiation. Use when: integration simplicity outweighs design freedom, or upstream won't accommodate.
**Anti-Corruption Layer (ACL)**: Downstream creates a translation layer to isolate its model from upstream's. Essential for: legacy integration, poor upstream models, protecting domain purity.
**Open Host Service (OHS)**: Upstream provides a well-defined API for multiple downstream consumers. Standardized protocol (REST, gRPC, GraphQL).
**Published Language**: Shared schema or format for inter-context communication. Examples: iCalendar, vCard, JSON Schema, Protocol Buffers.
### Independent
**Separate Ways**: No integration. Contexts have no meaningful dependency. Duplication is acceptable when coupling cost exceeds duplication cost.
**Big Ball of Mud**: Recognition pattern only. Demarcate and quarantine legacy systems. Draw a boundary around them, communicate through ACL.
### Selection Heuristic
```
Do the teams need to coordinate releases?
YES -> Do both depend on each other equally?
YES -> Partnership (if feasible) or Shared Kernel (if small overlap)
NO -> Customer-Supplier (negotiate API)
NO -> Is upstream model acceptable?
YES -> Conformist (adopt as-is)
NO -> Anti-Corruption Layer (translate)
Independent? -> Separate Ways
Legacy mess? -> Big Ball of Mud + ACL
```
## Ubiquitous Language
A rigorous vocabulary shared between developers and domain experts, scoped per bounded context.
### Rules
1. Domain terms in code: class names, method names, variable names reflect domain language
2. Same term, different context: "Order" in Sales vs. "Order" in Fulfillment are different concepts -- this is expected and healthy
3. When the model is hard to express in code, the language needs refinement
4. Resolve conflicts immediately: if developers and domain experts use different words for the same concept, pick one and enforce it
### Building the Language
- Maintain a glossary per bounded context (not per system)
- Review glossary during modeling sessions
- When new terms emerge, add them; when terms change, update code
- Code review should catch language violations ("this variable should be called X, not Y")
## Context Map Visualization
Use Mermaid flowchart for context maps:
```mermaid
flowchart LR
subgraph Core
OrderCtx[Order Context]
CatalogCtx[Catalog Context]
end
subgraph Supporting
NotifCtx[Notification Context]
end
subgraph Generic
PaymentCtx[Payment Context]
AuthCtx[Identity Context]
end
OrderCtx -->|Customer-Supplier| CatalogCtx
OrderCtx -->|ACL| PaymentCtx
OrderCtx -->|OHS| NotifCtx
CatalogCtx -.->|Conformist| AuthCtx
```
Label every arrow with the context mapping pattern. Core contexts in the center.Related Skills
nw-ux-web-patterns
Web UI design patterns for product owners. Load when designing web application interfaces, writing web-specific acceptance criteria, or evaluating responsive designs.
nw-ux-tui-patterns
Terminal UI and CLI design patterns for product owners. Load when designing command-line tools, interactive terminal applications, or writing CLI-specific acceptance criteria.
nw-ux-principles
Core UX principles for product owners. Load when evaluating interface designs, writing acceptance criteria with UX requirements, or reviewing wireframes and mockups.
nw-ux-emotional-design
Emotional design and delight patterns for product owners. Load when designing onboarding flows, empty states, first-run experiences, or evaluating the emotional quality of an interface.
nw-ux-desktop-patterns
Desktop application UI patterns for product owners. Load when designing native or cross-platform desktop applications, writing desktop-specific acceptance criteria, or evaluating panel layouts and keyboard workflows.
nw-user-story-mapping
User story mapping for backlog management and outcome-based prioritization. Load during Phase 2.5 (User Story Mapping) to produce story-map.md and prioritization.md.
nw-tr-review-criteria
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
nw-tlaplus-verification
TLA+ formal verification for design correctness and PBT pipeline integration
nw-test-refactoring-catalog
Detailed refactoring mechanics with step-by-step procedures, and test code smell catalog with detection patterns and before/after examples
nw-test-organization-conventions
Test directory structure patterns by architecture style, language conventions, naming rules, and fixture placement. Decision tree for selecting test organization strategy.
nw-test-design-mandates
Four design mandates for acceptance tests - hexagonal boundary enforcement, business language abstraction, user journey completeness, walking skeleton strategy, and pure function extraction
nw-tdd-review-enforcement
Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, 5-phase TDD validation, and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer