mcpField
T
tactical-ddd

tactical-ddd

github.com/tech-leads-clubDevelopment7.1k158 installsUpdated 3d ago
Repository

About tactical-ddd

A tactical Domain-Driven Design skill for reviewing, designing, and refactoring rich domain models. It detects anemic models, maps classes to DDD building blocks, and provides staged refactoring guidance.

Key features

  1. 01Detect anemic domain model signals
  2. 02Assess Entity, Value Object, Aggregate, and Domain Service choices
  3. 03Refactor in ordered steps
  4. 04Apply invariant and Aggregate design rules
  5. 05Report findings or show before-and-after diffs

Use cases

  1. 01Review code for anemic domain model patterns
  2. 02Choose DDD building blocks for domain classes
  3. 03Refactor setter-heavy classes into expressive behavior
  4. 04Design boundaries and domain events

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/tech-leads-club/agent-skills --skill tactical-ddd

After installing, type/tactical-dddin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

detection.md
refactoring.md
reference.md

Details

From the project README

Tactical DDD — Rich Domain Modeling

Workflow

Determine the user's intent first:

IntentPhases to run
"validate / review / check / is this correct?"Phase 1 + 2 only → report findings, ask before refactoring
"fix / refactor / improve / clean up"Phase 1 + 2 + 3
"how should I design / model this?"Load reference.md directly
Phase 1 — Detect

Load detection.md and scan the target code for anemia signals. Produce a severity score and list of affected classes.

Phase 2 — Assess

For each affected class, determine the correct building block:

Has unique identity tracked over time?Has invariants tying multiple objects?→ Building Block
Yes—Entity
No—Value Object
Yes (root) + children with shared invariantsYesAggregate
Operation spans multiple Aggregates/doesn't belong to any—Domain Service

Prefer Value Objects over Entities. Prefer small Aggregates over large ones.

If intent was validate/review: stop here. Report findings using the output format below. Ask "Would you like me to apply these fixes?" before proceeding.

Phase 3 — Refactor

Load refactoring.md for step-by-step moves. Apply in this order:

  1. Replace setter chains with a single expressive method
  2. Move service logic into the Aggregate that owns it
  3. Add business guards at the top of each method
  4. Publish a Domain Event after each successful state change
  5. Replace primitive types with Value Objects

For deep pattern questions (boundary design, event modeling, service vs. entity decision), load reference.md.


Quick Anemia Signals (scan first)

public setX() / public setY()        → behaviour should be encapsulated
service.doX(entity, ...)              → logic likely belongs in entity
entity.setA(); entity.setB(); ...     → setter chain = missing intent method
no domain methods beyond getters      → pure data bag

Golden Rules

  1. Behaviour with data — Objects own both state and the operations that change it
  2. Ubiquitous Language — Method names come from the domain, not CRUD (commitTo, not setStatus)
  3. Small Aggregates — Root + Value Objects by default; add child Entities only for true invariants
  4. One transaction = one Aggregate — Cross-Aggregate rules use eventual consistency via Domain Events
  5. Reference by ID — Never hold object references to other Aggregates
  6. Value Objects first — Use Entities only when individual identity is essential
  7. Domain Services sparingly — Excessive services → anemic model
  8. Protect invariants — The Aggregate is the last line of defence; never trust the caller

Output Format

When reviewing code, report:

## Anemia Diagnosis: <ClassName>

Severity: [None | Mild | Moderate | Severe]

Issues:
- <description of problem>

Recommended refactoring:
- <specific move from refactoring.md>

When refactoring, show a before/after diff for each class touched.

Comments

Markdown supported