Ddd check full

DDD Full-Project Compliance Audit

Deep scan of every Java file against all DDD rules. Use for architecture review, refactoring assessment, or pre-release audit.

Trigger

Run when user says "full DDD audit", "check entire project", "architecture review", or "DDD compliance report".

Workflow

Step 1: Discover All Java Files

find . -name "*.java" -not -path "*/target/*" -not -path "*/test/*" | sort

Count files and estimate: "Scanning {N} files across {M} layers..."

Step 2: Load All Rule Files

Read EVERY rule file at rules/:

• rules/domain-layer.md
• rules/application-layer.md
• rules/adaptor-layer.md
• rules/infrastructure-layer.md
• rules/client-layer.md
• rules/model-layer.md
• rules/anti-patterns.md

Plus reference files if needed:

• references/base-classes-reference.md
• references/exception-handling.md

Step 3: Layer-by-Layer Audit

Group files by layer. For each layer:

1. Package check — all files in correct package?
2. Base class check — all classes extend correct base?
3. Naming check — classes/methods follow DDD naming conventions?
4. Dependency check — no illegal cross-layer imports?
5. Structural check — aggregates, entities, value objects structured correctly?
6. Exception mode check — 阻断型 throws, 分支型 returns ResultDO?

Step 4: Cross-Layer Checks

• Dependency direction: Run grep -r "import org\.bookiosk\.ddd\." on each layer, verify no reverse dependencies
• Missing patterns: Are there layers with zero classes? Missing base classes?
• Anemic model detection: Any domain class with only getters/setters and no behavior methods?
• Exception boundary: Is APP catching Domain/Adaptor exceptions? Is any layer throwing across boundaries?

Step 5: Report

Format as comprehensive report:

# DDD Full Compliance Audit
Project: {name} | Files: {N} | Layers: {M} | Date: {date}

## Executive Summary
- Total violations: {X} (CRITICAL: {a}, HIGH: {b}, MEDIUM: {c}, LOW: {d})
- Compliance score: {Y}%
- Worst layer: {layer}

## By Layer

### Domain Layer (N files, X violations)
| File | Severity | Issue | Fix |
|------|----------|-------|-----|
| Order.java | CRITICAL | setId public | Change to protected |
| ... | | | |

### Application Layer (N files, X violations)
...

## Anti-Patterns Found
{list of anti-patterns detected with file locations}

## Dependency Graph (ascii)
common
  ↑
domain ← infrastructure
  ↑
application
  ↑
client

## Recommendations
1. {Top priority fix}
2. {Second priority fix}
...

Severity

Level	Criteria
CRITICAL	Architecture violation — wrong layer dependency, missing required base class, domain depends on infrastructure
HIGH	Rule violation — wrong naming, public identity setter, domain service with no behavior
MEDIUM	Convention deviation — anemic entity, missing Field wrapper, no JavaDoc on public API
LOW	Style — inconsistent formatting, missing @Override

Key Checks by Layer

Domain Layer (MOST CRITICAL):

• All aggregates extend BaseAggregate<ID>
• All entities extend BaseEntity<ID>
• All value objects extend BaseValue
• setId() is protected, not public
• No infrastructure imports (no Mapper, no JPA, no SQL)
• Repository interfaces extend AggregateRepository<T, ID, Q>
• External calls go through GatewayI interfaces
• Aggregate methods = business behaviors, not CRUD
• Design patterns FORBIDDEN in domain (Strategy, Factory, etc.)
• 阻断型 throws exception, 分支型 returns ResultDO (see references/exception-handling.md)

Application Layer:

• Cmd services extend ApplicationCmdService
• Qry services extend ApplicationQueryService
• APP catches Domain/Adaptor exceptions, converts to ResultDO
• APP never throws exceptions to Adaptor

Infrastructure Layer:

• Repository impls in correct package
• PO classes separate from domain objects
• Converter/Assembler between PO and domain
• LevelLock implementations are concrete (extend abstract class)
• All GatewayI implementations here, not in domain

Client Layer:

• All DTOs extend BaseDTO
• No domain classes exposed in DTOs
• Client module is deployable standalone (no domain imports)

Important

• Always reference the specific rule section when flagging violations (e.g. "rules/domain-layer.md Section A.3")
• Suggest the exact fix, not just the problem
• Prioritize CRITICAL issues — architecture decay is harder to fix later
• A perfect score is rare — focus on actionable items