Component model analysis
Skill ComeOnOliver/skillshub/skills/aiskillstore/marketplace/dowwie/component-model-analysis
🧠The right skill, one API call. AI agent skills registry with token-efficient skill resolution. 5,000+ skills from 500+ top repos.
npx -y skills add ComeOnOliver/skillshub --skill component-model-analysisAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Evaluate extensibility patterns, abstraction layers, and configuration approaches in frameworks. Use when (1) assessing base class/protocol design, (2) understanding dependency injection patterns, (3) evaluating plugin/extension systems, (4) comparing code-first vs config-first approaches, or (5) determining framework flexibility for customization.
SKILL.md
6.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Component Model Analysis
Evaluates extensibility patterns and configuration approaches.
Process
- Identify base classes — Find BaseLLM, BaseTool, BaseAgent, etc.
- Classify abstraction depth — Thick (lots of logic) vs thin (interfaces)
- Analyze DI patterns — Constructor, factory, registry, container
- Document configuration — Code-first, config-first, or hybrid
Abstraction Layer Assessment
Thick Abstractions
class BaseLLM(ABC):
"""Many methods, lots of inherited behavior"""
def __init__(self, model: str, temperature: float = 0.7):
self.model = model
self.temperature = temperature
self._cache = {}
def generate(self, prompt: str) -> str:
cached = self._check_cache(prompt)
if cached:
return cached
result = self._generate_impl(prompt)
self._update_cache(prompt, result)
return self._postprocess(result)
@abstractmethod
def _generate_impl(self, prompt: str) -> str: ...
def _check_cache(self, prompt): ...
def _update_cache(self, prompt, result): ...
def _postprocess(self, result): ...
def stream(self, prompt): ...
def batch(self, prompts): ...
# ... 15+ more methods
Characteristics:
- Deep inheritance trees (3+ levels)
- Many non-abstract methods
- Shared state/caching logic
- Hard to understand full behavior
Thin Abstractions (Protocols)
from typing import Protocol
class LLM(Protocol):
"""Minimal interface contract"""
def generate(self, messages: list[Message]) -> str: ...
class StreamingLLM(Protocol):
def stream(self, messages: list[Message]) -> Iterator[str]: ...
Characteristics:
- Pure interfaces
- No inherited behavior
- Duck typing compatible
- Easy to mock/test
Mixed Approach
class LLMBase(ABC):
"""Some shared logic, but minimal"""
@abstractmethod
def generate(self, messages: list) -> str: ...
def generate_with_retry(self, messages: list, retries: int = 3) -> str:
"""Optional convenience method"""
for i in range(retries):
try:
return self.generate(messages)
except RateLimitError:
time.sleep(2 ** i)
raise
Dependency Injection Patterns
Constructor Injection
class Agent:
def __init__(
self,
llm: LLM,
tools: list[Tool],
memory: Memory | None = None
):
self.llm = llm
self.tools = tools
self.memory = memory or InMemoryStore()
Pros: Explicit, testable, IDE support Cons: Verbose construction, manual wiring
Factory Pattern
class Agent:
@classmethod
def from_config(cls, config: AgentConfig) -> "Agent":
llm = LLMFactory.create(config.llm)
tools = [ToolFactory.create(t) for t in config.tools]
return cls(llm=llm, tools=tools)
@classmethod
def from_yaml(cls, path: str) -> "Agent":
config = yaml.safe_load(open(path))
return cls.from_config(AgentConfig(**config))
Pros: Flexible construction, config-driven Cons: Hidden dependencies, magic
Global Registry
TOOL_REGISTRY: dict[str, type[Tool]] = {}
def register_tool(name: str):
def decorator(cls):
TOOL_REGISTRY[name] = cls
return cls
return decorator
@register_tool("search")
class SearchTool(Tool): ...
# Usage
tool = TOOL_REGISTRY["search"]()
Pros: Plugin-friendly, discoverable Cons: Global state, harder to test, implicit
Container-Based DI
from dependency_injector import containers, providers
class Container(containers.DeclarativeContainer):
config = providers.Configuration()
llm = providers.Singleton(
OpenAI,
api_key=config.openai.api_key
)
agent = providers.Factory(
Agent,
llm=llm
)
Pros: Full lifecycle control, scopes Cons: Complex, learning curve
Configuration Strategy
Code-First
agent = Agent(
llm=OpenAI(model="gpt-4", temperature=0.7),
tools=[SearchTool(), CalculatorTool()],
max_steps=10
)
Characteristics: Type-safe, IDE completion, refactorable
Config-First
# agent.yaml
llm:
provider: openai
model: gpt-4
temperature: 0.7
tools:
- search
- calculator
max_steps: 10
agent = Agent.from_yaml("agent.yaml")
Characteristics: Non-developer friendly, runtime changes, less type safety
Hybrid
# Base config from file
base = AgentConfig.from_yaml("agent.yaml")
# Code overrides
agent = Agent(
**base.dict(),
llm=CustomLLM() # Override specific component
)
Output Template
## Component Model Analysis: [Framework Name]
### Abstraction Assessment
| Component | Base Class | Depth | Type |
|-----------|-----------|-------|------|
| LLM | BaseLLM | 3 levels | Thick |
| Tool | BaseTool | 2 levels | Mixed |
| Memory | Protocol | 0 levels | Thin |
### Dependency Injection
- **Primary Pattern**: [Constructor/Factory/Registry/Container]
- **Testability**: [Easy/Medium/Hard]
- **Configuration**: [Code/Config/Hybrid]
### Extension Points
| Extension | Mechanism | Difficulty |
|-----------|-----------|------------|
| Custom LLM | Inherit BaseLLM | Medium |
| Custom Tool | @register_tool | Easy |
| Custom Memory | Implement Protocol | Easy |
### Configuration
- **Strategy**: [Code-first/Config-first/Hybrid]
- **Formats**: [Python/YAML/JSON/TOML]
- **Validation**: [Pydantic/Manual/None]
### Recommendations
- [List any concerns or suggestions]
Integration
- Prerequisite:
codebase-mappingto identify base classes - Feeds into:
comparative-matrixfor extensibility decisions - Related:
antipattern-catalogfor inheritance issues