Codebase design and deep modules

Skill wfprieto/wcbs-build-kit/skills/codebase-design-and-deep-modules

Use when the task involves architecture, module design, refactors, interface boundaries, adapters, dependency direction, deep module design, deletion tests, locality, leverage, encapsulation, and codebase structure decisions before or during APIVR planning and review.From its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add wfprieto/wcbs-build-kit --skill codebase-design-and-deep-modules

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Codebase Design And Deep Modules

Use this skill when the shape of the code matters as much as the code itself.

Design Checks

Module depth: a simple interface hides meaningful complexity.
Locality: related decisions live near each other.
Dependency direction: core policy does not depend on delivery details.
Adapter boundary: third-party, UI, persistence, and transport concerns stay replaceable.
Deletion test: removing the feature or provider has a predictable blast radius.
Naming: code uses the project domain glossary.
Escape hatches: special cases are explicit, not scattered.

Decision Flow

flowchart TD
  A["Design or refactor needed"] --> B{"Is the business rule duplicated or scattered?"}
  B -- "Yes" --> C["Create or strengthen core module"]
  B -- "No" --> D{"Is integration detail leaking inward?"}
  D -- "Yes" --> E["Add adapter boundary"]
  D -- "No" --> F{"Can the change be deleted cleanly?"}
  F -- "No" --> G["Narrow interface and improve locality"]
  F -- "Yes" --> H["Proceed with APIVR plan"]

Worked Example

Scenario: Three providers calculate shipping estimates differently.

Bad design: provider-specific logic in checkout UI.
Better design: ShippingQuoteService exposes one domain method and provider adapters implement external details.
Evidence: contract tests cover provider-independent behavior.
Release gate: architecture passes only when checkout no longer knows provider-specific quirks.