Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →levnikolaevich/ln-73-system-design-proposal-builder
Creates a decision-complete target system design from requirements and constraints. Use before implementation planning; not for requirements baselines, reviews, audits, or code changes.
6 of 25 test cases passed with the skill.
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
Lift withheld: 7 comparable cases; this report requires 8.
One of 5 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We need a system design proposal for a healthcare data processing pipeline (`docs/specs/health-data.md`). The legal boundary and compliance requirements (HIPAA vs GDPR scope) for patient data retention remain completely unspecified and no baseline context exists. Summarize your proposal in 5 fields (Result, Scope, Evidence, Verification, Completion).
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Returns a Result verdict of BLOCKED due to unspecified compliance boundaries. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Goal: Create a proportionate, evidence-backed target system design that turns requirements into explicit boundaries, contracts, data flow, failure behavior, operations, and tradeoffs. Change only the approved design document; do not implement, audit, or approve the delivery.
Execution contract: The ordered checkboxes are the Definition of Done. Track every item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with concrete evidence, CLEARED with evidence that its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, or tool failure is not proof. Reconcile items after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING and count only PROVEN and CLEARED; apply the skill's verdict and approval rules to every gap.
Preserve user intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. Scale depth to material risk without silently skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety ordering; otherwise choose the verification method appropriate to each obligation.
| Need | Preferred capability | Fallback |
|---|---|---|
| Requirements and constraints | Approved requirements, baseline, decisions, and direct stakeholder input | Mark material gaps and ask the smallest decision question |
| Current implementation and conventions | Repository search, manifests, entrypoints, and architecture artifacts | Treat as greenfield only when the user or repository establishes that fact; otherwise mark current state UNKNOWN and return REVISE or BLOCKED when the gap can change boundaries, compatibility, or migration |
| External capabilities and limits | Current official documentation and specifications | Mark claims UNVERIFIED; avoid vendor-dependent commitment |
| Estimates | Reproducible arithmetic from sourced workload assumptions | Use ranges and sensitivity; never present estimates as measurements |
| Document mutation | Minimal patch to the approved target-design artifact | Return BLOCKED if scope or path is unsafe |
Use patterns as candidate solutions, not goals. Introduce infrastructure only when a requirement, failure mode, ownership boundary, or measured horizon pays for its lifecycle cost.
docs/architecture/target-design.md.BLOCKED when a required business boundary or safety constraint cannot be responsibly assumed.test cases passed with the skill
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.