Sdd

Service-Driven Development (SDD)

Design services as pure type-level interfaces. Constrain them with Schema. Test them with properties. Compose them. Iterate until the API is right. THEN implement.

The orchestrator defines the perfect DSL. You write the top-level composition first — as if ideal services already exist. The interfaces emerge from what the orchestrator needs, not from independent design.

> "Code the simple version first. Code it before you have implemented the sub-layers. Just imagine they exist. Code as if the perfect API to implement this layer already existed. Then, once your code looks beautiful, go implement those things." — Grant Slatton

Why top-down? Bottom-up locks you into a design before you've written the software. When you implement layer N, you guess what layer N+1 needs. When you get to N+1, you work around a not-quite-right API you're hesitant to change. Top-down avoids this — each layer defines what the layer below should be.

Phase Map

> CRITICAL: Before starting any phase, READ its reference doc. Each contains the gate criteria, required patterns, and anti-patterns for that phase.

| Phase | Name | Gate | Reference | |-------|------|------|-----------| | 1 | Model | tsc clean + property tests pass + ELS clean | [phase-1-model.md](references/phase-1-model.md) | | 1.5 | Review | API review checklist passed | [phase-2-validate.md](references/phase-2-validate.md) §Review | | 2 | Validate | orchestration tests pass in @effect/vitest | [phase-2-validate.md](references/phase-2-validate.md) | | 3 | Implement | contract tests pass against real layers | [phase-3-implement.md](references/phase-3-implement.md) | | 4 | Wire | boundary tests pass + branch coverage target met | [phase-4-wire.md](references/phase-4-wire.md) | | 5 | Verify | CLI smoke tests pass + structured logs confirmed | [phase-5-verify.md](references/phase-5-verify.md) |

Phase 1: Model

Single file. Schema domain models with constraints, Context.Tag service interfaces, orchestrator implementation, and property tests for all schemas.

The schema IS the constraint system. Every field gets evaluated: NonEmptyString? pattern()? between()? The property tests co-designed with schemas force constraint thinking.

Speed matters here. The sketch is intentionally disposable — find interface problems fast, don't polish. You can always backtrack and delete. A 30-minute sketch that reveals a bad decomposition saves 3 hours of implementation.

Output: One .sketch.ts file + one .test.ts file. Both typecheck.

-> Read [phase-1-model.md](references/phase-1-model.md)

Phase 1.5: API Review (Deletion Pass)

Before writing any implementation. A fresh reviewer examines the Context.Tag interfaces. Apply Musk's first three steps: question every requirement, delete aggressively, then simplify what remains.

1. One sentence per service. Can't? Split it.
2. Gun to the head. What's the absolute minimum? Delete anything that exists "in case" or "for completeness."
3. If you haven't deleted at least 1 service or 3 methods, you weren't aggressive enough. The bias is always to add — force deletion first.
4. Error channel audit. Does the orchestrator's inferred error type make sense?

> "The most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize something that should simply not exist." — Elon Musk

-> Read [phase-2-validate.md](references/phase-2-validate.md) §API Review

Phase 2: Validate

Layer.mock stubs. Prove orchestration logic with @effect/vitest tests. Not bun scripts — real vitest suites with it.effect() and it.effect.prop().

Output: test/ directory with orchestration + property test suites. All pass.

-> Read [phase-2-validate.md](references/phase-2-validate.md)

Phase 3: Implement

Real layers. Split sketch into modules. Contract tests run against real implementations. Reference-model tests compare Layer.mock vs real Layer — same operations, same results.

Output: Module files + contract test suites + reference-model tests. All pass.

-> Read [phase-3-implement.md](references/phase-3-implement.md)

Phase 4: Wire

CLI/API integration. Error boundary mapping (catchTag chains). Integration tests. Branch coverage gate.

Orchestrator executes this phase — not delegated to sub-agents. Boundary code crosses module boundaries and requires understanding the full error architecture.

-> Read [phase-4-wire.md](references/phase-4-wire.md)

Phase 5: Verify

Runtime smoke test. Run actual CLI commands. Verify structured logs include Effect.fn spans and annotateLogs annotations. Confirm tsc + ELS clean. All tests pass. Zero regressions.

This is the "it actually works" gate. Tests prove correctness in isolation. Phase 5 proves it works when composed into the real application.

-> Read [phase-5-verify.md](references/phase-5-verify.md)

Testing Strategy

Testing is a GRADIENT, not a phase. It increases monotonically across all phases:

| Phase | What's tested | |-------|--------------| | 1 Model | Schema roundtrips + branded type invariants + algebraic properties | | 2 Validate | + orchestration with Layer.mock + error propagation | | 3 Implement | + contract tests against real layers + reference-model comparison | | 4 Wire | + boundary tests + integration tests + coverage gate | | 5 Verify | + CLI smoke tests + structured log confirmation + regression check |

Three-tier property testing (Slatton): reference-model -> invariant -> crash. All mandatory.

-> Read [testing.md](references/testing.md)

Gates (Run at Every Phase Transition)

# TypeScript (standard)
npx tsc -p tsconfig.json --noEmit

# Effect Language Service (quick fixes + diagnostics)
npx effect-language-service quickfixes --project tsconfig.json

# Tests
npx vitest run

# Coverage (Phase 4)
npx vitest run --coverage --coverage.branches=100

Zero diagnostics. Zero warnings. All tests pass. No exceptions.

When to Go Back

| Signal | Go back to | |--------|-----------| | Orchestrator feels wrong | Phase 1 — reshape interfaces | | Test reveals missing method | Phase 1 — add to Context.Tag | | Implementation reveals interface is unimplementable | Phase 1 — DELETE sketch, redesign | | Agent output doesn't fit | Phase 1 — the interface was wrong | | Coverage gap in domain code | Phase 3 — add contract/property tests |

Backtrack, don't force. If a Context.Tag can't be implemented, delete and redesign. The sketch is disposable — it's the first pass, the implementation is the rewrite.

Context.Tag vs Effect.Service

| Phase | Use | Why | |-------|-----|-----| | Design (sketch) | Context.Tag | No implementation required. Pure interface. | | Implementation | Either | Context.Tag + Layer.effect for swappable. Effect.Service for single impl. | | Testing | Layer.mock / Layer.succeed | Mock for partial stubs. Succeed for full doubles. |

Audit Mode (Existing Code)

SDD isn't only for greenfield. Audit mode brings existing Effect service code up to SDD standard.

Walk forward through phases 1->4, evaluate every gate. Then decide: remediate (patch gaps) or rewrite (the first impl was the prototype — rebuild properly from Phase 1).

• Remediate: architecture sound, gaps localized, Read [audit.md](references/audit.md)

Effect Idiom Enforcement

These violations were found across ALL models in blind testing. They're easy to write, hard to catch in review. Check explicitly.

Impure Operations Must Be Wrapped

// BAD — side effect escapes Effect tracking
const id = crypto.randomUUID()

// GOOD — Effect tracks the impure operation
const id = yield* Effect.sync(() => crypto.randomUUID())

// BAD — DateTime.unsafeNow bypasses Effect
const now = DateTime.unsafeNow

// GOOD — DateTime.now returns Effect
const now = yield* DateTime.now

Match, Never Switch

// BAD — switch on _tag loses exhaustiveness
switch (event._tag) {
  case "Click": return "engaged"
  default: return "anonymous"  // silent bug if new event added
}

// GOOD — Match.exhaustive is compile-time checked
Match.value(event).pipe(
  Match.tag("Click", () => "engaged"),
  Match.tag("Signup", () => "lead"),
  Match.exhaustive  //  acc + e.count, 0)

// GOOD (effectful) — for tracked accumulation
const total = yield* Ref.make(0)
yield* Effect.forEach(events, (e) => Ref.update(total, (n) => n + e.count))

Patterns That LOOK Wrong But Are Correct

• Effect.fn("name")(function* () { ... }) — this IS the canonical Effect.fn pattern per docs
• Both Schema.OptionFromNullOr and Schema.OptionFromUndefinedOr are valid — use FromNullOr for JSON-encoded data, FromUndefinedOr for JS object properties

Verification with effect-mcp

If you have effect-mcp configured, verify APIs before writing. Use the effect_docs_search and get_effect_doc MCP tools:

1. Before Phase 1: Search for Schema.Class, Schema.TaggedError, Context.Tag to confirm current API shapes
2. During Phase 1: When unsure about a Schema combinator (e.g., "is it Schema.OptionFromNullOr or Schema.optional?"), search effect-mcp
3. During Phase 3: Verify Effect.fn, Layer.effect, Layer.mock signatures
4. At every gate: Run npx tsc --noEmit AND npx effect-language-service quickfixes --project tsconfig.json

Otherwise, check https://effect.website/docs for API reference.

The Effect Language Service catches issues that tsc misses — missing service providers, unnecessary Effect.gen wrapping, and more.

Architectural Patterns (From Experiment)

Patterns that consistently produced better output in blind testing:

1. Helper functions in models.ts — pure domain logic (isValidTransition, targetStageForEvent) separate from orchestration. Every future orchestrator gets these for free.
2. Options-object pattern on queries — query({ personId?, limit?, since? }) instead of queryByPerson, queryBySince, etc. Extensible without breaking callers.
3. Effect.fn on ALL orchestrators — not just service methods. Tracing at the orchestration level is where you diagnose production issues.
4. Match.tags for grouped handling — Match.tags({ Click: () => ..., Follow: () => ... }) instead of chaining .tag() calls.
5. Effect.all for parallel composition — Effect.all([a(), b(), c()]) for independent operations in dashboard/summary orchestrators.

Pre-SDD: Decision Razors

SDD answers HOW to build. It assumes you've already decided WHAT to build. If available, apply Decision Razors first to define scope. Otherwise, manually answer:

• Why does this deserve to exist? (income leverage, user value)
• What's the minimum scope? (delete 90% of imagined features)
• What ships this week? (crudest version that validates the hypothesis)

Apply razors first. Then enter SDD with a clear, minimal scope.

Integration

• effectts skill: Effect idioms during implementation
• ELS CLI: Gate enforcement at every transition
• effect-mcp: API verification via effect_docs_search + get_effect_doc (if configured)
• (optional) Task graph tool for remediation DAG tracking in audit mode

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: artimath
• Source: artimath/effect-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.