Install
$ agentstack add skill-dankosik-go-service-template-rest-technical-design-session ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Technical Design Session
Purpose
Run only one design checkpoint for one task-local session. This wrapper makes the specification-review-approved spec.md -> system-integration-design -> go-code-ownership-design -> technical design review -> triggered test-design -> planning handoff explicit: it produces or updates the active task-local design checkpoint, updates workflow control artifacts, and then stops before the next checkpoint or mandatory review gate.
Use .agents/skills/go-design-spec/SKILL.md as the deeper integrated design method when cross-domain reconciliation or simplification work is needed. Do not turn this wrapper into a duplicate of go-design-spec; this skill owns session protocol, allowed writes, stop rules, and technical-design-review handoff only.
Outcome-First Operating Rules
- Start by naming the skill-specific outcome, success criteria, constraints, available evidence, and stop rule.
- Treat workflow steps as decision rules, not a ritual checklist. Follow exact order only when this skill or the repository contract makes the sequence an invariant.
- Use the minimum context, references, tools, and validation loops that can change the deliverable; stop expanding when the quality bar is met.
- Before acting, resolve prerequisite discovery, lookup, or artifact reads that the outcome depends on; parallelize only independent evidence gathering and synthesize before the next decision.
- Prefer bounded assumptions and local evidence over broad questioning; ask only when a missing fact would change correctness, ownership, safety, or scope.
- When evidence is missing or conflicting, retry once with a targeted strategy or label the assumption, blocker, or reopen target instead of treating absence as proof.
- Finish only when the requested deliverable is complete in the required shape and verification or a clearly named blocker/residual risk is recorded.
Use When
- specification-review-approved or explicitly waived direct-path
spec.mdexists and trigger-based design depth is needed before test design or planning - the active workflow phase is
system-integration-designorgo-code-ownership-design - lean-local
design/overview.mdor full splitdesign/is missing, stale, partial, or internally inconsistent after being triggered - master
workflow-plan.mdneeds the active design checkpoint completed or updated before the next design checkpoint or technical-design-review stage - the task needs triggered design artifacts, triggered conditional artifacts, a
test-designtrigger decision, or a clean design handoff forplanning-and-task-breakdown - the session should stay bounded to technical design instead of spilling into
tasks.mdor code
Skip When
- the work is tiny or direct-path and already has an explicit design-skip rationale
- lean-local
spec.mdalready contains enoughCompact Designcontext for test design or planning and records why separate design is not expected spec.mdis missing, unstable, contradictory, unreviewed, failed specification review, or still needs research, challenge reconciliation, or specification work- the task is already in
planningor a later phase and does not intentionally need design repair - approved compact or split design context already exists and the real next step is technical design review, test design, planning, or execution
- the request tries to combine technical design with technical design review, test design, writing
tasks.md, implementation, tests, migrations, or post-code review execution
Required Inputs
Need only the minimum phase-ready inputs:
- specification-review-approved
spec.md - specification-review result when non-trivial
spec.mdexists, including accepted risks and proof obligations when status isCONCERNS - current task-local artifact location
- current
workflow-plan.md, if present - current
workflow-plans/system-integration-design.mdorworkflow-plans/go-code-ownership-design.md, if present - existing compact or split
design/artifacts when this is a continuation or repair pass - known blockers, assumptions, and specialist outputs that still affect design integrity
- for
system-integration-design, contract-design trigger evidence when REST resources, OpenAPI/generated contracts, event payloads, client-visible status/error/idempotency/retry/async/freshness/compatibility semantics, or material internal interfaces are plausible - for
go-code-ownership-design, affected source responsibility evidence or the source targets that must be audited before owner package/file decisions - approved dependency/OSS due-diligence decisions or blockers when design selects a new dependency, custom infrastructure, or material helper/abstraction
- approved Pattern Fit Diligence decisions, preserved
research/pattern-fit.md, or blockers when design selects an architecture, workflow, integration, resilience, consistency, data-flow, or abstraction pattern
If a planning-critical input is missing, record it as a blocker or reopen condition instead of inventing detail.
Read First
Always read:
AGENTS.mddocs/spec-first-workflow.md- task-local
workflow-plan.md, if present - task-local
workflow-plans/system-integration-design.mdorworkflow-plans/go-code-ownership-design.md, if present - specification-review-approved
spec.md
Load docs/repo-architecture.md when at least one is true:
- this is a fresh non-trivial design-checkpoint pass
- the design touches repository boundaries, ownership seams, runtime flow, new or changed packages, transport/app/infra edges, async behavior, data flow, or dependency direction
- the session must rebuild task-local design from
spec.mdrather than only polishing a small existing artifact - current design artifacts do not already capture the stable repository baseline needed for this change
It is acceptable to skip docs/repo-architecture.md only for a narrow continuation where the current approved design bundle already captures the relevant repository baseline and the session is editing one local seam rather than rebuilding design context.
Then load only the smallest task-local context needed to finish this phase:
design/overview.mdfirst when a design bundle already existsdesign/system-integration.mdwhen the active checkpoint is system/integration design or Go code ownership must consume its decisionsdesign/go-code-ownership.mdwhen the active checkpoint is Go code ownership design or repair- the smallest affected existing design artifacts
- targeted
research/*.mdor specialist outputs only when they change design integrity, test-design readiness, or planning readiness - canonical contract or schema sources only when needed to design around them, while keeping those runtime sources authoritative
Rules:
- follow
AGENTS.mdif workflow guidance conflicts - read the master
workflow-plan.mdbefore the phase-local file when both exist - do not broad-read unrelated repository areas when the design questions are narrower
- do not reopen framing casually; if the design cannot be completed honestly, route back to
specification
Reference Files
Keep this SKILL.md as the technical-design-session wrapper protocol. References are compact rubrics and example banks, not exhaustive checklists, source-link collections, or substitutes for repo-local authority.
Default loading rule:
- Load at most one reference by default.
- Load a second reference only when the task clearly spans multiple independent decision pressures, such as uncertain entry readiness plus closing handoff, or required artifact shaping plus conditional artifact triggers.
- Do not load the full
references/directory by default. - Check repo-local authority first:
AGENTS.md,docs/spec-first-workflow.md, task-local workflow files, reviewedspec.md, specification-review result, anddocs/repo-architecture.mdwhen triggered. - Do not copy examples blindly; bind them to the current task's phase, artifacts, blockers, and approved decisions.
- If a reference exposes a missing decision, route back to
specification. If it exposes missing execution sequencing, record it for the technical-design-review handoff instead of writingtasks.md.
Routing table:
| Reference | Load When The Symptom Is | Behavior Change | | --- | --- | --- | | [references/technical-design-entry-readiness.md](references/technical-design-entry-readiness.md) | spec.md, current phase, allowed writes, or user-requested phase mixing is unclear before design-checkpoint writes. | Blocks, reopens, or narrows the write surface instead of starting design from a draft spec, chat momentum, or an obvious implementation path. | | [references/repo-architecture-loading-rules.md](references/repo-architecture-loading-rules.md) | Repository boundaries, runtime flow, ownership seams, new packages, dependency direction, generated contracts, async work, data flow, or bootstrap/app/infra edges are in scope. | Loads or cites docs/repo-architecture.md before boundary decisions instead of relying on memory or treating generated/runtime surfaces as authority. | | [references/required-design-artifact-examples.md](references/required-design-artifact-examples.md) | The core design bundle needs creation, repair, or boundary cleanup across overview, component map, sequence, or ownership map. | Splits task-local technical context into the four required artifacts instead of writing one design dump or hiding design content in workflow files. | | [references/conditional-design-artifact-triggers.md](references/conditional-design-artifact-triggers.md) | Optional design artifacts, test-design, or rollout.md might be needed, or an existing conditional artifact looks like filler. | Creates only artifacts or phase triggers with real pressure and records not expected otherwise instead of creating all optional files or skipping planning-critical context. | | [references/workflow-plan-technical-design-updates.md](references/workflow-plan-technical-design-updates.md) | Workflow-control files need design artifact status, blocker, repair, reopen, session-boundary, or next-session updates. | Records master and phase-local routing state instead of leaving state in chat, duplicating design content, or letting workflow files disagree. | | [references/planning-handoff-and-stop-rules.md](references/planning-handoff-and-stop-rules.md) | Technical design is being closed, marked review-ready, blocked, or pressured to continue into review, test design, planning, or implementation. | Hands off to the mandatory technical-design-review stage or reopen target instead of drafting test-plan.md, tasks.md, code, tests, migrations, generated files, or review output. |
Allowed Writes
This session may write or update only:
- task-local
design/overview.md - task-local
design/system-integration.md - task-local
design/go-code-ownership.md - task-local
design/component-map.md - task-local
design/sequence.md - task-local
design/ownership-map.md - task-local
design/overview.mdas the only design artifact when lean-local design context needs one file - task-local conditional design artifacts when triggered:
design/data-model.mddesign/dependency-graph.mddesign/contracts/- task-local
rollout.mdwhen migration, backfill/verify choreography, mixed-version compatibility, or failback notes are planning-critical - task-local
workflow-plan.md - task-local
workflow-plans/system-integration-design.md - task-local
workflow-plans/go-code-ownership-design.md - the
design/,design/contracts/, orworkflow-plans/directories only when they must be created to hold those artifacts
Prohibited Actions
Do not:
- reopen problem framing casually or rewrite approved scope just because design is hard
- rewrite
spec.mdinstead of escalating back tospecification - write
tasks.md - start technical design review, test design, implementation, tests, migrations, contract generation, or post-code review execution
- use planning or implementation skills as a backdoor into later phases
- let design phase-control files become a second design bundle or second
tasks.md - treat
design/contracts/as a runtime source of truth; it is design-only task context and canonical runtime sources still win - create placeholder design files "just in case" when their trigger is not real
Core Defaults
- this is an orchestrator-facing wrapper, not a replacement for specialist design skills
AGENTS.mdowns the workflow contract;docs/spec-first-workflow.mdis the router; design phase docs own artifact mechanicsspec.mdowns final decisions, leanCompact Designor triggereddesign/owns task-local technical context, andtasks.mdcomes later in a different session- separate design depth proceeds through
system-integration-designbeforego-code-ownership-design; the latter consumes the system decision and must reopen system design or specification if code placement would change observable behavior - use
go-design-specas the deeper design-integrity method when you need integration, contradiction cleanup, or simplification beyond simple artifact upkeep - for non-trivial work, this session ends at a completed or explicitly blocked active design checkpoint; technical design review begins only after all triggered design checkpoints are complete or explicitly not expected, and test design begins only after technical design review permits it
- for non-trivial triggered technical design, first identify independent planning-critical questions for the active checkpoint and run or record narrow read-only specialist fan-out before the integrated design pass
- for
system-integration-design, treat REST/API, OpenAPI/generated, event payload, webhook/callback, or material internal-interface changes as a contract-design trigger decision: createdesign/contracts/, record compact contract design as sufficient, recordnot expectedwith trigger evidence, or block/reopen. The decision must close caller/audience, selected shape, status/error semantics, retry/idempotency/concurrency, async/freshness/consistency when relevant, compatibility, runtime source, generated outputs, proof, and reopen trigger. Use an API/contracts lane withapi-contract-designer-specfor client-visible REST/OpenAPI behavior unless an eligible local-only rationale closes that lens. - review-ready handoff is invalid unless the active workflow surface records checkpoint-scoped
Design fan-out: complete | scoped_down | local_only | blockedwith lane summaries, candidate-lane analysis, or blocker state - if design specialist fan-out is skipped, record
Design fan-out rationale:in the active design phase-control file with the reason no independent lane would materially improve correctness - Missing explicit subagent authorization is not a valid
Design fan-out rationale:. If required design lanes are blocked only because the current prompt lacks explicit subagent/delegation authorization, recordDesign fan-out: blockedand return a next-session prompt withSubagent authorization:. - a single integrated local design pass is eligible only when the reviewed
spec.mdis stable, the current decision frontier has one primary design question, no adjacent domain has an unresolved live fork, and API/data/security/reliability/observability/QA effects can be recorded asconstraint_only,proof_only,follow_up_only, orno new decision requiredwithout changing ownership, contracts, persistence, failure semantics, validation, or rollout - for
system-integration-design, compact or local design is eligible only when the selected or preserved system mechanisms, source-of-truth owners, rejected live alternatives, proof carriers, and reopen triggers are explicit enough for Go code ownership design to proceed without inventing system behavior - Go code ownership design may stay local only when owner package/file placement, responsibility boundaries,
…
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Dankosik
- Source: Dankosik/go-service-template-rest
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.