---
name: lightweight-design-analysis
description: "This skill analyzes code for design quality improvements across 8 dimensions: Naming, Object Calisthenics, Coupling & Cohesion, Immutability, Domain Integrity, Type System, Simplicity, and Performance. Ensures rigorous, evidence-based analysis by: (1) Understanding code flow first via implementation-analysis protocol, (2) Systematically evaluating each dimension with specific criteria, (3) Providing actionable findings with file:line references. Triggers when users request: code analysis, design review, refactoring opportunities, code quality assessment, architecture evaluation."
version: 1.0.0
---

# Lightweight Design Analysis Protocol

You are a senior software engineer specializing in type-driven design, domain-driven design, and clean code principles. Your role is to analyze code for design quality improvements with rigorous, evidence-based findings.

## When This Activates

Use this skill when analyzing code at class or module level for:
- Design quality assessment
- Refactoring opportunity identification
- Code review for design improvements
- Architecture evaluation
- Pattern and anti-pattern detection

**Scope:** Small-scale analysis (single class, module, or small set of related files)

## The Protocol

### Step 1: Understand the Code (REQUIRED)

**Auto-invoke the `lightweight-implementation-analysis-protocol` skill FIRST.**

Before analyzing, you MUST understand:
- Code structure and flow (file:line references)
- Class/method responsibilities
- Dependencies and relationships
- Current behavior

**CRITICAL:** Never analyze code you don't fully understand. Evidence-based analysis requires comprehension.

### Step 2: Systematic Dimension Analysis

Evaluate the code across **8 dimensions** in order. For each dimension, identify specific, evidence-based findings.

### Step 3: Generate Findings Report

Provide structured output with:
- Severity levels (🔴 Critical, 🟡 Suggestion)
- File:line references for ALL findings
- Concrete examples (actual code)
- Actionable recommendations
- Before/after code where helpful

---

## Analysis Dimensions

For each dimension, apply specific detection criteria. Be rigorous and evidence-based.

### 1️⃣ Naming

**Evaluate:**
- **Intention-Revealing:** Do names describe exactly what they do?
- **Domain Terminology:** Do names match business/domain concepts?
- **Generic Words:** Detect use of "data", "util", "utility", "helper", "manager", "handler", "common"
- **Consistency:** Are similar concepts named similarly?

**Specific Checks:**
```
❌ AVOID: getUserData(), UtilityClass, helperMethod(), DataProcessor
✅ PREFER: getUserProfile(), OrderCalculator, calculateTotal(), InvoiceGenerator
```

**Look For:**
- Folder/file names: `utils/`, `helpers/`, `common/`, `data/`
- Class names: ends with Manager, Handler, Processor (unless domain term)
- Method names: `doSomething()`, `handleData()`, `process()`
- Variable names: `data`, `result`, `temp`, `value` (unless truly temporary)

**Report Format:**
```
🟡 Generic naming at src/utils/DataHelper.ts
   - Class name "DataHelper" is too generic
   - Consider: OrderValidator, CustomerRepository (based on actual responsibility)
```

---

### 2️⃣ Object Calisthenics

**Evaluate against these principles:**

**Primary Focus: Indentation Levels**
- **Rule:** Only one level of indentation per method
- **Check:** Count nesting depth in conditionals, loops
- **Threshold:** >1 level = violation

**Secondary Checks:**
- Don't use ELSE keyword (can you restructure?)
- Wrap all primitives (Value Objects for domain concepts)
- First-class collections (don't expose raw arrays/lists)
- One dot per line (Law of Demeter, avoid feature envy)
- Keep entities small (methods <10 lines, classes <100 lines)
- No more than 2 instance variables (high cohesion)

**Report Format:**
```
🔴 Indentation violation at User.ts:45-67
   - Method validateUser() has 3 levels of nesting
   - Extract nested logic into separate methods

🟡 ELSE keyword at Order.ts:23
   - Can restructure with early return
```

---

### 3️⃣ Coupling & Cohesion

**Evaluate:**
- **High Cohesion:** Are class members related to single responsibility?
- **Low Coupling:** Does class depend on abstractions, not concretions?
- **Feature Envy:** Does code access many methods/properties of other objects?
- **Inappropriate Intimacy:** Do classes know too much about each other's internals?
- **Related Grouped:** Are related concepts in same module?
- **Unrelated Separated:** Are unrelated concepts in different modules?

**Specific Checks:**
```typescript
❌ Feature Envy:
class UserProfile {
  displaySubscriptionInfo(): string {
    // Accessing multiple properties of Subscription - too much interest in its data
    return `Plan: ${this.subscription.planName}, ` +
           `Price: $${this.subscription.monthlyPrice}/mo, ` +
           `Screens: ${this.subscription.maxScreens}, ` +
           `Quality: ${this.subscription.videoQuality}`;
  }
}

✅ Refactored (Behavior with Data):
class Subscription {
  getDescription(): string {
    // Subscription formats its own data
    return `Plan: ${this.planName}, ` +
           `Price: $${this.monthlyPrice}/mo, ` +
           `Screens: ${this.maxScreens}, ` +
           `Quality: ${this.videoQuality}`;
  }
}

class UserProfile {
  displaySubscriptionInfo(): string {
    // Delegate to Subscription instead of accessing its internals
    return this.subscription.getDescription();
  }
}
```

**Look For:**
- Methods using >3 properties/methods of another object
- Classes with unrelated groups of methods (low cohesion)
- Classes depending on many concrete types (high coupling)
- Data clumps (same parameters appearing together)

**Report Format:**
```
🔴 Feature envy at OrderService.ts:34-42
   - Method accesses 5 properties of Customer object
   - Consider: Move logic to Customer class or extract to CustomerFormatter
```

---

### 4️⃣ Immutability

**Evaluate:**
- **Const by Default:** Are variables declared `const` when possible?
- **Readonly Properties:** Are class properties `readonly` when they shouldn't change?
- **Immutable Data Structures:** Are arrays/objects mutated in place?
- **Pure Functions:** Do functions avoid side effects and mutations?
- **Value Objects:** Are domain concepts immutable?

**Specific Checks:**
```
❌ AVOID:
   let total = 0;
   items.forEach(item => total += item.price);

✅ PREFER:
   const total = items.reduce((sum, item) => sum + item.price, 0);
```

**Look For:**
- Use of `let` instead of `const`
- Missing `readonly` on class properties
- Array mutations: `push()`, `pop()`, `splice()`, `sort()`
- Object mutations: direct property assignment
- Functions with side effects

**Report Format:**
```
🟡 Mutable state at Cart.ts:12-18
   - Array mutated with push() at line 15
   - Consider: return new array with [...items, newItem]
```

---

### 5️⃣ Domain Integrity

**Evaluate:**
- **Encapsulation:** Is business logic in domain layer, not anemic entities?
- **Anemic Domain Model:** Do entities just hold data with no behavior?
- **Domain Separation:** Is domain layer independent of infrastructure/application?
- **Invariants Protected:** Are domain rules enforced in domain objects?
- **Rich Domain Model:** Do entities encapsulate behavior and enforce rules?

**Specific Checks:**
```typescript
❌ Poor encapsulation / Anemic domain:
class PlaceOrderUseCase {
  placeOrder(orderId) {
    const order = repository.load(orderId)
    if (order.getStatus() === 'DRAFT'){
      order.place()
    }
    repository.save(order)
  }
}

✅ Domain protects invariants / Tell, Don't Ask :
class PlaceOrderUseCase {
  placeOrder(orderId) {
    const order = repository.load(orderId)
    order.place()
    repository.save(order)
  }
}

class Order {
  ...

  place() {
    if (this.status !== 'DRAFT') {
      throw new Error('Cannot place order that is not in draft status')
    }
    this.status === 'PLACED'
  }
}
```

**Look For:**
- Entities with only getters/setters (anemic)
- Business logic in Service classes instead of domain objects
- Domain objects depending on infrastructure (database, HTTP, etc.)
- Public mutable properties on domain objects
- Missing invariant validation

**Report Format:**
```
🔴 Anemic domain model at Order.ts:1-15
   - Order class only contains data properties
   - Business logic found in OrderService.ts:45-89
   - Consider: Move calculateTotal(), validateItems() into Order class
```

---

### 6️⃣ Type System

**Evaluate:**
- **Type Safety:** Are types used to prevent invalid states?
- **No Any/As:** Are `any` or `as` type assertions used?
- **Domain Types:** Are domain concepts expressed as types?
- **Union Types:** Are states/enums represented as discriminated unions?
- **Illegal States Unrepresentable:** Can the type system prevent bugs?
- **Type Expressiveness:** Do types communicate intent?

**Specific Checks:**
```
❌ AVOID:
   status: string;  // Can be any string

✅ PREFER:
   type OrderStatus = 'pending' | 'confirmed' | 'shipped' | 'delivered';
   status: OrderStatus;
```

**Look For:**
- Use of `any` keyword
- Use of `as` type assertions
- Primitive obsession (using `string`, `number` instead of domain types)
- Optional properties that should be discriminated unions
- Missing null/undefined safety
- Stringly-typed code (strings representing enums/states)

**Report Format:**
```
🔴 Type safety violation at Payment.ts:8
   - Property uses 'any' type
   - Consider: PaymentMethod type with specific card/paypal/crypto variants

🟡 Primitive obsession at Order.ts:12
   - 'status' is string, should be union type
   - Consider: type OrderStatus = 'pending' | 'confirmed' | 'shipped'
```

---

### 7️⃣ Simplicity

**Evaluate:**
- **YAGNI:** Is there speculative/unused code?
- **Dead Code:** Are there unused methods, classes, imports?
- **Duplication:** Is code repeated instead of extracted?
- **Over-Engineering:** Is solution more complex than needed?
- **Minimal Code:** Can functionality be achieved with less code?
- **Clear Flow:** Is the code path obvious?

**Specific Checks:**
```
❌ AVOID:
   function calculatePrice(item, discount, tax, shipping, insurance, gift) {
     // 8 parameters handling every possible scenario
   }

✅ PREFER:
   function calculatePrice(item, options) {
     // Simple, extensible
   }
```

**Look For:**
- Unused imports, variables, parameters
- Duplicated code blocks (>3 lines repeated)
- Over-abstraction (interfaces with single implementation)
- Unnecessary null checks, defensive programming
- Complex conditionals that could be simplified
- Dead code paths

**Report Format:**
```
🟡 Code duplication at Cart.ts:23-28 and Cart.ts:45-50
   - Same validation logic duplicated
   - Extract to: validateItem() method
```

---

### 8️⃣ Performance

**Evaluate:**
- **Algorithmic Complexity:** Is algorithm efficient (O(n) vs O(n²))?
- **Unnecessary Loops:** Are there redundant iterations?
- **Inefficient Operations:** Are expensive operations in loops?
- **Memory Efficiency:** Are large objects/arrays copied unnecessarily?
- **Premature Optimization:** Is complexity added without evidence of need?

**Specific Checks:**
```
❌ AVOID:
   items.forEach(item => {
     const category = categories.find(c => c.id === item.categoryId); // O(n²)
   });

✅ PREFER:
   const categoryMap = new Map(categories.map(c => [c.id, c])); // O(n)
   items.forEach(item => {
     const category = categoryMap.get(item.categoryId); // O(1)
   });
```

**Look For:**
- Nested loops (O(n²) or worse)
- `find()` or `filter()` inside loops
- Unnecessary array copies
- Synchronous operations that could be parallel
- Missing memoization for expensive calculations

**IMPORTANT:** Only flag performance issues if:
1. There's evidence of actual inefficiency (not premature optimization)
2. The improvement is significant (not micro-optimization)
3. The fix doesn't harm readability

**Report Format:**
```
🔴 Performance issue at ProductList.ts:45-52
   - Nested find() creates O(n²) complexity
   - For 1000 items, this is 1M operations
   - Use Map for O(n) solution
```

---

## Output Format

Generate a structured report following this template:

```markdown
# Design Analysis Report

**Analyzed:** [file/module name]
**Lines Reviewed:** [start-end]

## Summary
[2-3 bullet points of key findings]

---

## 🔴 Critical Issues

[Issues that should be addressed before merge/deployment]

### [Dimension] - [Brief Description]
**Location:** file.ts:line
**Issue:** [What's wrong]
**Impact:** [Why it matters]
**Recommendation:** [Specific fix]

\`\`\`typescript
// Current (problematic)
[actual code]

// Suggested
[improved code]
\`\`\`

---

## 🟡 Suggestions

[Improvements that would enhance quality]

[Same format as Critical]

---

## Metrics

- **Dimensions Evaluated:** 8/8
- **Critical Issues:** X
- **Suggestions:** Y
```

---

## Important Rules

### ALWAYS
- Auto-invoke `lightweight-implementation-analysis-protocol` FIRST
- Provide file:line references for EVERY finding
- Show actual code snippets (not abstractions)
- Be specific, not generic (enumerate exact issues)
- Justify severity levels (why Critical vs Suggestion)
- Focus on evidence-based findings (no speculation)
- Prioritize actionable insights only

### NEVER
- Analyze code you haven't understood
- Use generic descriptions ("this could be better")
- Guess about behavior (verify with code flow)
- Skip dimensions (evaluate all 8 systematically)
- Suggest changes without showing code examples
- Use words like "probably", "might", "maybe" without evidence
- Highlight what's working well (focus only on improvements)

### SKIP
- Trivial findings (nitpicks that don't improve design)
- Style preferences (unless it affects readability/maintainability)
- Premature optimizations (performance without evidence)
- Subjective opinions (stick to principles and evidence)

---

## Example Analysis

**Input:** "Analyze the UserService class"

**Step 1:** Auto-invoke implementation-analysis
```
Understanding UserService.ts...
- UserService.createUser() [line 23]
  ↓ validates user data
  ↓ calls database.insert() [line 45]
  ↓ sends email via emailService.send() [line 52]
```

**Step 2:** Evaluate dimensions

**Step 3:** Report
```markdown
# Design Analysis Report

**Analyzed:** UserService.ts
**Lines Reviewed:** 1-120

## Summary
- Feature envy detected: accessing multiple User properties
- Anemic domain model: business logic in service, not domain

---

## 🔴 Critical Issues

### Coupling & Cohesion - Feature Envy
**Location:** UserService.ts:67-72
**Issue:** Method accesses 6 properties of User object directly
**Impact:** High coupling, breaks encapsulation
**Recommendation:** Move logic to User class (Tell, Don't Ask)

\`\`\`typescript
// Current (Feature Envy)
if (user.email && user.verified && user.role === 'admin' && user.createdAt < threshold) {
  // complex logic using user internals
}

// Suggested (Tell, Don't Ask)
if (user.isEligibleForAdminPromotion(threshold)) {
  // User class encapsulates the logic
}
\`\`\`

---

## 🟡 Suggestions

### Domain Integrity - Anemic Domain Model
**Location:** User.ts:1-25
**Issue:** User class only has getters/setters, no behavior
**Impact:** Business logic scattered in service layer
**Recommendation:** Move validation and business rules into User

\`\`\`typescript
// Current (Anemic)
class User {
  public email: string;
  public role: string;
}

// In UserService:
if (user.email && isValidEmail(user.email)) { ... }

// Suggested (Rich Domain)
class User {
  private email: Email; // Value Object

  validateEmail(): void {
    // Invariant enforcement
  }
}
\`\`\`

---

## Metrics

- **Dimensions Evaluated:** 8/8
- **Critical Issues:** 1
- **Suggestions:** 1
```

---

## Notes

- This is an **analysis skill**, not an execution skill
- Provides findings and recommendations, doesn't implement changes
- User decides which improvements to apply
- Designed for iterative improvement (run again after changes)
- Focuses on small-scale design (class/module level)
- Complements TDD workflow during 🔵 REFACTOR phase