Hr Domain Modeling

---
name: hr-domain-modeling
description: "Build and sharpen a project's domain model. Use when resolving or changing codebase terminology, writing or editing a CONTEXT.md, or recording or editing an ADR. Do not use for read-only walkthroughs."
license: MIT
metadata:
  upstream: https://github.com/mattpocock/skills
  upstream_ref: 24fe0ef7737efae15c87225755e9f6f5965e4888
  upstream_path: skills/engineering/domain-modeling/
  local_patches: "Description limits terminology triggers to resolving or changing the model"
  house_rules_patches: "Portable provenance; hr- skill names; reuse a project's existing glossary and decision-record locations"
---

# Domain modeling

Actively build and sharpen the project's domain model as you design. This is the _active_ discipline: challenging terms, inventing edge-case scenarios, and writing the glossary and decisions down the moment they crystallise. (Merely _reading_ `CONTEXT.md` for vocabulary is not this skill; any skill can do that. This skill is for when you're changing the model, not just consuming it.)

## File structure

Most repos have a single context:

```
/
├── CONTEXT.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/
│       ├── 0001-event-sourced-orders.md
│       └── 0002-postgres-for-write-model.md
└── src/
```

If a `CONTEXT-MAP.md` exists at the root, the repo has multiple contexts. The map points to where each one lives:

```
/
├── CONTEXT-MAP.md
├── docs/
│   └── adr/                          ← system-wide decisions
├── src/
│   ├── ordering/
│   │   ├── CONTEXT.md
│   │   └── docs/adr/                 ← context-specific decisions
│   └── billing/
│       ├── CONTEXT.md
│       └── docs/adr/
```

When the project already keeps a glossary or decision records elsewhere (its agent guidance, README or docs say where), use those files and their format; the layout above applies only when no convention exists.

Create files lazily: only when you have something to write. If no `CONTEXT.md` exists, create one when the first term is resolved. If no `docs/adr/` exists, create it when the first ADR is needed.

## During the session

### Challenge against the glossary

When the user uses a term that conflicts with the existing language in `CONTEXT.md`, call it out immediately. "Your glossary defines 'cancellation' as X, but you seem to mean Y. Which is it?"

### Sharpen fuzzy language

When the user uses vague or overloaded terms, propose a precise canonical term. "You're saying 'account': do you mean the Customer or the User? Those are different things."

### Discuss concrete scenarios

When domain relationships are being discussed, stress-test them with specific scenarios. Invent scenarios that probe edge cases and force the user to be precise about the boundaries between concepts.

### Cross-reference with code

When the user states how something works, check whether the code agrees. If you find a contradiction, surface it: "Your code cancels entire Orders, but you just said partial cancellation is possible. Which is right?"

### Update CONTEXT.md inline

When a term is resolved, update `CONTEXT.md` right there. Don't batch these up: capture them as they happen. Use the format in [CONTEXT-FORMAT.md](./CONTEXT-FORMAT.md).

`CONTEXT.md` should contain no implementation details. Do not treat `CONTEXT.md` as a spec, a scratch pad, or a repository for implementation decisions. It is a glossary and nothing else.

### Offer ADRs sparingly

Only offer to create an ADR when all three are true:

1. **Hard to reverse**: the cost of changing your mind later is meaningful
2. **Surprising without context**: a future reader will wonder "why did they do it this way?"
3. **The result of a real trade-off**: there were real alternatives and you picked one for specific reasons

If any of the three is missing, skip the ADR. Use the format in [ADR-FORMAT.md](./ADR-FORMAT.md).