44 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
44 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
# Design It Twice
|
|
|
|
When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
|
|
|
|
Uses the vocabulary in [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
|
|
### 1. Frame the problem space
|
|
|
|
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
|
|
|
|
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
|
|
- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
|
- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
|
|
|
|
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Spawn sub-agents
|
|
|
|
Honor the requested number of alternatives; two is a useful default. Use independent subagents through the available delegation tool when useful and within available slots, or compare directly when delegation is unavailable. Each option should explore a meaningfully different trade-off for the same requirements.
|
|
|
|
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
|
|
|
|
- One option can optimize for the primary caller's workflow.
|
|
- Another can emphasize explicit state transitions or failure handling.
|
|
- Add a dependency-focused option only when that is an actual design question; do not invent flexibility, adapters, or a target method count.
|
|
|
|
Include both [SKILL.md](SKILL.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
|
|
|
|
Each sub-agent outputs:
|
|
|
|
1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
|
|
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
|
|
3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
|
|
4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
|
|
5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
|
|
|
|
### 3. Present and compare
|
|
|
|
Use the requested or clearest concise format. Contrast **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), **seam placement**, implementation effort, and risk.
|
|
|
|
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.
|