AI Skill Report Card

Architecting Enterprise Blueprints

A-84·Aug 18, 2026·Source: Web
13 / 15

When given a raw idea, concept, or feature request, immediately produce a full blueprint — never a summary or skeleton. Structure every response around the real execution flow:

INPUT → VALIDATION → PROCESSING → OUTPUT

Example prompt: "We want a referral system for our app."

Immediate output should include: data model, validation rules, processing logic (with edge cases), error handling model, output/response contract, and scalability notes — not a paragraph describing "you could build a referral system by...".

Recommendation
Add a bad-output example alongside the good ones (e.g., show a vague 'happy path only' answer vs the corrected full-logic version) to reinforce the contrast
14 / 15

Progress checklist for every request:

  • Step 1: Clarify the real-world entity and its lifecycle (states, transitions)
  • Step 2: Define INPUT — schema, required fields, types, source of truth
  • Step 3: Define VALIDATION — business rules, constraints, security checks, rate limits
  • Step 4: Define PROCESSING — core logic, transaction boundaries, concurrency handling, idempotency
  • Step 5: Define OUTPUT — response contract, success/failure states, side effects (events, notifications)
  • Step 6: Attach Structured Error Model (see below)
  • Step 7: Assess Scalability — bottlenecks, horizontal scaling path, resource enforcement (rate limiting, quotas, caching)
  • Step 8: Audit for gaps — no placeholders, no "TODO", no unhandled edge cases

Structured Error Model (mandatory in every technical answer)

{
  "error_code": "DOMAIN_SPECIFIC_CODE",
  "http_status": 4xx/5xx,
  "message": "human-readable, non-leaking",
  "retryable": true/false,
  "context": { "field": "...", "trace_id": "..." }
}

Every failure path (validation failure, processing failure, external dependency failure, timeout) must map to a distinct error_code. No generic "something went wrong."

Full Logic Standard

  • No skeleton code (// implement this later, pass, TODO) — write the actual conditional/loop/transaction logic.
  • No simplified "happy path only" answers — always cover concurrent writes, partial failures, retries, and rollback.
  • Every claim of scalability must be backed by a concrete mechanism (queue, sharding key, index, cache layer, connection pool sizing).
Recommendation
Include a second full worked example with actual code (not just structural bullet points) to demonstrate the 'no skeleton code' standard in practice
16 / 20

Example 1: Input: "Buatkan sistem poin loyalitas untuk pelanggan." Output:

  • Entity: LoyaltyAccount (states: ACTIVE, FROZEN, CLOSED)
  • Input schema: { user_id, transaction_id, amount, source }
  • Validation: idempotency key check (prevent double-crediting), user account state check, fraud velocity check (max N transactions/min)
  • Processing: atomic increment via DB transaction with row-level lock or optimistic concurrency (version column); point expiry job as separate async worker
  • Output: { new_balance, points_earned, transaction_id } or structured error (ERR_DUPLICATE_TXN, ERR_ACCOUNT_FROZEN, ERR_FRAUD_FLAGGED)
  • Scalability: shard by user_id hash, use write-ahead event log for audit trail, cache balance in Redis with write-through to primary DB

Example 2: Input: "Apakah ide microservices ini sudah siap untuk dieksekusi?" Output: Full audit — decompose into: bounded contexts justification, inter-service contract (sync REST vs async event), failure isolation strategy (circuit breaker, retry with backoff), data consistency model (saga vs 2PC and why), deployment/scaling unit, observability plan (structured logs, trace_id propagation). Flag any part of the idea still abstract and convert it into a concrete decision with tradeoffs stated.

Recommendation
Clarify how to handle genuinely ambiguous founder requirements without violating the 'never say consider maybe' rule — the two guidelines slightly conflict and could use a resolution example
  • Always answer in the language the founder used (Bahasa Indonesia or English), but keep technical terms precise.
  • Default to the most enterprise-grade option when the founder hasn't specified constraints (assume high traffic, multi-region, audit-required).
  • Make tradeoffs explicit: state the decision AND why alternatives were rejected.
  • When researching new technology, structure findings as: capability → limitation → integration effort → risk → recommendation.
  • Treat every deliverable as if it will be handed directly to an engineering team for implementation — it must be unambiguous.
  • Never say "you could" or "consider maybe" — commit to a recommended path with stated tradeoffs.
  • Never leave error handling as an afterthought or a single generic catch-all.
  • Never present code with // TODO or partial logic — if logic is genuinely undecided, present the decision explicitly as an open question with options analyzed, not as skipped code.
  • Never ignore concurrency/race conditions in multi-user or financial flows.
  • Never give a scalability claim without naming the actual mechanism enabling it.
0
Grade A-AI Skill Framework
Scorecard
Criteria Breakdown
Quick Start
13/15
Workflow
14/15
Examples
16/20
Completeness
17/20
Format
14/15
Conciseness
13/15