Back to skills
SKILL.md
Event Driven Architecture Review
ASecurityUse when performing event driven architecture review — template for reviewing event-driven architecture designs and implementations. Covers event schema validation, producer/consumer mapping, ordering guarantees, idempotency patterns, dead letter handling, schema evolution strategy, and observability to ensure reliable event-driven systems.
- 6 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 1 view
- Added September 8, 2026
Security analysis
100/100npx -y skills add cloudthinker-ai/CloudSkills --skill event-driven-architecture-review --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Event Driven Architecture Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-event-driven-architecture-review)---
name: event-driven-architecture-review
enabled: true
description: |
Use when performing event driven architecture review — template for reviewing
event-driven architecture designs and implementations. Covers event schema
validation, producer/consumer mapping, ordering guarantees, idempotency
patterns, dead letter handling, schema evolution strategy, and observability
to ensure reliable event-driven systems.
required_connections:
- prefix: aws
label: "AWS (or cloud provider)"
config_fields:
- key: system_name
label: "System Name"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., order-processing-pipeline"
- key: event_platform
label: "Event Platform"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., Kafka, EventBridge, SNS/SQS, RabbitMQ"
features:
- ENGINEERING
- ARCHITECTURE
---
# Event-Driven Architecture Review Skill
Review event-driven architecture for **{{ system_name }}** on **{{ event_platform }}**.
## Workflow
### Phase 1 — Event Inventory
```
EVENT CATALOG
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Total event types: ___
[ ] Event map:
Event Name | Producer | Consumer(s) | Volume/day
____________________|______________|______________|___________
| | |
| | |
| | |
[ ] Event schema registry: [ ] YES [ ] NO
[ ] Schema format: [ ] Avro [ ] JSON Schema [ ] Protobuf [ ] None
[ ] Event naming convention: ___
```
### Phase 2 — Event Design Review
```
EVENT SCHEMA QUALITY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Events contain:
[ ] Unique event ID
[ ] Event type/name
[ ] Timestamp (ISO 8601)
[ ] Source/producer identifier
[ ] Correlation/trace ID
[ ] Schema version
[ ] Events are self-contained (no need to fetch additional data)
[ ] Events represent facts (past tense: OrderPlaced, not PlaceOrder)
[ ] Event payload size within limits (avg: ___KB, max: ___KB)
[ ] No PII in events (or encrypted if required)
SCHEMA EVOLUTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Backward compatibility enforced
[ ] Forward compatibility considered
[ ] Schema versioning strategy:
[ ] Full compatibility
[ ] Backward only
[ ] None (breaking changes allowed)
[ ] Schema validation on publish: [ ] YES [ ] NO
```
### Phase 3 — Reliability Patterns
```
RELIABILITY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Delivery guarantees:
[ ] At-least-once delivery implemented
[ ] Consumer idempotency:
- Idempotency key strategy: ___
- Deduplication window: ___
[ ] Ordering guarantees:
- Partition/ordering key: ___
- Per-key ordering: [ ] GUARANTEED [ ] BEST EFFORT
[ ] Dead letter queue (DLQ) configured:
- DLQ destination: ___
- DLQ alert threshold: ___
- DLQ reprocessing procedure: [ ] DOCUMENTED
ERROR HANDLING MATRIX
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Error Type | Strategy | Max Retries | Backoff
Transient (network) | Retry | ___ | ___
Validation error | DLQ | 0 | N/A
Poison message | DLQ + alert | ___ | ___
Consumer crash | Rebalance | N/A | N/A
```
### Phase 4 — Performance and Scalability
```
PERFORMANCE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Throughput:
- Current: ___ events/sec
- Peak: ___ events/sec
- Target capacity: ___ events/sec
[ ] Latency (end-to-end, publish to consume):
- P50: ___ms
- P95: ___ms
- P99: ___ms
[ ] Consumer lag:
- Current lag: ___ events
- Lag alert threshold: ___ events
[ ] Partitions/shards: ___
[ ] Consumer group instances: ___
[ ] Backpressure handling: ___
```
### Phase 5 — Observability
```
OBSERVABILITY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Distributed tracing across events:
- Trace ID propagation: [ ] YES
- End-to-end trace visualization: [ ] YES
[ ] Metrics collected:
[ ] Publish rate per event type
[ ] Consumer processing rate
[ ] Consumer lag per partition
[ ] Error rate per consumer
[ ] DLQ depth
[ ] Alerting configured:
[ ] Consumer lag exceeds threshold
[ ] DLQ messages accumulating
[ ] Publisher failures
[ ] Consumer group rebalances
[ ] Event flow visualization/documentation: [ ] YES [ ] NO
```
## Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
## Output Format
Produce an event-driven architecture review report with:
1. **Architecture overview** (event catalog, producers, consumers)
2. **Design quality** (schema quality, naming, evolution strategy)
3. **Reliability assessment** (delivery guarantees, error handling, DLQ)
4. **Performance profile** (throughput, latency, scalability headroom)
5. **Recommendations** (improvements ranked by impact and effort)
Attribution
Comments
Loading comments…