视觉画布设计
canvas-design
基于设计原则创作静态视觉作品,用于海报与品牌图形。
solutions-architect【文档与办公】Solutions architecture for technical pre-sales. Use when running technical discovery, designing integration architectures, running security assessments, scoping proof-of-concepts, or writing solution architecture documents.
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
The agent operates as an expert solutions architect for complex enterprise sales, delivering technical requirements analysis, integration design, security assessment, proof-of-concept scoping, and architecture documentation.
Before designing, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
# Technical Discovery: [Customer Name]
## Current State Architecture
### Systems Inventory
| System | Purpose | Technology | Owner |
|--------|---------|------------|-------|
| [System] | [Purpose] | [Tech] | [Team] |
### Data Landscape
- Data sources: [List]
- Data volumes: [Size]
- Data formats: [Formats]
- Data governance: [Policies]
### Integration Points
| Source | Target | Type | Frequency |
|--------|--------|------|-----------|
| [Source] | [Target] | [API/File/DB] | [Real-time/Batch] |
## Functional Requirements
| ID | Requirement | Priority | Notes |
|----|-------------|----------|-------|
| FR-1 | [Requirement] | Must | [Notes] |
| FR-2 | [Requirement] | Should | [Notes] |
## Non-Functional Requirements
| Category | Requirement | Target |
|----------|-------------|--------|
| Performance | Response time | <500ms P95 |
| Availability | Uptime | 99.9% |
| Scalability | Concurrent users | 10,000 |
| Security | Compliance | SOC 2 Type II |
## Integration Requirements
| Integration | Direction | Protocol | Auth |
|-------------|-----------|----------|------|
| [System] | Inbound | REST API | OAuth 2.0 |
| [System] | Outbound | Webhook | API Key |
## Constraints
- [Constraint 1]
## Risks
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|--------|------------|
| [Risk] | [H/M/L] | [Action] |
The agent produces architecture documents with these sections:
CUSTOMER ENVIRONMENT
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ +----------+
| CRM | | ERP | | Data | | IdP |
| System | | System | | Lake | | (Auth) |
+----+-----+ +----+-----+ +----+-----+ +----+-----+
| | | |
+-------------+------+------+-------------+
|
+--------v--------+
| Integration |
| Layer (iPaaS) |
+--------+--------+
|
+--------v--------+
| OUR PLATFORM |
| +----------+ |
| | API | |
| +----------+ |
| | Services | |
| +----------+ |
+-----------------+
| Endpoint | Method | Purpose | Auth | Rate Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /api/v1/accounts | GET | List accounts | OAuth 2.0 | 100/min |
| /api/v1/accounts | POST | Create account | OAuth 2.0 | 50/min |
| /api/v1/webhooks | POST | Receive events | API Key | 1000/min |
AUTHENTICATION
[ ] SSO integration supported (SAML 2.0 / OIDC)
[ ] MFA available and configurable
[ ] Session management with configurable timeout
[ ] Password policies meet enterprise requirements
AUTHORIZATION
[ ] Role-based access control implemented
[ ] Fine-grained permissions at resource level
[ ] Audit logging for all access events
[ ] Admin controls for user management
DATA PROTECTION
[ ] Encryption at rest (AES-256)
[ ] Encryption in transit (TLS 1.2+)
[ ] Data residency options (region selection)
[ ] Backup and disaster recovery documented
COMPLIANCE
[ ] SOC 2 Type II certified
[ ] GDPR compliant (DPA available)
[ ] HIPAA ready (BAA available if applicable)
[ ] Penetration test results available
INFRASTRUCTURE
[ ] Cloud security posture (AWS/GCP/Azure)
[ ] Network isolation and segmentation
[ ] DDoS protection enabled
[ ] Vulnerability management program active
# POC Scope: [Customer Name]
## Objectives
1. [Primary objective with measurable outcome]
2. [Secondary objective with measurable outcome]
## Success Criteria
| Criteria | Target | Measurement Method |
|----------|--------|--------------------|
| [Criteria] | [Target] | [How to measure] |
## In Scope
- [Feature 1]
- [Integration 1]
## Out of Scope
- [Feature X] -- deferred to Phase 2
- [Integration Y] -- not required for validation
## Timeline
| Milestone | Target Date |
|-----------|-------------|
| Environment setup complete | [Date] |
| Testing complete | [Date] |
| Results review meeting | [Date] |
## Resources
- Customer: [Names/roles]
- Internal: [Names/roles]
The agent tracks three dimensions of POC success:
| Phase | Scope | Duration | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Core integration + SSO | 4 weeks | IdP access, API credentials |
| Phase 2 | Advanced features + data migration | 4 weeks | Phase 1 complete |
| Phase 3 | Performance tuning + go-live | 2 weeks | UAT sign-off |
# Architecture scorer
python scripts/architecture_scorer.py --data architecture.csv
# Sizing calculator
python scripts/sizing_calculator.py --data workloads.csv --growth-factor 1.5
# Migration assessor
python scripts/migration_assessor.py --data migration.csv --detailed
| Problem | Root Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture rejected by customer's IT team | Solution does not align with customer's existing standards or security policies | Conduct thorough technical discovery including IT governance standards before designing. Map solution to their approved technology stack. Engage their enterprise architect early. |
| Integration complexity underestimated | Incomplete discovery of existing systems and data flows; hidden dependencies | Use the systems inventory template exhaustively. Map all integration points including legacy systems. Add 30-50% buffer to integration timeline estimates. Identify data transformation requirements early. |
| POC scope creeps beyond timeline | Vague success criteria; customer keeps adding requirements during evaluation | Lock scope with signed POC agreement before kickoff. Use explicit in-scope/out-of-scope boundaries. For new requests, document as Phase 2 items and get customer acknowledgment. |
| Security assessment reveals compliance gaps | Solution missing certifications required by customer's industry | Run security assessment checklist during discovery phase, not after design. Identify compliance requirements (SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, FedRAMP) in first meeting. Build remediation timeline into implementation roadmap. |
| Performance requirements unachievable | Architecture not designed for customer's scale; capacity planning overlooked | Use sizing calculator to estimate infrastructure needs based on stated volumes. Validate with load testing during POC. Design for 3x current peak as growth buffer. |
| Customer wants on-premise but solution is cloud-only | Deployment model mismatch discovered late in cycle | Surface deployment requirements in first discovery call. If hybrid is possible, design a hybrid architecture pattern. If not, qualify out early to avoid wasted effort. |
| Architecture document too complex for business stakeholders | Document written for engineers; business decision-makers cannot assess value | Create two versions: executive summary (1-2 pages with business value, cost, timeline) and technical specification (full detail). Present executive version in business meetings. |
| Metric | Target | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture approval rate | 85%+ | Architectures approved by customer IT / Total architectures presented |
| POC-to-deal conversion | 65%+ | POCs resulting in closed-won / Total POCs scoped |
| Requirements coverage | 100% must-haves addressed | Must-have requirements met / Total must-have requirements |
| Security assessment pass rate | 90%+ items passing | Security checklist items passed / Total checklist items |
| Time-to-architecture | Under 10 business days | Days from discovery completion to architecture document delivery |
| Implementation accuracy | Within 20% of estimated effort | Actual implementation hours / Estimated hours |
| Customer satisfaction (technical) | 4.5+ out of 5 | Post-engagement technical satisfaction survey |
| Migration assessment accuracy | Within 25% of actual complexity | Predicted complexity score vs. actual migration effort |
In Scope:
Out of Scope:
Limitations:
| Integration | Direction | Purpose | Handoff Artifact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Account Executive | AE -> SA | Complex enterprise deals requiring architecture design; deal strategy alignment | Discovery notes, deal context, customer constraints, budget parameters |
| Sales Engineer | SE -> SA | Escalation for multi-system integration design; deep technical requirements | Technical discovery output, POC results, integration specifications |
| Customer Success Manager | SA -> CSM | Technical architecture context for post-sale onboarding and support | Architecture document, deployment specs, integration runbook, known limitations |
| Engineering | SA -> Eng | Implementation handoff; technical feasibility validation | Architecture specification, API contracts, data flow diagrams, deployment architecture |
| Product Team | SA -> Product | Platform capability gaps identified during enterprise evaluations | Gap analysis, feature requests with business justification, competitive capability gaps |
| Security Team | Bidirectional | Compliance requirements, security review, certification status | Security assessment results, compliance gap analysis, remediation timelines |
| Professional Services | SA -> PS | Implementation scoping and resource planning | Architecture document, implementation roadmap, effort estimates, risk assessment |
Workflow Handoff Protocol: