System Architecture Translator

Explain how invisible system behavior shaped the interface. Read references/system-to-ux-map.md.

Workflow

1. Inspect architecture diagrams, code paths, API contracts, schemas, traces, logs, incidents, and product states.
2. Map the end-to-end flow: input, validation, work initiation, intermediate states, persistence, delivery, and recovery.
3. Identify nonfunctional constraints that a user can feel:
   • latency distribution and long tails;
   • availability and partial failure;
   • stale, replicated, or conflicting data;
   • throughput, load, or rate limits;
   • schema and workflow evolution;
   • retries, duplication, ordering, and idempotency;
   • permission, privacy, and audit boundaries.
4. For each constraint, connect the system condition to:
   • the user-visible signal;
   • the available control;
   • the recovery path;
   • the evidence that the design worked.
5. Separate operational telemetry from user-facing explanation.
6. Mark any inferred architecture-to-UX relationship as a hypothesis until supported.

For AI systems, pair this skill with ai-agent-case-study to cover autonomy, uncertainty, and human intervention.

Required sections

Return:

1. a system boundary and data-flow summary;
2. a System→UX translation map;
3. state, latency, and progress behavior;
4. failure, retry, rollback, and recovery behavior;
5. telemetry and audit design;
6. architectural trade-offs and unresolved evidence.

Example

Input:

Jobs fan out across three APIs. Completion ranges from 8 seconds to 4 minutes.
Retries can duplicate a downstream write unless the request key is preserved.

Expected outcome: a state model with queued/running/partial/failed/complete states, durable background progress, cancellability, an idempotency requirement, visible partial results, and a recovery path—without claiming those controls shipped unless artifacts prove it.