Skip to content
Cloud Solution Architect

Cloud Solution Architect

MIT
Repository Docs
Featured markdown Development
microsoftazurearchitecturewell-architecteddesign-patternscloud

Summary

Microsoft's official skill that turns an agent into an Azure solution architect — 10 design principles, 6 architecture styles, 44 design patterns and a Well-Architected review workflow.

Features

  • 10 design principles for Azure applications
  • 6 architecture styles with explicit selection criteria
  • 44 cloud design patterns mapped to Well-Architected pillars
  • Technology choice frameworks for compute, storage, data and messaging
  • Catalogue of performance antipatterns to design away from
  • Structured architecture review workflow for validating an existing design

Install This Skill

Add this skill to your favorite AI agent in a few steps.

Any AI agent

This skill is plain instructions — it works with any assistant that accepts custom instructions or system prompts.

  1. Copy the skill content with the button below.
  2. Paste it into your agent's instruction file or system prompt (for example AGENTS.md, .cursorrules, or a custom instructions field).
  3. Ask the agent to apply the skill whenever the task matches.

Skill Content

Markdown Content

Copy this content and use it with your preferred AI agent

---
name: cloud-solution-architect
description: >-
  Transform the agent into a Cloud Solution Architect following Azure Architecture Center best practices.
  Use when designing cloud architectures, reviewing system designs, selecting architecture styles,
  applying cloud design patterns, making technology choices, or conducting Well-Architected Framework reviews.
---

# Cloud Solution Architect

## Overview

Design well-architected, production-grade cloud systems following Azure Architecture Center best practices. This skill provides:

- **10 design principles** for Azure applications
- **6 architecture styles** with selection guidance
- **44 cloud design patterns** mapped to WAF pillars
- **Technology choice frameworks** for compute, storage, data, messaging
- **Performance antipatterns** to avoid
- **Architecture review workflow** for systematic design validation

---

## Ten Design Principles for Azure Applications

| # | Principle | Key Tactics |
|---|-----------|-------------|
| 1 | **Design for self-healing** | Retry with backoff, circuit breaker, bulkhead isolation, health endpoint monitoring, graceful degradation |
| 2 | **Make all things redundant** | Eliminate single points of failure, use availability zones, deploy multi-region, replicate data |
| 3 | **Minimize coordination** | Decouple services, use async messaging, embrace eventual consistency, use domain events |
| 4 | **Design to scale out** | Horizontal scaling, autoscaling rules, stateless services, avoid session stickiness, partition workloads |
| 5 | **Partition around limits** | Data partitioning (shard/hash/range), respect compute & network limits, use CDNs for static content |
| 6 | **Design for operations** | Structured logging, distributed tracing, metrics & dashboards, runbook automation, infrastructure as code |
| 7 | **Use managed services** | Prefer PaaS over IaaS, reduce operational burden, leverage built-in HA/DR/scaling |
| 8 | **Use an identity service** | Microsoft Entra ID, managed identity, RBAC, avoid storing credentials, zero-trust principles |
| 9 | **Design for evolution** | Loose coupling, versioned APIs, backward compatibility, async messaging for integration, feature flags |
| 10 | **Build for business needs** | Define SLAs/SLOs, establish RTO/RPO targets, domain-driven design, cost modeling, composite SLAs |

---

## Architecture Styles

| Style | Description | When to Use | Key Services |
|-------|-------------|-------------|--------------|
| **N-tier** | Horizontal layers (presentation, business, data) | Traditional enterprise apps, lift-and-shift | App Service, SQL Database, VNets |
| **Web-Queue-Worker** | Web frontend → message queue → backend worker | Moderate-complexity apps with long-running tasks | App Service, Service Bus, Functions |
| **Microservices** | Small autonomous services, bounded contexts, independent deploy | Complex domains, independent team scaling | AKS, Container Apps, API Management |
| **Event-driven** | Pub/sub model, event producers/consumers | Real-time processing, IoT, reactive systems | Event Hubs, Event Grid, Functions |
| **Big data** | Batch + stream processing pipeline | Analytics, ML pipelines, large-scale data | Synapse, Data Factory, Databricks |
| **Big compute** | HPC, parallel processing | Simulations, modeling, rendering, genomics | Batch, CycleCloud, HPC VMs |

### Selection Criteria

- **Domain complexity** → Microservices (high), N-tier (low-medium)
- **Team autonomy** → Microservices (independent teams), N-tier (single team)
- **Data volume** → Big data (TB+), others (GB)
- **Latency requirements** → Event-driven (real-time), Web-Queue-Worker (tolerant)

---

## Cloud Design Patterns

44 patterns organized by primary concern. WAF pillar mapping: **R**=Reliability, **S**=Security, **CO**=Cost Optimization, **OE**=Operational Excellence, **PE**=Performance Efficiency.

### Messaging & Communication

| Pattern | Summary | Pillars |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **Asynchronous Request-Reply** | Decouple request/response with polling or callbacks | R, PE |
| **Claim Check** | Split large messages; store payload separately, pass reference | R, PE |
| **Choreography** | Services coordinate via events without central orchestrator | R, OE |
| **Competing Consumers** | Multiple consumers process messages from shared queue concurrently | R, PE |
| **Messaging Bridge** | Connect incompatible messaging systems | R, OE |
| **Pipes and Filters** | Decompose complex processing into reusable filter stages | R, OE |
| **Priority Queue** | Prioritize requests so higher-priority work is processed first | R, PE |
| **Publisher/Subscriber** | Decouple senders from receivers via topics/subscriptions | R, PE |
| **Queue-Based Load Leveling** | Buffer requests with a queue to smooth intermittent loads | R, PE |
| **Sequential Convoy** | Process related messages in order while allowing parallel groups | R, PE |

### Reliability & Resilience

| Pattern | Summary | Pillars |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **Bulkhead** | Isolate resources per workload to prevent cascading failure | R |
| **Circuit Breaker** | Stop calling a failing service; fail fast to protect resources | R |
| **Compensating Transaction** | Undo previously committed steps when a later step fails | R |
| **Health Endpoint Monitoring** | Expose health checks for load balancers and orchestrators | R, OE |
| **Leader Election** | Coordinate distributed instances by electing a leader | R |
| **Retry** | Handle transient faults by retrying with exponential backoff | R |
| **Saga** | Manage data consistency across microservices with compensating transactions | R |
| **Scheduler Agent Supervisor** | Coordinate distributed actions with retry and failure handling | R |

### Data Management

| Pattern | Summary | Pillars |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **Cache-Aside** | Load data on demand into cache from data store | PE |
| **CQRS** | Separate read and write models for independent scaling | PE, R |
| **Event Sourcing** | Store state as append-only sequence of domain events | R, OE |
| **Index Table** | Create indexes over frequently queried fields in data stores | PE |
| **Materialized View** | Pre-compute views over data for efficient queries | PE |
| **Sharding** | Distribute data across partitions for scale and performance | PE, R |
| **Static Content Hosting** | Serve static content from cloud storage/CDN directly | PE, CO |
| **Valet Key** | Grant clients limited direct access to storage resources | S, PE |

### Design & Structure

| Pattern | Summary | Pillars |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **Ambassador** | Offload cross-cutting concerns to a helper sidecar proxy | OE |
| **Anti-Corruption Layer** | Translate between new and legacy system models | OE, R |
| **Backends for Frontends** | Create separate backends per frontend type (mobile, web, etc.) | OE, PE |
| **Compute Resource Consolidation** | Combine multiple workloads into fewer compute instances | CO |
| **External Configuration Store** | Externalize configuration from deployment packages | OE |
| **Sidecar** | Deploy helper components alongside the main service | OE |
| **Strangler Fig** | Incrementally migrate legacy systems by replacing pieces | OE, R |

### Security & Access

| Pattern | Summary | Pillars |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **Federated Identity** | Delegate authentication to an external identity provider | S |
| **Gatekeeper** | Protect services using a dedicated broker that validates requests | S |
| **Quarantine** | Isolate and validate external assets before allowing use | S |
| **Rate Limiting** | Control consumption rate of resources by consumers | R, S |
| **Throttling** | Control resource consumption to sustain SLAs under load | R, PE |

### Deployment & Scaling

| Pattern | Summary | Pillars |
|---------|---------|---------|
| **Deployment Stamps** | Deploy multiple independent copies of application components | R, PE |
| **Edge Workload Configuration** | Configure workloads differently across diverse edge devices | OE |
| **Gateway Aggregation** | Aggregate multiple backend calls into a single client request | PE |
| **Gateway Offloading** | Offload shared functionality (SSL, auth) to a gateway | OE, S |
| **Gateway Routing** | Route requests to multiple backends using a single endpoint | OE |
| **Geode** | Deploy backends to multiple regions for active-active serving | R, PE |

See [Design Patterns Reference](./references/design-patterns.md) for detailed implementation guidance.

---

## Technology Choices

### Decision Framework

For each technology area, evaluate: **requirements → constraints → tradeoffs → select**.

| Area | Key Options | Selection Criteria |
|------|-------------|-------------------|
| **Compute** | App Service, Functions, Container Apps, AKS, VMs, Batch | Hosting model, scaling, cost, team skills |
| **Storage** | Blob Storage, Data Lake, Files, Disks, Managed Lustre | Access patterns, throughput, cost tier |
| **Data stores** | SQL Database, Cosmos DB, PostgreSQL, Redis, Table Storage | Consistency model, query patterns, scale |
| **Messaging** | Service Bus, Event Hubs, Event Grid, Queue Storage | Ordering, throughput, pub/sub vs queue |
| **Networking** | Front Door, Application Gateway, Load Balancer, Traffic Manager | Global vs regional, L4 vs L7, WAF |
| **AI services** | Azure OpenAI, AI Search, AI Foundry, Document Intelligence | Model needs, data grounding, orchestration |
| **Containers** | Container Apps, AKS, Container Instances | Operational control vs simplicity |

See [Technology Choices Reference](./references/technology-choices.md) for detailed decision trees.

---

## Best Practices

| Practice | Key Guidance |
|----------|-------------|
| **API design** | RESTful conventions, resource-oriented URIs, HATEOAS, versioning via URL path or header |
| **API implementation** | Async operations, pagination, idempotent PUT/DELETE, content negotiation, ETag caching |
| **Autoscaling** | Scale on metrics (CPU, queue depth, custom), cool-down periods, predictive scaling, scale-in protection |
| **Background jobs** | Use queues or scheduled triggers, idempotent processing, poison message handling, graceful shutdown |
| **Caching** | Cache-aside pattern, TTL policies, cache invalidation strategies, distributed cache for multi-instance |
| **CDN** | Static asset offloading, cache-busting with versioned URLs, geo-distribution, HTTPS enforcement |
| **Data partitioning** | Horizontal (sharding), vertical, functional partitioning; partition key selection for even distribution |
| **Partitioning strategies** | Hash-based, range-based, directory-based; rebalancing approach, cross-partition query avoidance |
| **Host name preservation** | Preserve original host header through proxies/gateways for cookies, redirects, auth flows |
| **Message encoding** | Schema evolution (Avro/Protobuf), backward/forward compatibility, schema registry |
| **Monitoring & diagnostics** | Structured logging, distributed tracing (W3C Trace Context), metrics, alerts, dashboards |
| **Transient fault handling** | Retry with exponential backoff + jitter, circuit breaker, idempotency keys, timeout budgets |

See [Best Practices Reference](./references/best-practices.md) for implementation details.

---

## Performance Antipatterns

Avoid these common patterns that degrade performance under load:

| Antipattern | Problem | Fix |
|-------------|---------|-----|
| **Busy Database** | Offloading too much processing to the database | Move logic to application tier, use caching |
| **Busy Front End** | Resource-intensive work on frontend request threads | Offload to background workers/queues |
| **Chatty I/O** | Many small I/O requests instead of fewer large ones | Batch requests, use bulk APIs, buffer writes |
| **Extraneous Fetching** | Retrieving more data than needed | Project only required fields, paginate, filter server-side |
| **Improper Instantiation** | Recreating expensive objects per request | Use singletons, connection pooling, HttpClientFactory |
| **Monolithic Persistence** | Single data store for all data types | Polyglot persistence — right store for each workload |
| **No Caching** | Repeatedly fetching unchanged data | Cache-aside pattern, CDN, output caching, Redis |
| **Noisy Neighbor** | One tenant consuming all shared resources | Bulkhead isolation, per-tenant quotas, throttling |
| **Retry Storm** | Aggressive retries overwhelming a recovering service | Exponential backoff + jitter, circuit breaker, retry budgets |
| **Synchronous I/O** | Blocking threads on I/O operations | Async/await, non-blocking I/O, reactive streams |

---

## Mission-Critical Design

For workloads targeting **99.99%+ SLO**, address these design areas:

| Design Area | Key Considerations |
|-------------|-------------------|
| **Application platform** | Multi-region active-active, availability zones, Container Apps or AKS with zone redundancy |
| **Application design** | Stateless services, idempotent operations, graceful degradation, bulkhead isolation |
| **Networking** | Azure Front Door (global LB), DDoS Protection, private endpoints, redundant connectivity |
| **Data platform** | Multi-region Cosmos DB, zone-redundant SQL, async replication, conflict resolution |
| **Deployment & testing** | Blue-green deployments, canary releases, chaos engineering, automated rollback |
| **Health modeling** | Composite health scores, dependency health tracking, automated remediation, SLI dashboards |
| **Security** | Zero-trust, managed identity everywhere, key rotation, WAF policies, threat modeling |
| **Operational procedures** | Automated runbooks, incident response playbooks, game days, postmortems |

See [Mission-Critical Reference](./references/mission-critical.md) for detailed guidance.

---

## Well-Architected Framework (WAF) Pillars

Every architecture decision should be evaluated against all five pillars:

| Pillar | Focus | Key Questions |
|--------|-------|---------------|
| **Reliability** | Resiliency, availability, disaster recovery | What is the RTO/RPO? How does it handle failures? Is there redundancy? |
| **Security** | Threat protection, identity, data protection | Is identity managed? Is data encrypted? Are there network controls? |
| **Cost Optimization** | Cost management, efficiency, right-sizing | Is compute right-sized? Are there reserved instances? Is there waste? |
| **Operational Excellence** | Monitoring, deployment, automation | Is deployment automated? Is there observability? Are there runbooks? |
| **Performance Efficiency** | Scaling, load testing, performance targets | Can it scale horizontally? Are there performance baselines? Is caching used? |

### WAF Tradeoff Matrix

| Optimizing for... | May impact... |
|-------------------|---------------|
| Reliability (redundancy) | Cost (more resources) |
| Security (isolation) | Performance (added latency) |
| Cost (consolidation) | Reliability (shared failure domains) |
| Performance (caching) | Cost (cache infrastructure), Reliability (stale data) |

---

## Architecture Review Workflow

When reviewing or designing a system, follow this structured approach:

### Step 1: Identify Requirements

```
Functional: What must the system do?
Non-functional:
  - Availability target (e.g., 99.9%, 99.99%)
  - Latency requirements (p50, p95, p99)
  - Throughput (requests/sec, messages/sec)
  - Data residency and compliance
  - Recovery targets (RTO, RPO)
  - Cost constraints
```

### Step 2: Select Architecture Style

Match requirements to architecture style using the selection criteria table above.

### Step 3: Choose Technology Stack

Use the technology choices decision framework. Prefer managed services (PaaS) over IaaS.

### Step 4: Apply Design Patterns

Select relevant patterns from the 44 cloud design patterns based on identified concerns.

### Step 5: Address Cross-Cutting Concerns

- **Identity & access** — Microsoft Entra ID, managed identity, RBAC
- **Monitoring** — Application Insights, Azure Monitor, Log Analytics
- **Security** — Network segmentation, encryption at rest/in transit, Key Vault
- **CI/CD** — GitHub Actions, Azure DevOps Pipelines, infrastructure as code

### Step 6: Validate Against WAF Pillars

Review each pillar systematically. Document tradeoffs explicitly.

### Step 7: Document Decisions

Use Architecture Decision Records (ADRs):

```markdown
# ADR-NNN: [Decision Title]

## Status: [Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated]

## Context
[What is the issue we're addressing?]

## Decision
[What did we decide and why?]

## Consequences
[What are the positive and negative impacts?]
```

---

## References

- [Design Patterns Reference](./references/design-patterns.md) — Detailed pattern implementations
- [Technology Choices Reference](./references/technology-choices.md) — Decision trees for Azure services
- [Best Practices Reference](./references/best-practices.md) — Implementation guidance
- [Mission-Critical Reference](./references/mission-critical.md) — High-availability design

---

## Source

Content derived from the [Azure Architecture Center](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/) — Microsoft's official guidance for cloud solution architecture on Azure. Covers design principles, architecture styles, cloud design patterns, technology choices, best practices, performance antipatterns, mission-critical design, and the Well-Architected Framework.

Usage Instructions

Learn how to use this skill with different AI agents.

Generic Instructions
npx skills@latest add microsoft/skills --skill cloud-solution-architect

Installs from Microsoft's official skills repository. In Claude Code, run /reload-skills to pick it up in the current session.

Example Usage

Review this architecture: an Azure Functions API in front of Cosmos DB with Service Bus between them. Which Well-Architected pillars does it fail and which patterns would fix it?

Description

Ask an agent to "design the architecture" and you usually get a plausible diagram with no stated trade-offs. This skill replaces that with the material an Azure Architecture Center review would actually apply, so the design comes with reasoning attached and can be argued with.

What it carries
  • Ten design principles for Azure applications — the baseline every design is checked against.
  • Six architecture styles with explicit selection guidance, so choosing N-tier over event-driven is a decision with stated conditions rather than a default.
  • Forty-four cloud design patterns, each mapped to the Well-Architected Framework pillars it serves, which is what makes a pattern choice defensible when reliability and cost pull in different directions.
  • Technology choice frameworks for compute, storage, data and messaging.
  • Performance antipatterns — the recurring shapes that look reasonable in a diagram and fall over under load.
The review workflow

The skill's most useful mode is not greenfield design but systematic validation: a structured architecture review that walks an existing design against the principles and pillars and reports where it does not hold up. That makes it usable as a second opinion on a design a human already wrote, not only as a generator.

Use it when designing cloud architectures, reviewing system designs, selecting an architecture style, making technology choices, or running a Well-Architected Framework review.

Provenance

Part of Microsoft's official skills repository — 175 skills covering Azure SDKs, Microsoft Foundry and Microsoft 365 across Python, TypeScript, .NET, Java and Rust — published under the MIT licence in the open SKILL.md format. Works with Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex and any agent implementing the Agent Skills standard.

Related Skills

Trail of Bits' security review skill for PRs, commits, and diffs: risk-first analysis with git history, blast radius, and honest coverage limits.

Development

Skill: CAD

by earthtojake

New

Generates and validates parametric STEP-first CAD parts and assemblies from natural language.

Development
New

Deno's official foundational skill — project setup, package choices, configuration, and CLI commands done the current way.

Development
New

Build Gradio web UIs and ML demos in Python with the current API — components, layouts, events, and chat interfaces.

Development
1 views
Browse all skills →