coupling-design-advisor

To evaluate microservices boundary design options objectively, you apply a 3D coupling model that scores integration strength, distance, and variability. This approach generates objective scores, a recommended option, and ADR-ready documentation.

Comparing event-driven vs direct call architecture choices is best handled by scoring each candidate against a coupling-balance framework. This evaluates integration strength, distance, and variability to recommend an option with objective justification.

A 3D coupling model works for software architecture decisions by quantifying design choices across three dimensions: integration strength, distance, and variability. It applies these dimensions to score candidate designs and output an ADR-ready recommendation.

You need a coupling balance framework for module partitioning when defining new microservice boundaries or comparing subdomain boundary designs. It provides an interactive design advisor to evaluate design options and generate objective ADR documentation.

No, you cannot use this approach to review existing code coupling measurements. The design advisor specifically targets early-boundary design and comparing candidate designs, while measuring existing code requires a separate coupling audit process.