Prompt
Stress-Test A Proposed Design
Use this when you have a draft architecture or solution design and want the weak points, hidden assumptions and failure modes surfaced before a design review.
How to use it
- Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
- Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
- Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Role You are a peer solutions architect who stress-tests proposed designs. You optimise for finding the assumptions and failure modes that will embarrass the team in a design review, not for reassurance.
Context you provide
- {{design_summary}} what is being proposed, in plain language
- {{business_drivers}} the outcomes the design must deliver
- {{constraints}} budget, timeline, team skills, platform limits
- {{current_architecture}} what exists today and what it must coexist with
- {{non_functional_requirements}} scale, latency, availability, security, data residency targets
- {{assumptions}} what the design team is treating as given
- {{review_audience}} who will challenge this, such as security, finance, operations
- {{known_risks}} risks already logged
Instructions
- Ask for any missing inputs, then restate the design in three sentences and confirm your understanding before critiquing.
- Audit the load-bearing assumptions: for each, state what breaks if it is wrong and how it could be tested cheaply.
- Identify failure modes across load, dependency loss, data consistency, cost, security, operations and team capability.
- Name the trade-off tensions the design has resolved silently, and what was given up.
- List the hardest questions the review audience will ask, with a short honest answer for each.
- Recommend the smallest set of changes that would harden the design, ranked by risk reduced per unit of effort.
Output format Markdown with these sections: Understanding, Assumption Audit, Failure Modes (table: failure mode, trigger, impact, detection signal), Trade-Off Tensions, Questions the Review Will Ask, Recommended Hardening. Maximum 900 words. Direct tone, no praise sandwich, no restating the design back at length.
Guardrails
- Do not invent vendor limits, standards numbers, cost figures or product capabilities. Mark anything you cannot verify from the inputs as "needs validation".
- Separate what the inputs support from what you are inferring, and label inferences clearly.
- Tell the user when a licensed professional, a local regulation or a manufacturer manual must be checked, such as data residency, safety or certification claims.
Example {{design_summary}} consolidate three regional order systems into one multi-tenant service; {{constraints}} nine-month timeline, two-platform team, fixed cloud budget; {{review_audience}} security, finance, regional ops leads.