Architecture Patterns
ServicesSoftware EngineeringArchitecture Patterns

Architecture Patterns & Reference Models

Risk-managed, delivery-aware engineering choices not ideology.

This page defines how Clavon thinks about software architecture decisions not as ideology, but as risk-managed, delivery-aware engineering choices.

Architecture is not about fashion.

It is about making the right trade-offs explicit and controlling long-term cost, risk, and operability.

Why Architecture Decisions Fail in Practice

Across startups, enterprises, and regulated environments, architecture failures usually come from the same root causes

Architecture chosen too early or too late

Decisions driven by tooling hype instead of constraints

Over-optimisation for scale before product-market fit

Under-investment in operability, testing, and observability

No explicit ownership or evolution model

Architecture diagrams that do not match how the system actually runs

Clavon addresses this by treating architecture as:

  • a living decision system, not a static diagram
  • a delivery enabler, not a blocker
  • a risk control mechanism, not a theoretical exercise

Architecture Decision Framework

Every architecture decision we make is evaluated against six non-negotiable dimensions

Business Volatility

How often will requirements change?

Scale Profile

What kind of scale matters (users, data, throughput, regions)?

Delivery Speed

How fast must teams ship without breaking production?

Team Topology

How many teams, how distributed, what maturity?

Risk & Compliance

What happens when things go wrong?

Operability

Can the system be monitored, debugged, and recovered?

If a pattern cannot be defended across these dimensions, it is rejected.

Core Architecture Patterns

Primary patterns with explicit guidance on when to use, when not to, and what breaks if misused

01

Monolithic Architecture (Intentional Monolith)

What It Is

A single deployable unit containing domain logic, APIs/UI, and data access. Important: This is not a "legacy monolith" by default.

When Right

  • Early-stage products and MVPs
  • Small teams (≤ 8–10 engineers)
  • Unclear domain boundaries
  • +2 more

When Bad

  • Multiple teams pushing changes daily
  • Release coordination becomes painful
  • +2 more

Guidance

  • Start with a clean, layered monolith
  • Enforce domain boundaries internally
  • +2 more
02

Modular Monolith (Preferred Default)

What It Is

A single deployable system with strict module boundaries, domain ownership enforced at code level, and internal contracts between modules.

When Right

  • Product is gaining traction
  • Domain complexity is increasing
  • Multiple teams are contributing
  • +2 more

Guidance

  • Modules must have explicit interfaces
  • Independent test suites
  • +2 more
03

Microservices Architecture

What It Is

A system composed of independently deployable services, decentralized data ownership, and API- or event-based communication.

When Right

  • Clear domain boundaries already exist
  • Multiple autonomous teams
  • Independent scaling is required
  • +2 more

When Bad

  • Small teams
  • Unstable domains
  • +3 more

Guidance

  • Clear service ownership
  • Service-level SLIs/SLOs
  • +3 more
04

Event-Driven Architecture (EDA)

What It Is

Systems communicate through events, asynchronous messaging, and decoupled producers and consumers.

When Right

  • High throughput or real-time processing
  • Loose coupling is required
  • Event sourcing or auditability is important
  • +1 more

When Bad

  • Simple CRUD systems
  • Teams unfamiliar with async systems
  • +2 more

Guidance

  • Events are contracts, not notifications
  • Event schemas are versioned
  • +2 more
05

Hybrid Architectures (Most Real Systems)

What It Is

Most production systems are modular monoliths with extracted services, synchronous APIs plus async events, and legacy systems integrated via adapters.

Guidance

  • Hybrid is not a failure—it is intentional evolution
  • Clear integration patterns
  • +2 more

Integration Patterns (Cross-Cutting)

Clavon standardizes on the following:

Synchronous

  • REST APIs for request/response
  • Clear versioning and backward compatibility
  • Timeouts, retries, and circuit breakers

Asynchronous

  • Events for state change
  • Commands for intent
  • No shared databases
  • Explicit ownership

Security & Compliance Considerations

Architecture choices directly impact:

Data access control
Auditability
Segregation of duties
Blast radius of failures

Clavon enforces:

  • Least-privilege access
  • Explicit trust boundaries
  • Security-by-design reviews
  • Compliance-aware logging

Architecture Evolution Model (Critical)

We do not design "final architectures". We design:

  • Current state
  • Next viable architecture
  • Clear evolution triggers

Example triggers:

Team size threshold
Deployment frequency pain
Scaling bottlenecks
Regulatory requirements

Common Anti-Patterns We Actively Prevent

Microservices by default

"Temporary" shortcuts with no exit plan

Architecture diagrams disconnected from code

Unowned services and integrations

Tool-driven architecture

Deliverables Clients Receive

Architecture decision records (ADRs)

Reference architecture diagrams (SVG-ready)

Integration standards

Quality and testing implications per pattern

DevOps and operability requirements

Evolution roadmap with triggers

Why This Matters

Architecture determines:

How fast you can ship
How safely you can change
How expensive your system becomes
How well you survive scale, audits, and incidents

Poor architecture compounds risk.

Good architecture compounds leverage.

Ready to Build with the Right Architecture?

Let Clavon help you make risk-managed, delivery-aware architecture decisions.