AI Software Architecture Generator

Where does the business logic go in your codebase? Ask three developers on the same team and you will often get three answers, which is the clearest sign that the architecture was never decided. Code then lands wherever the last person put similar code, and after two years the controllers are enormous and nobody can test anything without a database.

What is AI Software Architecture Generator?

It is a free page that produces codebase structure. Not servers and queues, which is a different question, but the arrangement inside the application: which layers exist, what each is responsible for, which direction dependencies point, and what the folder structure looks like on disk.

That distinction matters. A system can be perfectly designed at the infrastructure level and still be miserable to work in, because every change touches six files across three concerns.

Why Use AI Software Architecture Generator?

Because architecture decays by default. Nobody sets out to build a codebase where the email sending lives in a controller. It happens because there was no stated rule, and adding it there was the shortest path on a Thursday.

A written architecture gives reviewers something to point at. "Business rules do not belong in the HTTP layer" is an opinion. "Layer two may not import from layer one, as agreed in the architecture document" is a rule. AI Software Architecture Generator produces the second kind.

How Does AI Software Architecture Generator Work?

You describe the application, the team and the framework, and it proposes the structure. Naming the framework is essential, because fighting your framework's conventions is a cost that rarely pays off, and a good structure works with them.

Step-by-Step Guide

1. Open AI Software Architecture Generator. Free, no account needed.
2. Name the language, framework and roughly how large the codebase is or will be.
3. Describe what the application does and which parts change most often.
4. Say how many people work in it and how experienced they are with the framework.
5. Set System Type and Scale, choose Style Pragmatic, and turn Note Trade-offs on.
6. Generate, then check that the structure works with your framework rather than against it.
7. Encode the dependency rules as an automated check before anyone writes code.

Key Features

Best Use Cases

Advanced Options Guide

Ten controls sit behind the accordion. Style and Scale decide how much structure you get, and Custom Instructions carries your framework reality.

Example Inputs

Constraints produce a usable structure. Compare a vague request with this one.

Laravel 10 API for a logistics company. Around 60,000 lines today, mostly in
controllers and Eloquent models. Three developers, one of whom is new to
Laravel. The parts that change most are pricing rules and carrier integrations,
and both are currently spread across controllers and models. We want pricing
rules unit testable without a database. We do not want to fight the framework
or rename the app folder. No appetite for a full rewrite, so give us a target
structure and an order to move toward it.

The last two sentences do the most work. Ruling out a rewrite turns the answer from a target into a migration path. Naming pricing and integrations as the volatile parts tells the design where the boundaries actually earn their keep, rather than layering everything evenly.

Example Outputs

With Style on Pragmatic and Depth high, the answer stays close to the framework while pulling the volatile logic out.

Layers and the rule between them

  app/Http          Controllers, requests, resources. Knows about HTTP only.
                    May call Services. May not contain business rules.
  app/Services      Use cases. Orchestrates a single operation end to end.
                    May call Domain and Repositories. May not know about HTTP.
  app/Domain        Pricing rules, value objects, policy calculations.
                    Pure PHP. No Eloquent, no framework, no database.
  app/Repositories  Data access behind interfaces. Eloquent lives here.
  app/Integrations  One folder per carrier, each behind a shared interface.

Dependency rule
  Http -> Services -> Domain
  Services -> Repositories (interfaces only)
  Domain depends on nothing. Enforce this with a static analysis rule so a
  stray Eloquent import fails the build rather than a review.

Migration order, without a rewrite
  1. Create Domain and move one pricing calculation into it, with tests.
  2. Introduce a Service for the endpoint that used it, leaving the controller
     as a thin caller.
  3. Put the first carrier behind an interface, then the second.
  4. Only then extract repositories, since that is the largest change and the
     least urgent.

The migration order is the part worth keeping. It starts with the piece that gives the most benefit per hour, pricing rules under test, and defers the repository layer because it touches everything and changes little.

Tips & Common Mistakes

• ✅ Structure matches the size of the project, not the size of the ambition.
• ✅ Dependency direction is stated and automatically enforced.
• ✅ Business rules can be tested without a database or a network.
• ✅ Boundaries exist where things actually change, not evenly everywhere.
• ✅ Framework conventions are respected unless there is a stated reason.
• ✅ Any migration has an order, starting with the highest value move.

The mistakes are consistent. Adopting a five layer structure on a project two people maintain, which produces more files than value. Renaming framework folders and losing every convention the framework gives you. Writing dependency rules that nothing enforces. Layering evenly across a codebase where only two areas actually change. And attempting the whole restructure at once, which stalls halfway and leaves two architectures in one repository.

Comparison Table

AIToolsay puts a page in front of each job that already knows the domain, so this prompt box expects a codebase description rather than an open question. The options include a style setting that decides between the textbook structure and one your team will actually keep to, and a depth dial that decides whether you get principles or file level guidance. The model selector lets a second engine propose a different shape when the first feels heavy. It is free with no account step, so comparing two structures before a decision is easy. Session history keeps both under the result while you weigh them. The rest of the architecture tooling on AIToolsay is arranged the same way, so the system design, the diagrams and the decision records around this are each a page away.

Frequently Asked Questions

Describe your codebase honestly, including the parts you are not proud of, and ask for a target plus a migration order. The first step in that order is usually something you could finish this week. The Telegram community is a reasonable place to argue about structure, and the newsletter or push notifications will let you know when new architecture tools land here.

Let AI Speak.