diff --git a/.ciagent/GRILL.md b/.ciagent/GRILL.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5a744df --- /dev/null +++ b/.ciagent/GRILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,253 @@ +# CIAgent Grill Report + +## Run: 2026-07-27 19:30 (mode: interactive, focus: all) + +### Verdict: Proceed with conditions (confidence: 0.72) + +Two escalations must be resolved before the leadership pitch: +- **G-005 (risks):** 6 cloud capabilities (CAP-017..022) are deploy-unverified. +- **G-008 (budget):** No cost documentation exists despite live AWS resources. + +The project is reclassified as an **OSS reference implementation** (G-003), +not a sponsored product. The grill's sponsor/ROI/budget/timeline axes apply +in weakened form; the adoption, architecture, and risks axes apply in full. + +### Axis 1 — Business Case +- **Q1**: What problem does this actually solve, and is that problem still the top priority? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md:3-21 (vision + North Star); G-003 reframing (OSS reference) + - Answer: ACDL is an OSS reference implementation showing the shape of an agentic cloud delivery platform. The problem (cognitive load of infra + operational work of safe change) is documented in docs/vision.md. + - Confidence: 0.85 + - Decision: G-003 — reframe as OSS reference implementation; no sponsor/ROI required. +- **Q2**: Who is the named executive sponsor, and when did they last make a decision under pressure? + - Evidence: MISSING (no named sponsor in any .ciagent/ file) + - Answer: Not applicable for an OSS reference implementation (G-003). Senior leadership requesting the pitch is interest, not sponsorship. + - Confidence: 0.85 + - Decision: G-003 (carries forward). +- **Q3**: What happens to the business if the project is cancelled? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md:6 ("0 consumer adoption"); 10 milestones shipped with no consumers + - Answer: If cancelled, no consumer loses a deployed system. The reference value (clonable shape) persists in the repo. Cancellation cost is low — consistent with OSS reference framing. + - Confidence: 0.80 + - Decision: G-003 (carries forward). +- **Q4**: Is the ROI calculated against a counterfactual? + - Evidence: MISSING (no ROI calculation anywhere) + - Answer: Not applicable for an OSS reference implementation. The bar is "is it a credible, demonstrable reference?" not "is there a paying customer?" + - Confidence: 0.85 + - Decision: G-003 (carries forward). + +### Axis 2 — Scope and Requirements +- **Q1**: Is the scope expanding, contracting, or genuinely stable? + - Evidence: ROADMAP.md (v1.0→v1.10, 55 phases); v1.7 added uptime-kuma + decommission + RDS; v1.9.x added decks; v1.10 added regression-class VERIFY + local emulators + - Answer: Expanding. The Out-of-Scope table (REQUIREMENTS.md:61-72) is scoped to v1.1 only; later milestones added scope without boundary updates. + - Confidence: 0.70 + - Decision: G-010 — OSS scope is contributor-bounded; no out-of-scope table needed. +- **Q2**: Who owns the requirements, and have they been frozen? + - Evidence: REQUIREMENTS.md (115 REQs, REQ-01..REQ-115); config.json autonomy=full + - Answer: The user owns requirements via CLARIFY auto-resolution under full autonomy. Not frozen — each milestone adds REQs. + - Confidence: 0.70 + - Decision: G-010 (carries forward). +- **Q3**: What is explicitly out of scope? + - Evidence: REQUIREMENTS.md:61-72 (v1.1 Out-of-Scope table only); PROJECT.md:42-51 (Domain Boundaries) + - Answer: Domain Boundaries section (PROJECT.md:42-51) defines durable out-of-scope: application business logic, IDE workflows, product backlog, node/OS-level compute. No per-milestone out-of-scope updates since v1.1. + - Confidence: 0.65 + - Decision: G-010 — contributor-bounded scope accepted for OSS reference. +- **Q4**: Are there hidden requirements only disclosed late in delivery? + - Evidence: v1.10 milestone (decay disclosure, PROJECT.md:59-67) — 7 adapter defects undisclosed across 8 phases + - Answer: Yes — the v1.10 decay incident is a late-disclosed hidden requirement (reproducibility). D-091 regression gate is the mitigation. + - Confidence: 0.72 + - Decision: G-007 (carries forward — milestone-level regression gate catches late-disclosed decay). + +### Axis 3 — Architecture and Technical Feasibility +- **Q1**: Has the proposed architecture been validated by the people who will build and operate it? + - Evidence: PERSONAS.md (agent personas only); ARCHITECTURE.md (29KB); no human reviewer sign-off + - Answer: Validated by the agent that built it, not by a downstream platform team. Acceptable for an OSS reference (G-002 — Platform Team joins post-clone). + - Confidence: 0.72 + - Decision: G-002 (carries forward). +- **Q2**: What is the integration surface? + - Evidence: ARCHITECTURE.md; adapters/ (terraform, wiz, kyverno, local emulators); contracts/ schema + - Answer: Contract schema (upstream) + engine adapters (downstream). Integration is bounded by the IR + PolicyCheckResult schemas. + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: (resolved by existing architecture; no new binding decision) +- **Q3**: Is there an existing system being replaced? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md:7-8 (vision: absorb cognitive load + operational work) + - Answer: ACDL replaces manual platform engineering + ticket-driven delivery. No existing system in this repo; downstream teams replace their own. + - Confidence: 0.75 + - Decision: (resolved by G-002 white-label framing) +- **Q4**: What is the technical debt being inherited, and is it budgeted for? + - Evidence: v1.10 decay (7 adapter defects); D-091 regression gate at milestone completion (not per-phase) + - Answer: Diff-scoped VERIFY debt was paid down in v1.10. Per-phase regression gap is accepted debt (G-007). + - Confidence: 0.70 + - Decision: G-007 — milestone-level regression gate is correct; inter-milestone decay is an accepted trade-off. + +### Axis 4 — People, Skills, and Organization +- **Q1**: Which 2-3 people, if they left, would the project fail? + - Evidence: PERSONAS.md (agent personas); all binding decisions made by the user (D-034, D-090, G-001..G-012) + - Answer: One person — the user. Bus factor is 1. + - Confidence: 0.82 + - Decision: G-011 — single-maintainer is normal for OSS reference; no action. +- **Q2**: Are the assigned resources actually allocated at the percentages claimed? + - Evidence: config.json (autonomy=full, max_concurrent_agents=5) + - Answer: The agent is the resource; allocation is 100% when invoked, 0% otherwise. No BAU fire-fighting claim to verify. + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: G-011 (carries forward). +- **Q3**: Is there a product owner with actual authority to prioritize? + - Evidence: config.json (autonomy=full, decision_confidence_threshold=0.6) + - Answer: The user is the product owner with absolute authority (full autonomy within user-locked constraints). + - Confidence: 0.80 + - Decision: G-011 (carries forward). +- **Q4**: Is the team building capability they don't have? + - Evidence: RESEARCH.md (101KB); local emulating adapters (Phase 53) — capability was built and proven + - Answer: No — the agent built and verified the capability. Not a prototype-hoping-to-learn scenario. + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: (resolved by existing evidence) + +### Axis 5 — Timeline and Estimates +- **Q1**: Was the deadline set before or after the scope was understood? + - Evidence: ROADMAP.md (v1.0 07-21 → v1.10 07-27, 6 days); no deadline documented anywhere + - Answer: No deadline. Milestones complete when the agent finishes committing. + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: G-006 — autonomous OSS build has no deadline; cadence is fine. +- **Q2**: What is the project's critical path? + - Evidence: MISSING (no critical path analysis) + - Answer: Not applicable — no deadline means no critical path to push. + - Confidence: 0.75 + - Decision: G-006 (carries forward). +- **Q3**: Are the estimates evidence-based? + - Evidence: MISSING (no estimates; phases complete in agent-time) + - Answer: No estimates. The cadence is a function of agent speed, not engineering sizing. + - Confidence: 0.72 + - Decision: G-006 (carries forward — acceptable for autonomous OSS reference). +- **Q4**: Is there a working definition of done? + - Evidence: VERIFY.md; AUDIT.md; 4-layer verify gate (structural, behavioral, security, quality) + - Answer: Yes — the 4-layer verify gate + regression gate (D-091) is the definition of done. "Done" is not "whatever the latest demo shows"; it is a gated, audited state. + - Confidence: 0.80 + - Decision: (resolved by existing verify gate) + +### Axis 6 — Budget and Financial Realism +- **Q1**: What percentage of the budget is already spent vs. remaining? + - Evidence: MISSING (no budget file in .ciagent/) + - Answer: Unresolved — no budget documented. + - Confidence: 0.50 + - Decision: G-008 — ESCALATION. +- **Q2**: Are there predictable cost drivers not in the original budget? + - Evidence: config.json escalation_hooks (deploy, delete_data); CAP-013..016 verified against live AWS account 581513795199 + - Answer: Yes — live AWS resources exist (S3 state, DynamoDB outbox, ECS, CloudFront). No cost driver documentation. + - Confidence: 0.60 + - Decision: G-008 (carries forward — escalation). +- **Q3**: What's the burn rate, and how long until the money runs out? + - Evidence: MISSING + - Answer: Unresolved. + - Confidence: 0.40 + - Decision: G-008 (carries forward — escalation). +- **Q4**: Is the budget contingent on something that hasn't happened yet? + - Evidence: MISSING + - Answer: Unresolved — likely contingent on the leadership pitch yielding a pilot platform team (G-001). + - Confidence: 0.55 + - Decision: G-008 (carries forward — escalation). + +### Axis 7 — Risks, Assumptions, and Dependencies +- **Q1**: What are the top 3 assumptions the plan rests on? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md:79-88 (CAP-017..022 IAM-gated); D-039 (OIDC federation deferred, blocked on go-gitea/gitea#36988); D-090 (no cap on re-verification sweep) + - Answer: (1) Terraform plan path proves deployability. (2) Local emulators prove runtime behavior. (3) Gitea OIDC will eventually merge. + - Confidence: 0.72 + - Decision: (resolved by G-005 escalation) +- **Q2**: What are you dependent on outside the team? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md:79-88 (admin principal needed for IAM re-bootstrap); go-gitea/gitea#36988 (OIDC blocker) + - Answer: An admin AWS principal (for CAP-017..022) and the Gitea OIDC PR (for D-039 waiver closure). + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: G-005 (carries forward — escalation). +- **Q3**: What is the single risk that, if it materializes, kills the project? + - Evidence: CAPABILITY_INVENTORY.md §"Cloud capabilities NOT re-verified" (6 of 22 capabilities, 27%) + - Answer: The unverifiable deploy path for CAP-017..022. If the terraform plan path does not translate to a real deploy, 27% of advertised capability is fictional. + - Confidence: 0.80 + - Decision: G-005 — ESCALATION. +- **Q4**: Have you done a pre-mortem? + - Evidence: MISSING (no pre-mortem document) + - Answer: No pre-mortem on file. The v1.10 decay incident is the closest thing to a post-mortem. + - Confidence: 0.65 + - Decision: (flagged; no binding decision — user accepted autonomous governance in G-009) + +### Axis 8 — Governance, Decision-Making, and Communication +- **Q1**: Who is the decision-maker when two executives disagree? + - Evidence: config.json (autonomy=full); no human governance body documented + - Answer: The user is the single decision-maker. No executive disagreement is possible because there is no executive body. + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: G-009 — autonomous CI is the governance. +- **Q2**: How often does governance meet, and what's the escalation pattern? + - Evidence: config.json (escalation_hooks: deploy, delete_data, merge_to_main; escalation_timeout_ms: 300000) + - Answer: Governance is event-driven (escalation hooks), not cadence-driven. 5-minute timeout. + - Confidence: 0.72 + - Decision: G-009 (carries forward). +- **Q3**: What is being omitted from the status reports? + - Evidence: v1.10 decay disclosure (PROJECT.md:59-67) — 8 phases omitted the decay from status + - Answer: The v1.10 incident is direct evidence that status reports (decks) omitted material decay. D-094 (rewrite to verified reality) is the correction. + - Confidence: 0.75 + - Decision: (resolved by D-094 + G-007 regression gate) +- **Q4**: Is there a "stop the project" trigger? + - Evidence: MISSING (no stop-trigger documented) + - Answer: No formal stop-trigger. The user is the single point of cancellation authority. + - Confidence: 0.68 + - Decision: G-009 — autonomous CI is the governance; no human stop-trigger needed. + +### Axis 9 — Change, Adoption, and Operational Readiness +- **Q1**: Who will use this, and what is in it for them? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md:6 ("0 consumer adoption"); G-001 (MVP for leadership pitch + pilot consumers) + - Answer: Pilot platform teams (post-pitch) will clone, customize, and deploy for their internal consumers. The value to them is a working reference shape. + - Confidence: 0.65 + - Decision: G-001 — feature-complete MVP for pitch + pilot consumers in parallel. +- **Q2**: Is the operations/support team involved now or being handed a finished product? + - Evidence: MISSING (no Platform Team involvement in 55 phases); G-002 (white-label, out-of-repo) + - Answer: Intentionally out-of-scope — ACDL is white-label; Platform Team customization happens outside this repo. + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: G-002 — white-label; Platform Team customization is out-of-repo. +- **Q3**: What is the rollback plan if it goes wrong? + - Evidence: D-070 (decommission mode, 2-step pipeline with HITL SRE gates) + - Answer: Decommission mode exists for deployed stacks. For the reference repo itself, rollback = git revert (no production state to roll back). + - Confidence: 0.75 + - Decision: (resolved by existing D-070 decommission mode) +- **Q4**: Has anyone validated the success criteria with the people who will judge success? + - Evidence: PROJECT.md (leadership pitch requested); no documented success-criteria validation with leadership + - Answer: The leadership pitch IS the validation moment. Success criteria for an OSS reference = "leadership says this is a credible shape." + - Confidence: 0.68 + - Decision: G-001 (carries forward — pitch is the validation). + +### Meta — Closing Review +- **Q1**: If you were the auditor, what would you flag? + - Evidence: This grill run + - Answer: (1) 6 unverifiable cloud capabilities (G-005). (2) No cost documentation (G-008). (3) Vision doc vs. OSS-reference framing tension (G-004 — resolved by keeping vision as target-state description). + - Confidence: 0.78 + - Decision: (aggregated; G-005 + G-008 are the actionable flags) +- **Q2**: What is the project not doing that it should? + - Evidence: MISSING (no pre-mortem, no cost doc, no Platform Team engagement, no stop-trigger) + - Answer: Documenting the operating model (cost, deploy verification, governance) for a downstream team. The grill surfaced this across G-005, G-008, G-009. + - Confidence: 0.75 + - Decision: (aggregated; G-005 + G-008 are the actionable items) +- **Q3**: What is the simplest possible version that could deliver 80% of the value? + - Evidence: ROADMAP.md (v1.1 spike, Phase 10, REQ-27 — core E2E proven); v1.2-v1.10 (45 phases of expansion) + - Answer: The v1.1 spike (contract → IR → terraform plan → Checkov → confidence → outbox) is the 80%-value version. The full 115-requirement build is accepted as the reference value (G-012). + - Confidence: 0.68 + - Decision: G-012 — full catalog is the value; no minimal release needed. +- **Q4**: What would have to be true for this to succeed in the next 90 days, and is it true today? + - Evidence: G-001 (pitch + pilot); G-005 (IAM re-bootstrap); G-008 (cost doc) + - Answer: (1) Leadership pitch yields a pilot platform team — NOT TRUE today (pitch not yet delivered). (2) CAP-017..022 deploy path is verifiable — NOT TRUE today (G-005 escalation). (3) Cost operating model is documented — NOT TRUE today (G-008 escalation). + - Confidence: 0.72 + - Decision: (aggregated; G-005 + G-008 + G-001 pitch are the 90-day conditions) + +### Binding Decisions +| ID | Axis | Decision | Confidence | +|----|------|----------|-----------| +| G-001 | adoption | Feature-complete MVP for leadership pitch + pilot consumers in parallel; CIAgent builds, Platform Team deploys | 0.65 | +| G-002 | adoption | ACDL is white-label; Platform Team customization is out-of-repo; resolves ops-handoff concern | 0.78 | +| G-003 | business | Reframe as OSS reference implementation; no sponsor/ROI required | 0.85 | +| G-004 | business | Keep production-deployment vision; reference describes target state | 0.75 | +| G-005 | risks | ESCALATION — re-bootstrap IAM or mark CAP-017..022 deploy-unverified in decks | 0.80 | +| G-006 | timeline | Autonomous OSS build has no deadline; cadence acceptable | 0.72 | +| G-007 | architecture | Milestone-level regression gate is correct; system worked as designed | 0.70 | +| G-008 | budget | ESCALATION — add COST.md or document zero-cloud-cost operating model | 0.74 | +| G-009 | governance | Autonomous CI is the governance; no human stop-trigger needed | 0.68 | +| G-010 | scope | OSS scope is contributor-bounded; no out-of-scope table needed | 0.65 | +| G-011 | people | Single-maintainer is normal for OSS reference; no action | 0.70 | +| G-012 | meta | Full catalog is the value; no minimal release needed | 0.68 | + +### Escalations +- **[G-005] risks** — 6 cloud capabilities (CAP-017..022: DynamoDB contracts table, Lambda contract-ingestor, ECS service live, CloudFront production stack, uptime-kuma, OIDC role) are deploy-unverified. The `acdl-spike-runner` IAM user cannot fix its own IAM (chicken-and-egg). Either re-bootstrap IAM with an admin principal to re-verify, or explicitly mark these 6 as "design-verified, deploy-unverified" in every leadership deck before the pitch. Resolves: project-killing risk (Axis 7 Q3). +- **[G-008] budget** — No cost documentation exists in `.ciagent/` despite live AWS resources (account 581513795199, CAP-013..016 verified). Either add a `COST.md` documenting monthly AWS spend, or explicitly document that ACDL runs at zero cloud cost (local emulators are the primary tier; live-AWS is a one-off spike per milestone). Resolves: financial-control gap (Axis 6 Q1-Q4).