Files

T

Jon Chery e044a2de0d phase: 6, status: plan-as-execute, persona: lead-developer, task: T-6.1..T-6.4

---ci---
project: acdl
phase: 6
milestone: v1.1
status: plan-as-execute
persona: lead-developer
tasks: [T-6.1, T-6.2, T-6.3, T-6.4]
---/ci---

Archive the v1.0 demo under demo/ (D-037) and reorient the repo to the
real platform. Wave 1 of the Phase 06 plan.

- T-6.1: git mv modules/, scripts/, evidence-ui/, contracts/,
  contracts-repo/, .gitea/ -> demo/; mv ACDL_DEMO.md + runner-data/ -> demo/
- T-6.2: scaffold new v1.1 top-level dirs (platform/, schemas/, adapters/,
  terraform/, modules-ir/) with .gitkeep
- T-6.3: create top-level scripts/verify_phase06.sh (v1.1 verify scripts
  live at top-level, NOT demo/scripts/ which holds the v1.0 demo verify
  scripts)
- T-6.4: rewrite README.md to reflect the real platform (vision +
  architecture links, new layout, status v1.1 active); add runner-data/
  to .gitignore

All moves via git mv (history preserved). Repo root now contains only
README.md, demo/, docs/, .ciagent/, and the new empty v1.1 dirs.

2026-07-21 18:27:21 +00:00

11 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History

marp, theme, paginate, size, header, footer, style

marp	theme	paginate	size	header	footer	style
true	default	true	16:9	ACDL · Agentic Cloud Delivery Platform	Executive Demo · v1.0	/* S&P Global-inspired palette */ :root { --sp-red: #C8102E; --sp-red-dark: #8E0B20; --sp-ink: #1A1A1A; --sp-slate: #4A4A4A; --sp-gray: #6E6E6E; --sp-line: #D6D6D6; --sp-bg: #FFFFFF; --sp-tint: #F4F4F4; } section { font-size: 24px; color: var(--sp-ink); background: var(--sp-bg); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; padding: 50px 60px; } section.title { text-align: center; background: var(--sp-red); color: #FFFFFF; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: center; } section.title h1 { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 64px; margin-bottom: 0; border: none; } section.title h2 { color: #FFFFFF; border: none; font-weight: 400; } section.title strong { color: #FFFFFF; } h1 { color: var(--sp-red); font-size: 40px; font-weight: 700; margin-bottom: 12px; } h2 { color: var(--sp-red); border-bottom: 3px solid var(--sp-red); padding-bottom: 6px; font-weight: 700; } h3 { color: var(--sp-red-dark); font-weight: 600; margin-top: 24px; } ul, ol { color: var(--sp-slate); } li { margin-bottom: 6px; } strong { color: var(--sp-ink); } table { font-size: 18px; width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 12px 0; } th { background: var(--sp-red); color: #FFFFFF; text-align: left; padding: 10px 12px; font-weight: 600; border: 1px solid var(--sp-red-dark); } td { padding: 8px 12px; border: 1px solid var(--sp-line); color: var(--sp-slate); } tr:nth-child(even) td { background: var(--sp-tint); } pre { font-size: 13px; background: var(--sp-tint); border-left: 4px solid var(--sp-red); padding: 14px 16px; border-radius: 0; color: var(--sp-ink); } code { background: var(--sp-tint); color: var(--sp-red-dark); padding: 1px 5px; border-radius: 2px; font-family: 'Menlo', 'Consolas', monospace; } pre code { background: none; color: var(--sp-ink); padding: 0; } blockquote { border-left: 5px solid var(--sp-red); background: var(--sp-tint); padding: 10px 16px; color: var(--sp-slate); font-style: italic; border-radius: 0; } header { color: var(--sp-red); font-weight: 700; font-size: 14px; } footer { color: var(--sp-gray); font-size: 12px; } section::after { color: var(--sp-red); font-weight: 700; }

ACDL

Agentic Cloud Delivery Platform

Automatic. Safe. Audited. — in 30 minutes, on stubs.

v1.0 · GitHub Actions · stub-driven

The Problem

Today, deploying infrastructure takes weeks

Ticket → triage queue → copy-paste config → peer review → security review → waiting for central IT to release

Two weeks of human latency for a service that should take minutes.

What we want instead

Developer commits a contract → pipeline runs
Safety computed automatically (confidence signal)
Manual gates only where they matter (QA, Prod)
Every step written to a tamper-evident evidence stream

How It Works

              ┌────────────── acdl-contracts ──────────────┐
 Developer ──▶│ commit contract.yaml                     │
              └───────┬───────────────────────────────────┘
                      │ (push)
 Citizen    ┌─────────┴──────────┐
  │ "ingest gas pricing into data lake"
  ▼
 Claude agent ──▶ contract.yaml ─┘
                      │ (push)
                      ▼
            ┌─────────────────┐
            │ reusable         │
            │ GitHub Actions   │
            │ pipeline         │
            └────────┬────────┘
                     │
       ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
       ▼             ▼             ▼
 Dev (auto)   QA (approval)   Prod (approval)
       │
       ▼
 evidence_writer ─▶ audit.json (hash-chained) ─▶ Pages timeline

Two entry paths, one pipeline, one audit trail — developer via GitHub, citizen developer via their own Claude agent.

The Safety Story

Computed, not requested

Signal	Behavior
Base confidence	0.90
On policy violation	drop to 0.40 + reason code
Gate threshold	≥ 0.50 to proceed past Dev

Policy (v1)

public-ingress: true → POLICY_VIOLATION:PUBLIC_INGRESS

Evidence

Each event appended to audit.json with SHA-256 link to previous (prev_hash + hash)
Published to Pages → vanilla-JS timeline

Scenario 1 — Developer Self-Service

Trigger

Developer commits a valid contract.yaml requesting l2-commodity-price-feed via GitHub.

What you'll see

Dev: policy ✅ → apply api-gateway, lambda, s3 → confidence 0.90 → proceed
QA: pipeline pauses → click Approve
Prod: pipeline pauses → click Approve
Finalize: audit.json committed → Pages timeline updates

Evidence outcome

Timeline shows: contract received → policy pass → apply × 3 → confidence 0.90 → QA → Prod → published.

Scenario 1 — Journey

flowchart LR
  classDef gh fill:#F4F4F4,stroke:#1A1A1A,stroke-width:2px,color:#1A1A1A
  classDef stage fill:#C8102E,stroke:#8E0B20,stroke-width:1px,color:#FFFFFF
  classDef gate fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#1A1A1A,stroke-width:2px,color:#1A1A1A
  classDef evidence fill:#F4F4F4,stroke:#C8102E,stroke-width:1px,color:#1A1A1A

  D["Developer"]:::gh -->|"writes contract.yaml"| GH["GitHub<br/>acdl-contracts"]:::gh
  GH -->|"push triggers<br/>GitHub Action"| DEV["Dev<br/>(autonomous)"]:::stage
  DEV -->|"policy ✅ · confidence 0.90"| QA["QA<br/>approval gate"]:::gate
  QA -->|"approve"| PROD["Prod<br/>approval gate"]:::gate
  PROD -->|"approve"| FIN["Finalize<br/>commit audit.json"]:::stage
  FIN --> TL["GitHub Pages<br/>timeline"]:::evidence

Scenario 2 — Citizen Developer

Trigger

Non-technical user prompts their own Claude agent in natural language:

"I need a new service to ingest real-time natural gas pricing data into our data lake."

What you'll see

Claude agent parses intent, writes contract.yaml for l2-commodity-price-feed, pushes a branch
Issue closed; branch push triggers the identical pipeline from Scenario 1
Citizen developer follows the run all the way to Prod

Evidence outcome

Timeline is indistinguishable from Scenario 1 — the agentic surface is first-class, not a bolt-on.

Scenario 2 — Journey

flowchart LR
  classDef cit fill:#F4F4F4,stroke:#C8102E,stroke-width:2px,color:#1A1A1A
  classDef agent fill:#C8102E,stroke:#8E0B20,stroke-width:1px,color:#FFFFFF
  classDef stage fill:#1A1A1A,stroke:#1A1A1A,stroke-width:1px,color:#FFFFFF
  classDef gate fill:#FFFFFF,stroke:#1A1A1A,stroke-width:2px,color:#1A1A1A
  classDef evidence fill:#F4F4F4,stroke:#C8102E,stroke-width:1px,color:#1A1A1A

  CD["Citizen developer"]:::cit -->|"natural-language<br/>prompt"| CL["Claude agent<br/>(citizen-owned)"]:::agent
  CL -->|"generates<br/>contract.yaml"| GH["GitHub<br/>acdl-contracts"]:::cit
  GH -->|"push triggers<br/>GitHub Action"| DEV["Dev<br/>(autonomous)"]:::stage
  DEV -->|"policy ✅ · confidence 0.90"| QA["QA<br/>approval gate"]:::gate
  QA -->|"approve"| PROD["Prod<br/>approval gate"]:::gate
  PROD -->|"approve"| FIN["Finalize<br/>commit audit.json"]:::stage
  FIN --> TL["GitHub Pages<br/>timeline"]:::evidence

Scenario 3 — The Safety Net

Trigger

Developer commits a malicious contract.yaml for l2-regulatory-reporting via GitHub:

stack: l2-regulatory-reporting
public-ingress: true

What you'll see

Dev: policy_checker → POLICY_VIOLATION:PUBLIC_INGRESS
confidence_signal drops 0.90 → 0.40
0.40 < 0.50 → pipeline halts in Dev
Rejection reason written to the evidence stream

Evidence outcome

Timeline shows the attempted deploy, the violation, the confidence drop, and the halt — visible and explained.

Scenario 3 — Journey

flowchart LR
  classDef gh fill:#F4F4F4,stroke:#1A1A1A,stroke-width:2px,color:#1A1A1A
  classDef stage fill:#C8102E,stroke:#8E0B20,stroke-width:1px,color:#FFFFFF
  classDef halt fill:#1A1A1A,stroke:#1A1A1A,stroke-width:1px,color:#FFFFFF
  classDef evidence fill:#F4F4F4,stroke:#C8102E,stroke-width:1px,color:#1A1A1A

  D["Developer"]:::gh -->|"writes malicious<br/>contract.yaml"| GH["GitHub<br/>acdl-contracts"]:::gh
  GH -->|"push triggers<br/>GitHub Action"| DEV["Dev<br/>(autonomous)"]:::stage
  DEV -->|"POLICY_VIOLATION:PUBLIC_INGRESS<br/>confidence 0.90 → 0.40"| HALT["Halt in Dev<br/>+ rejection reason"]:::halt
  HALT --> TL["GitHub Pages<br/>timeline"]:::evidence

11 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History Unescape Escape

ACDL

Agentic Cloud Delivery Platform

The Problem

Today, deploying infrastructure takes weeks

What we want instead

How It Works

The Safety Story

Computed, not requested

Policy (v1)

Evidence

Scenario 1 — Developer Self-Service

Trigger

What you'll see

Evidence outcome

Scenario 1 — Journey

Scenario 2 — Citizen Developer

Trigger

What you'll see

Evidence outcome

Scenario 2 — Journey

Scenario 3 — The Safety Net

Trigger

What you'll see

Evidence outcome

Scenario 3 — Journey

11 KiB

Raw Permalink Blame History