Compare commits
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
 Jon Chery
|
b7da50f56e | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
5335ffa3b8 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
9db0df126c | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
d1aa5daf2b |
@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"phase": 2,
|
||||
"stage": "execute",
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.2",
|
||||
"phase_role": "execution",
|
||||
"phase": 0,
|
||||
"stage": "clarify",
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.3",
|
||||
"phase_role": "pre_execution",
|
||||
"project": "atelier",
|
||||
"attempts": 0,
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-05T02:10:00Z",
|
||||
"milestone_complete": false
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-05T03:08:00Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -12,7 +12,11 @@ atelier/
|
||||
├── domains/ # Domain-specific application of core
|
||||
│ ├── ... (v0.1: 11 domains)
|
||||
│ ├── infrastructure-as-code/ # v0.2: IaC tooling (terraform, opentofu, state, modules)
|
||||
│ └── kubernetes/ # v0.2: k8s platform (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize)
|
||||
│ ├── kubernetes/ # v0.2: k8s platform (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize)
|
||||
│ ├── gitops-operators/ # v0.3: GitOps + Operators (argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery)
|
||||
│ ├── ai-ml/ # v0.3: ML engineering (data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift)
|
||||
│ ├── i18n/ # v0.3: internationalization (locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n)
|
||||
│ └── compliance/ # v0.3: compliance/audit (audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence)
|
||||
├── languages/ # Language-specific application of domains
|
||||
├── review/ # Evaluation checklists and anti-patterns
|
||||
├── matrix/ # Cross-reference: domain ↔ core
|
||||
@@ -80,4 +84,26 @@ Two new top-level domains extend the tree under the same hierarchy rules:
|
||||
|
||||
Both domains follow the v0.1 contract: 10 P-rules each, every rule traced to a core C-rule via the matrix, no orphans. The manifest (`MANIFEST.md`) is extended to keep them authoritative. No runtime code — examples are illustrative markdown with manifests in code fences only.
|
||||
|
||||
See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` for the full prior-art survey and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the persona roster (3 custom active personas + 1 phase-specific platform-engineer; 3 default personas deactivated).
|
||||
See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` for the full prior-art survey and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the persona roster (3 custom active personas + 1 phase-specific platform-engineer; 3 default personas deactivated).
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Domain Additions
|
||||
|
||||
Four new top-level domains extend the tree under the same hierarchy rules. All four follow the v0.1/v0.2 contract: 10 P-rules each, every rule traced to a core C-rule via the matrix, no orphans, docs-only markdown with illustrative code fences (no runtime/deployable artifacts). Total matrix grows from 130 → 170 domain principles across 13 → 17 domains.
|
||||
|
||||
- **`gitops-operators/`** — platform-automation domain. First principles govern the declarative-source-of-truth reconciliation loop shared by ArgoCD, Flux, Kubernetes Operators, and Progressive Delivery tooling (Argo Rollouts, Flagger). Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `kubernetes/` (workloads, rbac, helm, kustomize — the platform GitOps reconciles onto), `infrastructure-as-code/` (declarative intent, state-as-truth — the shared model), `devops/` (P1 Reproducibility, P4 Rollback First, P5 Progressive Delivery, P6 Configuration as Code), `security/` (secrets, supply-chain — GitOps credentials, signed manifests), `observability/` (reconciliation metrics, drift visibility). Derived docs: `argocd.md`, `flux.md`, `operators.md`, `progressive-delivery.md`.
|
||||
- **`ai-ml/`** — ML engineering domain (engineering discipline, NOT algorithm design per D-023). First principles govern data versioning, model evaluation, serving, and monitoring/drift. Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `data/` (schema-design, migrations, indexing — data lineage and versioning share the migration/reversibility model), `observability/` (metrics, tracing — model serving metrics, drift signals), `devops/` (P1 Reproducibility — training/serving reproducibility, P7 Immutability — model images), `security/` (input-validation — inference input validation, secrets — model/serving credentials), `performance/` (backend — serving latency). Derived docs: `data-versioning.md`, `model-evaluation.md`, `serving.md`, `monitoring-drift.md`.
|
||||
- **`i18n/`** — internationalization domain. First principles govern locale resources, formatting, RTL/bidi layout, and testing. Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `uiux/` (components, accessibility, copywriting — locale-aware UI is the consumer), `testing/` (fixtures, pyramid — i18n testing parallels), `api/` (error-responses — localized API errors), `data/` (schema-design — locale data shapes). Derived docs: `locale-resources.md`, `formatting.md`, `rtl-bidi.md`, `testing-i18n.md`.
|
||||
- **`compliance/`** — compliance/audit domain (framework-agnostic, NOT regulation-specific per D-024). First principles govern audit logs, data retention, policy-as-code, and evidence collection. Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `security/` (authorization — who did what, secrets — audit log integrity, supply-chain — signed policy), `observability/` (logging, metrics — audit logs are a structured-logging concern, tracing — evidence from distributed traces), `data/` (schema-design, migrations — retention schema), `infrastructure-as-code/` (policy-as-code parallels IaC declarative intent), `kubernetes/` (rbac — audit subject identity). Derived docs: `audit-logs.md`, `data-retention.md`, `policy-as-code.md`, `evidence.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
All four domains depend on `core/` only for authority; cross-links to existing domains are one-directional (per v0.2 D-026 convention extended to v0.3 — minimize churn to existing content). The manifest (`MANIFEST.md`) is extended in P4 to list all new documents. Examples (P5) are illustrative markdown with fenced code only — no `.yaml`, `.json`, `.po`, model artifacts, or deployable manifests as standalone files.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Ideation Architectural Notes
|
||||
|
||||
From the v0.3 ideation stage (IDEATE-17..30), the following architectural refinements are baked into the execute-phase plan:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Manifest scope expansion (IDEATE-17 → ATELIER-91):** the v0.2 audit escalation (ESC-002 note) flagged that `examples/` is not listed in `MANIFEST.md`. P4 adds an `examples/` directory listing to the manifest, closing the pre-existing drift. The manifest remains authoritative; unlisted directories are not part of the framework by definition.
|
||||
- **Matrix coverage summary invariants (IDEATE-18 → ATELIER-80):** the matrix coverage summary must reflect post-v0.3 totals (17 domains, 170 P-rules) — both the summary block and the per-domain section count.
|
||||
- **Core Principle Coverage table (IDEATE-19 → ATELIER-81):** `matrix/domain-coverage.md` contains two tables — the per-domain row schema table (covered by v0.2 IDEATE-03) AND the "Core Principle Coverage" table mapping C1–C8 → domains. Both must be extended for the 4 new domains; the C-rule counts shift (e.g., C4 Locality adds i18n + gitops; C5 Reversibility adds ai-ml + compliance + gitops + i18n).
|
||||
- **Cross-link type unchanged:** v0.3 introduces no new cross-link type. All cross-links remain one-directional outward from new domains to existing (D-033). No back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content.
|
||||
|
||||
See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` "v0.3 Research" for the full prior-art survey and principle inventory rationale, and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the v0.3 persona roster (5 active: lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert + 2 phase-specific platform-engineer, ml-engineer; 3 default personas deactivated).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
||||
# Atelier — v0.2 Post-Sync Audit (Re-audit)
|
||||
|
||||
> Re-audit of milestone v0.2 after upstream sync (main + tags pushed to origin).
|
||||
> Triggered by user observation that v0.2 releases existed but code/tags were not pushed to remote main.
|
||||
> This audit verifies the now-synced state is clean.
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
During the original v0.2 run, `git push origin main --tags` failed because git-over-HTTPS required username/password auth and only `GITEA_API_TOKEN` (API token) was available. The Gitea releases (462–467) were created via the API, but the local merge commits and tags never reached the remote. This re-audit was requested after the fix.
|
||||
|
||||
### Fix Applied
|
||||
|
||||
- Configured `git config --local http.https://git.cloudinit.dev/.extraheader "Authorization: token $GITEA_API_TOKEN"` to authenticate git transport with the API token.
|
||||
- Pushed `main`: `89d5668..9db0df1 main -> main` (success).
|
||||
- Force-updated remote tags `v0.1.0`–`v0.1.5` (they previously existed but pointed at the stale `milestone/v0.1-atelier` tip `5f522962`; now point at the correct v0.2 phase commits).
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit Results
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Reconstruction test — PASS
|
||||
- `origin/main` now contains the 2 v0.2 squash-merge commits (`d1aa5da` milestone merge, `9db0df1` milestone completion). Phase history preserved via tags.
|
||||
- `REQUIREMENTS.md`: 59 requirements marked `covered`, 0 `pending` (matches 24 v0.2 + 35 v0.1).
|
||||
- `ROADMAP.md`: `v0.2 — ... (COMPLETE)`.
|
||||
- `config.json`: project status `complete`.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Branch hygiene — PASS
|
||||
- Only `main` branch exists locally; no leftover v0.2 phase/milestone branches.
|
||||
- Remote: `main` + `milestone/v0.1-atelier` (the v0.1 milestone branch, untouched — preserved as history).
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Commit discipline — PASS
|
||||
- All 2 v0.2 commits on main contain `---ci---` blocks (squash-merge structure means main sees 1 commit per phase-merge + 1 milestone-completion commit; full per-phase history in tags).
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. File discipline — PASS
|
||||
- `.ciagent/atelier/` contains all required files: PROJECT, ROADMAP, REQUIREMENTS, ARCHITECTURE, PERSONAS, PLAN, RESEARCH, CLARIFY, REVIEW-P5.
|
||||
- v0.1 legacy files (AUDIT-P2, REVIEW-P7) preserved — harmless history.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Tag sequence — PASS (local ↔ remote aligned)
|
||||
- All 15 tags (v0.0.0–v0.0.7, v0.1.0–v0.1.5) present on both local and remote.
|
||||
- All annotated tags dereference to identical commits on both sides.
|
||||
- v0.0.x tags untouched (point to v0.1 milestone commits). v0.1.x tags now point to correct v0.2 phase commits (v0.1.0=P0, v0.1.1=P1, ..., v0.1.5=P5=milestone release).
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Manifest discipline — PASS (with noted convention)
|
||||
- All 12 new v0.2 domain docs (infrastructure-as-code/*, kubernetes/*) listed in MANIFEST Domains table.
|
||||
- matrix, agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns all listed in Cross-Cutting.
|
||||
- **Convention note (P1, pre-existing):** examples/ (both v0.1 and v0.2) are not individually listed in MANIFEST. The manifest's own rule states "unlisted = not part of the framework," yet examples are unlisted by convention across both milestones. This is a latent inconsistency, not a v0.2 regression. Candidate for v0.3 ideation: add an Examples section to MANIFEST, or amend the rule to scope it to Core/Domains/Cross-Cutting.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Remote releases — PASS
|
||||
- 6 v0.2 releases exist on Gitea (ids 462–467, tags v0.1.0–v0.1.5).
|
||||
- v0.1 releases intact (ids 454–461, tags v0.0.0–v0.0.7, with v0.0.7 = the v0.1 milestone release).
|
||||
- Total: 14 releases across both milestones.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Structural verification (remote main) — PASS
|
||||
- IaC first-principles: 10 P-rules ✓
|
||||
- K8s first-principles: 10 P-rules ✓
|
||||
- Matrix: 130 total P-rule rows across 13 domains + coverage summary (14 sections) ✓
|
||||
- IaC matrix rows: 10 ✓; K8s matrix rows: 10 ✓
|
||||
- IaC derived docs: 4 (terraform, opentofu, state, modules) ✓
|
||||
- K8s derived docs: 6 (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize) ✓
|
||||
- v0.2 examples: 4 (terraform-module, k8s-deployment, terraform-unlocked-state, k8s-bare-pod-no-resources) ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Security (docs-only constraint) — PASS
|
||||
- No standalone `.tf`, `.yaml`, `.yml`, `.sh` files in the repo — docs-only constraint preserved.
|
||||
- All code is fenced within `.md` files.
|
||||
|
||||
### 10. Requirements traceability — PASS
|
||||
- 59 covered, 0 pending (24 v0.2 + 35 v0.1).
|
||||
|
||||
## Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
**AUDIT CLEAN.** No critical (P0) issues. One P1 convention note (examples not in MANIFEST — pre-existing, candidate for v0.3 ideation). The upstream sync fixed the v0.2 release/push gap: remote main, all 15 tags, and all 6 Gitea releases are now consistent and correct.
|
||||
|
||||
## Escalation Log
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Issue | Resolution | Type |
|
||||
|----|-------|-----------|------|
|
||||
| ESC-001 | v0.2 main + tags not pushed to remote (git transport auth) | Configured http.extraheader with GITEA_API_TOKEN; pushed main + force-updated tags | auto-resolved |
|
||||
| ESC-002 | Remote v0.1.x tags pointed to stale milestone/v0.1-atelier tip | Force-updated all 6 v0.1.x tags to correct v0.2 phase commits | auto-resolved |
|
||||
|
||||
Both escalations auto-resolved at full autonomy. No pipeline halt.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
|
||||
# Atelier — Grill (Adversarial Red-Team Review)
|
||||
|
||||
> Pre-execution gate for milestone v0.3 (GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance).
|
||||
> Default assumption: the project is unfeasible, over-scoped, and too costly. Not convinced until evidence forces it.
|
||||
> Mode: full autonomy. Auto-resolve at confidence ≥ 0.60; escalate only < 0.60 that cannot be auto-resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Grill — 2026-08-05
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone:** v0.3 — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
|
||||
**Phase:** 0 (Pre-Execution, GRILL stage)
|
||||
**Grill scope:** all 9 axes + meta
|
||||
**Prior grill runs:** none (v0.1/v0.2 P0 stages did not include a GRILL stage; this is the first)
|
||||
|
||||
### Verdict: **PROCEED** (confidence 0.80)
|
||||
|
||||
The project is ambitious but deliberately bounded. Scope has been trimmed in three places (D-023 AI/ML engineering-only, D-024 compliance framework-agnostic, D-025 2+2 examples). Two prior milestones (v0.1: 35 reqs, v0.2: 24 reqs) shipped clean with the same docs-only NFR structure. The 4-domain scope is the largest single milestone yet, but per-phase derived-doc counts (P1: 4, P2: 4, P3: 8) are lower than v0.1's P3 (27 derived docs in one phase). Traceability verification is explicit (P4 matrix row-count test: 10 × 17 = 170; P5 cross-link audit). The one residual risk — P3 i18n/compliance content authored without specialist personas — is bounded by RESEARCH.md prior-art depth and P6 domain-expert review, with rework being cheap (markdown edits).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 1 — The Business Case Itself
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 1.1 | What problem does this solve, and is it still the top priority? | RESEARCH.md: "Atelier's differentiation: traceable principle hierarchy with a join table. Existing frameworks state principles; none provide a matrix mapping every domain rule back to a core rule." v0.1/v0.2 shipped (59 reqs covered). | A first-principles engineering framework with a traceable principle matrix — the join table is the unique value. v0.3 extends the domain catalog (GitOps, AI/ML, i18n, compliance) that v0.2 deferred (IDEATE-15/16). Still the top priority: the 4 domains were explicitly deferred to v0.3, not abandoned. | 0.78 |
|
||||
| 1.2 | Who is the named executive sponsor, and when did they last decide under pressure? | git log: all commits by Jon Chery (jchery@jccapital.xyz). config.json autonomy: "full". | Single-owner project. The "sponsor" is the owner-operator. The last decision under pressure: v0.2 ESC-001/ESC-002 (git transport auth failure, stale tags) — resolved at full autonomy (AUDIT-P5-resync.md). Not a committee-driven project; no sponsor-stall risk. | 0.80 |
|
||||
| 1.3 | What happens to the business if the project is cancelled? | PROJECT.md objective; MANIFEST.md current state (13 domains, 130 P-rules post-v0.2). | The framework remains at v0.2 (13 domains). The 4 deferred domains (GitOps, AI/ML, i18n, compliance) stay deferred — a 2x deferral that risks zombie status. Cancellation is worse than proceeding: the deferral was already made once. | 0.82 |
|
||||
| 1.4 | Is the ROI calculated against a counterfactual? | N/A — docs-only project, no monetary budget. Cost = agent tokens + time. | The counterfactual is "agents and humans have no canonical principle reference for GitOps/AI-ML/i18n/compliance." The ROI is framework coverage. Two prior milestones validated the cost model (docs-only, no infra). | 0.75 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 1 confidence: 0.79.** No challenges. Auto-resolve.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 2 — Scope and Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 2.1 | Is the scope expanding, contracting, or stable? | PROJECT.md D-016 (4 domains grouped to limit release overhead), D-023 (AI/ML = engineering discipline, NOT algorithm design), D-024 (compliance framework-agnostic, NOT regulation-specific), D-025 (2+2 examples, not 4+4). | Scope is **expanding** (4 new domains, the largest milestone yet) but **deliberately trimmed** in three places. D-023/D-024/D-025 are scope-discipline decisions, not scope-creep. The trims reduce the surface from a hypothetical 4+4 examples + regulation-specific compliance docs + algorithm-design AI/ML to a bounded 2+2 + framework-agnostic + engineering-only. | 0.80 |
|
||||
| 2.2 | Who owns the requirements, and are they frozen? | REQUIREMENTS.md ATELIER-60..91 (32 reqs, all pending). Traceability matrix maps phases→reqs. Ideation log (IDEATE-17..30) shows 14 accepted, 0 deferred, 0 rejected. | Requirements are frozen post-ideation. 32 reqs across 6 phases. The ideation stage closed with 0 deferred — everything generated is in v0.3 scope. No moving targets. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 2.3 | What is explicitly out of scope? | PROJECT.md lines 49-55: tooling/linters, translation of framework docs, agent integration adapters, per-domain release artifacts, runtime code. D-023: algorithm/model design. D-024: regulation-specific compliance docs. | Out of scope is explicit and enumerated: no runtime code, no tooling, no translation, no regulation-specific docs, no algorithm design. The scope boundary is answerable — not infinite. | 0.88 |
|
||||
| 2.4 | Are there hidden requirements disclosed late? | RESEARCH.md: ai-ml cross-links to data/ (schema, migrations) but D-023 scopes AI/ML to engineering discipline, not data engineering. PERSONAS.md: data-engineer explicitly inactive ("No database, schema, or migrations in this docs-only project"). | No hidden requirements detected. AI/ML does NOT imply a data-engineer persona — D-023's engineering-discipline scope excludes data engineering (schema/ETL/pipelines). The cross-link to data/ is a reference, not a duplication. | 0.85 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 2 confidence: 0.84.** Challenge: is 4-domain scope too ambitious for one milestone? → Auto-resolved (G-001). Challenge: hidden data-engineer persona requirement? → Auto-resolved (G-008).
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 3 — Architecture and Technical Feasibility
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 3.1 | Has the architecture been validated by builders, not just sellers? | RESEARCH.md: prior-art surveys for all 4 domains (OpenGitOps Principles v1.0.0, Sculley "Hidden Technical Debt", ICU/CLDR/BCP 47, NIST/SOC2/OPA). ARCHITECTURE.md: v0.3 domain additions section with cross-link map. | The architecture (hierarchical doc tree + matrix join table) is validated by 2 prior shipped milestones. The 4 new domains follow the same v0.1/v0.2 contract: 10 P-rules each, trace to ≥1 C-rule, docs-only. RESEARCH.md pre-maps all 40 P-rules to C-rules before execution. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 3.2 | What is the integration surface? | ARCHITECTURE.md: cross-links one-directional (D-033). RESEARCH.md: gitops→6 domains, ai-ml→6 domains, i18n→4 domains, compliance→6 domains. D-033: no back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content. | The integration surface is cross-links only — one-directional outward from new domains to existing. No back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content (D-033). This minimizes churn. Every new derived doc requires ≥1 outbound cross-link (ATELIER-88, verified in P5). | 0.86 |
|
||||
| 3.3 | Is there an existing system being replaced? What is the data volume? | MANIFEST.md: 13 domains, 130 P-rules post-v0.2. matrix/principles-matrix.md: 212 lines, 13 domain sections. | No system is replaced — the framework is extended. Matrix grows 130→170 P-rules. At 170 rows, the matrix is a large but single readable markdown file. domain-coverage.md provides the C-rule→domains navigation view. The matrix is the arbiter; its size is linear with domains. | 0.84 |
|
||||
| 3.4 | What technical debt is inherited? | AUDIT-P5-resync.md §6: "examples/ not in MANIFEST — pre-existing, candidate for v0.3." ATELIER-91, D-035: add examples/ listing to MANIFEST in P4. | One piece of inherited debt: examples/ unlisted in MANIFEST (ESC-002 convention note from v0.2 audit). v0.3 closes this explicitly (ATELIER-91, D-035, task 04-02-05). No other drift identified (A-001, confidence 0.85). | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 3.5 | Compliance has NO C4 (Locality) trace (D-032) — is that an architectural smell? | RESEARCH.md D-032: "compliance is inherently cross-cutting, not local." Compliance P-rules trace to C1,C2,C3,C5,C6,C7,C8 (7 of 8). Alternative considered: "force C4 via audit-log locality" — rejected. | **Not a smell.** C4 (Locality) is about keeping concerns local to their context. Compliance is the opposite — it is inherently system-wide (audit logs span the whole system, retention policy is global, evidence is cross-cutting). Forcing a C4 trace would be a false derivation. D-032's rationale is architecturally sound: the absence reflects the domain's nature, not a gap. | 0.82 |
|
||||
| 3.6 | Is the docs-only constraint (D-020) defensible at 17 domains? | PROJECT.md constraint: "no runtime code." MANIFEST.md is the authoritative index. ARCHITECTURE.md: reading-order guides consumption. matrix/principles-matrix.md is the join table. | **More defensible at 17 domains, not less.** The docs-only constraint is what makes the framework scalable: no runtime complexity, no integration surface, no deployment, no build step. At 17 domains, the MANIFEST + reading-order + matrix make the tree navigable. The framework's value (traceable hierarchy) scales linearly — more domains = more value, as long as traceability holds. A build step or runtime would violate docs-as-code simplicity and add the exact integration surface the framework avoids. | 0.88 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 3 confidence: 0.85.** Challenges: C4 gap (G-006), docs-only at 17 domains (G-007), matrix orphan risk (G-003), manifest drift (G-011). All auto-resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 4 — People, Skills, and Organization
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 4.1 | Which 2-3 people, if they left, would the project fail? | PERSONAS.md: 5 active personas (lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert + 2 phase-specific: platform-engineer, ml-engineer). D-051: ml-engineer constraints baked into P5 task must-have. | In an AI-agent docs project, "personas" are constraint sets, not human employees. The key-person risk is lower than in runtime projects. D-051 ensures ml-engineer constraints survive into P5 (examples) even though the persona is removed after P2. The constraint is baked into the task must-have, not the persona's continued presence. | 0.80 |
|
||||
| 4.2 | Are resources allocated at the claimed percentages? | config.json: max_concurrent_agents=5. PLAN.md: P3 Wave 2 splits 8 tasks into 2a/2b, capped at 5 concurrent (D-049). | Allocation is mechanical — the executor schedules ≤5 concurrent per config.json. P3's 8 derived docs run as 5-then-3 (A-003, confidence 0.90). P4 runs exactly 5 concurrent (D-050). No "in name only" allocation — this is agent execution, not human BAU fire-fighting. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 4.3 | Is there a product owner with actual authority? | git log: single author (Jon Chery). config.json autonomy: "full". PROJECT.md: D-001..D-053 decision table. | Single owner-operator with full autonomy. No committee. Decisions are transparent (D-001..D-053 with confidence scores). Authority is unambiguous. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 4.4 | Is the team building capability they don't have? | PERSONAS.md: P3 (i18n + compliance) authored by tech-writer + domain-expert — NO specialist persona (D-022). RESEARCH.md: i18n covers ICU/CLDR, BCP 47, UAX #9 bidi algorithm; compliance covers OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel, Cosign/in-toto. | **This is the most material risk.** P3's i18n (RTL/bidi, UAX #9) and compliance (policy-as-code engine semantics) have genuine specialist depth. The tech-writer persona authored v0.1's security/data/concurrency domains without specialists and shipped clean — but those are more universally known than bidi algorithms and Rego semantics. **Mitigation:** RESEARCH.md provides thorough prior-art surveys with specific source citations (unicode.org, W3C i18n WG, openpolicyagent.org, kyverno.io). The P6 review includes domain-expert validation. Rework, if needed, is bounded (markdown edits, not infrastructure). **Assumption logged (A-006):** i18n RTL/bidi and compliance policy-as-code content correctness depends on RESEARCH.md prior-art quality + P6 review, not on a specialist persona. | 0.72 |
|
||||
| 4.5 | Are the phase-specific personas (platform-engineer, ml-engineer) a key-person risk? | PERSONAS.md: both are phase-specific, removed post-v0.3. D-027: platform-engineer reused/extended from v0.2. D-028: ml-engineer new. D-051: constraints baked into task must-haves. D-052: both review their content in P6 before removal. | **Not a key-person risk.** Personas are constraint sets, not people. Platform-engineer is a proven reuse from v0.2 (shipped clean). Ml-engineer is new but its constraints are explicitly enumerated and baked into task must-haves (D-051). Both review their content in P6 before removal (D-052). If either "fails," the fallback is tech-writer + domain-expert + RESEARCH.md grounding. | 0.80 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 4 confidence: 0.80.** Challenge: P3 specialist-persona competency gap (G-009). Auto-resolved with assumption A-006.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 5 — Timeline and Estimates
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 5.1 | Was the deadline set before or after scope/approach were understood? | git log: specify (c96d21c) → clarify (675abb6) → research (0620c94) → ideate (1a0326b) → plan (d8473d6). PLAN.md created after research + ideation. | The phase plan was created AFTER research and ideation — the scope was understood before the plan was written. No reverse-engineered deadlines. The "timeline" is the phase sequence P0→P6, not an external date. | 0.88 |
|
||||
| 5.2 | What is the critical path, and what would push it by 3+ months? | PLAN.md: P1→P2→P3→P4→P5→P6, all sequential. P4 (matrix) depends on all domains. P5 (examples) depends on P4 (manifest). | Critical path: P1→P2→P3→P4→P5→P6. **Nothing can push it by 3+ months** — this is a docs project with no external dependencies, no infrastructure provisioning, no vendor lead times. The only "push" is content-quality rework, which is bounded (markdown edits). | 0.90 |
|
||||
| 5.3 | Are estimates evidence-based? | v0.1: 35 reqs, 7 phases, shipped. v0.2: 24 reqs, 5 phases, shipped. v0.3: 32 reqs, 6 phases. Per-phase doc counts: P1=5, P2=5, P3=10, P4=7, P5=4, P6=2. | Estimates are analogous (v0.1/v0.2 shipped with similar per-phase doc counts). v0.1 P3 produced 27 derived docs in one phase; v0.3's largest phase (P3) produces 10. The estimate is conservative relative to v0.1's demonstrated throughput. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 5.4 | Is there a working definition of done? | PLAN.md P6 Verify: all 32 reqs covered, reconstruction test passes, matrix row-count test (170), MANIFEST reconstruction test (incl. examples/), audit clean, tag v0.2.6 exists, branches deleted. | DoD is concrete and testable: 32 reqs covered, matrix = 170 rows (10 × 17), MANIFEST reconstruction passes, tag v0.2.6 on main. Not "whatever the demo shows." | 0.88 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 5 confidence: 0.88.** No challenges.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 6 — Budget and Financial Realism
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 6.1 | What % of budget is spent vs remaining? | N/A — docs-only, no monetary budget. Cost = agent tokens. v0.1/v0.2 completed within expected token bounds. | No monetary budget. Token cost is proportional to markdown authored. v0.3 is the largest milestone (32 reqs, 18 derived docs + 4 examples + extensions), but per-doc token cost is roughly constant and validated by 2 prior milestones. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 6.2 | Are there predictable cost drivers not in the original budget? | PROJECT.md: no runtime code, no infrastructure, no licensing, no external services. | None. Docs-only = no licensing, no infra, no security review fees, no data migration, no support contracts. The only cost driver is markdown volume, which is scoped by REQ count. | 0.90 |
|
||||
| 6.3 | Burn rate and runway? | N/A — no monetary burn. Agent execution time is the only resource. | No monetary runway concern. Agent execution is bounded by phase task count. | 0.88 |
|
||||
| 6.4 | Is the budget contingent on something? | config.json: no contingent conditions. | No. The project is not contingent on a sale, board approval, or hiring. | 0.90 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 6 confidence: 0.88.** No challenges. The docs-only constraint makes this axis low-risk by construction.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 7 — Risks, Assumptions, and Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 7.1 | Top 3 assumptions the plan rests on? | PLAN.md Assumptions: A-001 (ESC-002 is the only manifest drift, 0.85), A-002 (4 domains map to C1-C8 without new core principles, 0.95), A-003 (P3 Wave 2 schedules 5-then-3, 0.90). | A-002 is the strongest (0.95) — RESEARCH.md pre-maps all 40 P-rules to existing C-rules. A-001 is reasonable (AUDIT-P5-resync.md confirms). A-003 is mechanical (config.json cap). All three have evidence. | 0.86 |
|
||||
| 7.2 | External dependencies? | PROJECT.md: no runtime code. RESEARCH.md: all prior art is published (OpenGitOps, ICU/CLDR, NIST, OPA docs). | None. No vendor, regulator, or external team dependency. All prior art is published and cited. The framework is self-contained markdown. | 0.92 |
|
||||
| 7.3 | Single project-killing risk? | RESEARCH.md Risks table: orphaned P-rules, domain overlap, AI/ML scope drift, compliance bloat, artifact leakage, persona explosion. | The single risk that would undermine the framework's core value: **matrix orphan P-rules.** If the 40 new P-rules don't trace cleanly to C-rules, the traceable hierarchy (the unique value proposition) is broken. **Mitigation:** P4 matrix row-count test (10 per domain × 17 = 170) + domain-expert sign-off + P6 reconstruction test. This is well-mitigated and explicitly verified. | 0.84 |
|
||||
| 7.4 | Pre-mortem: 12 months from now, v0.3 failed. Why? | (adversarial analysis) | **Most likely failure:** P3 content quality — i18n RTL/bidi or compliance policy-as-code authored without specialist personas contains fundamental technical errors (e.g., bidi isolating run misuse, Rego evaluation model mischaracterization), caught in P6 review, requiring P3 rework. **Secondary:** the 2+2 example set leaves 2 domains without a good example (gitops + ai-ml get good examples; i18n + compliance get only bad examples), reducing adoption value. **Both are bounded** — rework is markdown edits, not infrastructure. Neither is project-killing. | 0.78 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 7 confidence: 0.85.** Challenge: pre-mortem P3 content quality (G-012). Auto-resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 8 — Governance, Decision-Making, and Communication
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 8.1 | Who is the decision-maker when executives disagree? | git log: single author. config.json: autonomy "full". | Single owner-operator. No executive disagreement possible. Decisions are recorded in PROJECT.md (D-001..D-053) with confidence scores. | 0.88 |
|
||||
| 8.2 | How often does governance meet, and what's the escalation pattern? | config.json: autonomy level "full", escalation_hooks ["deploy", "delete_data", "merge_to_main"], decision_confidence_threshold 0.6, escalation_timeout_ms 300000. | Governance is the ciagent workflow itself (specify→clarify→research→ideate→plan→grill→execute→review→audit→ship). Escalation: 3 hooks (deploy, delete_data, merge_to_main) + timeout 300s. The grill stage (this) is the pre-execution gate. Cadence is event-driven, not calendar-driven — appropriate for agent execution. | 0.82 |
|
||||
| 8.3 | What is omitted from status reports? | AUDIT-P5-resync.md: candid about ESC-001/ESC-002 (git auth failure, stale tags). Convention note about examples/ MANIFEST drift flagged, not hidden. | Status reporting is transparent. The v0.2 audit explicitly flagged the examples/ MANIFEST drift (ESC-002) rather than burying it. v0.3 picks it up as ATELIER-91. No evidence of optimistic glossing. | 0.85 |
|
||||
| 8.4 | Is there a "stop the project" trigger? | This grill stage. Verdict options: Proceed, Reduce scope, Rethink, Escalate. | The grill IS the stop-the-project gate. If the verdict were "Rethink" or "Escalate" with blocking issues, P1 would not proceed. Cancellation is not politically impossible — it's a mechanical verdict. | 0.85 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 8 confidence: 0.85.** No challenges.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis 9 — Change, Adoption, and Operational Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| 9.1 | Who uses this, how does their work change, what's in it for them? | PROJECT.md: "consumed by AI agents as pre-completion guidance and by humans as engineering canon." review/agent-checklist.md is the pre-completion gate. | Users: AI agents (read MANIFEST→core→domains before tasks) and humans (engineering reference). Their work changes by consulting a traceable principle hierarchy before acting. The value: conflict resolution has an arbiter (the matrix), not just opinions. | 0.80 |
|
||||
| 9.2 | Is the operations team involved now or handed a finished product? | N/A — docs-only repo, no operations team. | No operations team. The "go-live" is tagging v0.2.6 + merging to main. No runtime to operate, no on-call, no SLO. | 0.92 |
|
||||
| 9.3 | What is the rollback plan? | Standard git workflow: revert + re-tag. | Git revert + re-tag. Standard for docs repos. v0.2 demonstrated the pattern (ESC-002 force-updated tags). | 0.88 |
|
||||
| 9.4 | Have success criteria been validated with judges? | ROADMAP.md Success Criteria: all checked for v0.1. v0.2 completed clean (AUDIT-P5-resync.md: 10 checks pass). | Success criteria validated by 2 prior milestones. The pattern: reqs covered + reconstruction test + audit clean + tag exists. v0.3 adds matrix row-count test (170) and MANIFEST reconstruction (incl. examples/). | 0.85 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Axis 9 confidence: 0.86.** No challenges.
|
||||
|
||||
### Meta — Closing Review
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| M.1 | If you were the auditor, what would you flag? | (adversarial analysis) | The P3 specialist-persona gap (i18n + compliance authored by tech-writer without specialists). It's a content-quality risk, not a traceability risk. The mitigation (RESEARCH.md depth + P6 review) is adequate but not redundant — there's no second layer of content validation beyond domain-expert traceability checks. | 0.75 |
|
||||
| M.2 | What is the project NOT doing that it should? | PROJECT.md out-of-scope: tooling/linters. | Not doing: automated P-rule→C-rule trace validation (manual domain-expert verification only). This is explicitly out of scope (tooling is future work). At 170 P-rules, manual verification is still feasible but approaching the limit where tooling would be warranted. Not a v0.3 blocker. | 0.80 |
|
||||
| M.3 | Simplest 80% version? | (adversarial analysis) | Ship 2 domains (gitops-operators + ai-ml) and defer i18n + compliance to v0.4. This halves the scope. **But:** v0.2 already deferred these once (IDEATE-15/16). Re-deferral makes them 2x deferred — zombie risk. The current 4-domain plan is better than re-deferral. D-022's pairing of the two smaller domains in P3 is the right load-balance call. | 0.82 |
|
||||
| M.4 | What must be true in 90 days for success, and is it true today? | (adversarial analysis) | Must be true: (a) 40 new P-rules trace cleanly to C-rules — RESEARCH.md pre-maps them, P4 verifies. (b) 18 derived docs each have ≥1 valid cross-link — ATELIER-88 verifies in P5. (c) Content is technically correct (especially i18n bidi + compliance policy-as-code) — RESEARCH.md grounds it, P6 validates. (a) and (b) have explicit verification gates. (c) depends on execution quality. All three are achievable. | 0.80 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Meta confidence: 0.79.**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Binding Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Decision | Rationale | Confidence | Alternatives |
|
||||
|----|----------|-----------|------------|--------------|
|
||||
| G-001 | Proceed with 4-domain scope as planned; do not split into v0.3a/v0.3b | Scope is deliberately trimmed (D-023/D-024/D-025); per-phase doc counts (P1:4, P2:4, P3:8) are lower than v0.1 P3 (27); v0.2 already deferred these domains once — re-deferral risks zombie status; D-016 groups them to limit release overhead | 0.80 | Split into 2 milestones (rejected: 2x deferral + double release overhead); reduce to 2 domains (rejected: same) |
|
||||
| G-002 | Phase-specific personas (platform-engineer, ml-engineer) are NOT a key-person risk | Personas are constraint sets, not humans; D-051 bakes constraints into task must-haves (survive persona removal); D-052 ensures both review content in P6 before removal; platform-engineer is proven reuse from v0.2 (shipped clean) | 0.80 | Add more specialist personas (rejected: persona explosion); remove phase-specific personas (rejected: content quality risk) |
|
||||
| G-003 | 40 new P-rules will trace cleanly to C-rules; matrix orphan risk is mitigated | RESEARCH.md pre-maps all 40 P-rules to C-rules (D-029..D-032); P4 matrix row-count test (10 × 17 = 170) + domain-expert sign-off; P6 reconstruction test; A-002 (confidence 0.95) confirms core is stable at 8 | 0.85 | Force broader C-rule derivations (rejected: false derivations worse than accurate narrow ones); add new core principles (rejected: A-002 confirms unnecessary) |
|
||||
| G-004 | i18n + compliance pairing in P3 (D-022) is load-balancing-sound | Both are 4-derived-doc domains (smaller surface than P1/P2); P3 Wave 2 schedules 8 docs as 5-then-3 (A-003, 0.90); the scheduling is not a bottleneck — the content-quality risk is (see G-009) | 0.82 | Separate i18n and compliance into distinct phases (rejected: adds a phase, no load benefit); move one to P2 (rejected: P2 is AI/ML, a heavier domain) |
|
||||
| G-005 | 2-good + 2-bad example set (D-025) is adequate for 4 domains | Each domain gets exactly 1 example (gitops: good, ai-ml: good, i18n: bad, compliance: bad); ATELIER-84 adds 4 domain-specific anti-patterns per domain (16 total) = 5 illustration points per domain; v0.1 had 7 examples for 11 domains (most domains had 0) — v0.3 is better coverage | 0.75 | 4-good + 4-bad (rejected: D-025 unbalances P5); 1-per-domain good only (rejected: bad examples have higher illustration value for i18n/compliance) |
|
||||
| G-006 | Compliance C4 (Locality) gap (D-032) is architecturally sound, NOT a smell | C4 Locality is about keeping concerns local; compliance is inherently cross-cutting (audit logs span the system, retention is global, evidence is cross-cutting); forcing C4 would be a false derivation; D-032 considered and rejected the alternative "force C4 via audit-log locality"; the absence reflects the domain's nature | 0.82 | Force C4 via audit-log locality (rejected: false derivation); add a C4-tracing compliance P-rule (rejected: would be artificial) |
|
||||
| G-007 | Docs-only constraint (D-020) is defensible at 17 domains — more so, not less | The docs-only constraint eliminates runtime complexity, integration surface, deployment, and build steps — the exact things that make large frameworks unwieldy; MANIFEST + reading-order + matrix make the tree navigable at scale; the framework's value (traceable hierarchy) scales linearly with domains; 170 matrix rows is a large but single readable file | 0.88 | Add a build step / linter (rejected: out of scope, violates docs-as-code simplicity); split the matrix per-domain (rejected: destroys the join-table value) |
|
||||
| G-008 | No hidden data-engineer persona requirement from adding ai-ml domain | D-023 scopes AI/ML to engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT data engineering (schema/ETL/pipelines); PERSONAS.md explicitly deactivates data-engineer ("No database, schema, or migrations in this docs-only project"); ai-ml cross-links to data/ as a reference, not a duplication | 0.85 | Activate data-engineer persona (rejected: no data engineering work in a docs-only project); scope AI/ML to include data engineering (rejected: D-023 explicitly excludes) |
|
||||
| G-009 | Proceed with tech-writer + domain-expert for P3 (i18n + compliance) without specialist personas | RESEARCH.md provides thorough prior-art surveys (ICU/CLDR, BCP 47, UAX #9, W3C i18n WG, OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel, Cosign/in-toto) with specific source citations; v0.1 tech-writer authored security/data/concurrency without specialists and shipped clean; P6 review includes domain-expert validation; rework is bounded (markdown edits). **Assumption A-006 logged:** content correctness for i18n RTL/bidi and compliance policy-as-code depends on RESEARCH.md prior-art quality + P6 review | 0.72 | Add i18n-specialist + compliance-specialist personas (rejected: persona explosion, both domains are smaller-surface per D-022); defer i18n/compliance to v0.4 with specialists (rejected: 2x deferral zombie risk) |
|
||||
| G-010 | Matrix coverage summary must read "17 domains, 170 P-rules" post-v0.3 (reinforces D-036) | D-036 (confidence 0.93) already decided this; PLAN task 04-01-01 bakes it in; both the summary block AND per-domain section count must update; the P6 audit verifies row-count (10 × 17 = 170) | 0.93 | Partial update (rejected: invariant violation) |
|
||||
| G-011 | ATELIER-91 closes the v0.2 ESC-002 manifest drift (examples/ unlisted) | AUDIT-P5-resync.md §6 flagged examples/ not in MANIFEST as a P1 convention note; ATELIER-91 (D-035, confidence 0.85) adds examples/ directory listing to MANIFEST in P4; PLAN task 04-02-05 bakes it in; A-001 (0.85) confirms this is the only manifest drift | 0.85 | Leave examples/ unlisted (rejected: manifest is authoritative, unlisted = not part of framework by definition) |
|
||||
| G-012 | Pre-mortem top risk (P3 content quality) is bounded; no escalation needed | Most likely failure mode: i18n bidi or compliance policy-as-code technical errors caught in P6, requiring P3 rework. Mitigation: RESEARCH.md prior-art depth + P6 domain-expert review. Rework is bounded (markdown edits, not infrastructure). No external dependencies. The risk is real but recoverable and does not block the milestone. | 0.78 | Defer P3 to v0.4 (rejected: zombie risk); add specialist personas (rejected: G-009 analysis) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Escalations
|
||||
|
||||
**None.** All 12 challenges auto-resolved at confidence ≥ 0.60 (range: 0.72–0.93). At full autonomy, assumption logging (A-006) is preferred over escalation. No axis scored below 0.60 on any forcing question.
|
||||
|
||||
### Assumptions Logged (this grill)
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Assumption | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| A-006 | i18n RTL/bidi and compliance policy-as-code content correctness depends on RESEARCH.md prior-art quality + P6 domain-expert review, not on a specialist persona. If P6 surfaces fundamental content errors, the remedy is P3 rework (bounded — markdown edits). | 0.72 |
|
||||
|
||||
### Summary
|
||||
|
||||
- **Challenges identified:** 12 (across 9 axes + meta)
|
||||
- **Binding decisions:** 12 (G-001..G-012)
|
||||
- **Escalations:** 0
|
||||
- **Assumptions logged:** 1 (A-006)
|
||||
- **Verdict:** PROCEED at confidence 0.80
|
||||
- **Top 3 material challenges:**
|
||||
1. **G-009 (0.72):** P3 i18n + compliance authored without specialist personas — the lowest-confidence decision. Content quality for bidi algorithms and policy-as-code semantics depends on RESEARCH.md depth, not specialist persona constraints.
|
||||
2. **G-005 (0.75):** 2+2 examples across 4 domains — each domain gets only one example (good OR bad, not both). Adequate given 16 anti-patterns, but thinner than v0.2's per-domain coverage.
|
||||
3. **G-001 (0.80):** 4-domain scope is the largest single milestone — bounded by D-023/D-024/D-025 trims, but re-deferral would create zombie risk.
|
||||
- **No blocking escalations for SHIP.**
|
||||
@@ -46,19 +46,35 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase-Specific Personas
|
||||
|
||||
None. All three active personas span the full milestone. No phase-scoped personas needed — the work is uniformly markdown authoring with domain validation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase-Specific Personas
|
||||
|
||||
### platform-engineer (v0.2 — removed after milestone completes)
|
||||
### platform-engineer (v0.3 — extended, active for v0.3, removed after milestone completion)
|
||||
|
||||
- **active:** true
|
||||
- **phase_specific:** true
|
||||
- **domain:** infrastructure/platform-automation
|
||||
- **frameworks:** []
|
||||
- **constraints:** ["declarative-first", "stateless examples", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code", "source-of-truth is git", "reconciliation loop is the primitive"]
|
||||
- **territory:** ["domains/gitops-operators/**", "examples/good/gitops-pr.md", "examples/bad/* (gitops-related)"]
|
||||
- **reason:** Per D-019 / D-027: the v0.2 platform-engineer persona is reused and extended for P1 (gitops-operators), because GitOps/Operators/Progressive Delivery build directly on the k8s + IaC declarative-reconciliation model the persona already embodies. Removed after v0.3 completes; roster returns to 3 active personas. The v0.2 IaC/k8s content remains owned by tech-writer + domain-expert for cross-link maintenance.
|
||||
|
||||
### ml-engineer (v0.3 — phase-specific, removed after milestone completion)
|
||||
|
||||
- **active:** true
|
||||
- **phase_specific:** true
|
||||
- **domain:** machine-learning engineering
|
||||
- **frameworks:** []
|
||||
- **constraints:** ["reproducibility is non-negotiable", "data lineage is traceable", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code", "engineering discipline not algorithm design (D-023)", "examples are illustrative markdown only"]
|
||||
- **territory:** ["domains/ai-ml/**", "examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md"]
|
||||
- **reason:** Per D-019 / D-020: AI/ML domain authoring (data versioning, model evaluation, serving, monitoring/drift) benefits from a specialist persona with reproducibility and data-lineage constraints the existing tech-writer persona lacks. Scope is engineering discipline, NOT algorithm/model design (D-023). Removed after v0.3 completes; roster returns to 3 active personas.
|
||||
|
||||
### platform-engineer (v0.2 — REMOVED after milestone completion)
|
||||
|
||||
- **active:** false
|
||||
- **phase_specific:** true
|
||||
- **domain:** infrastructure/platform
|
||||
- **frameworks:** []
|
||||
- **constraints:** ["declarative-first", "stateless examples", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code"]
|
||||
- **territory:** ["domains/infrastructure-as-code/**", "domains/kubernetes/**", "examples/good/terraform-module.md", "examples/good/k8s-deployment.md", "examples/bad/*"]
|
||||
- **reason:** Specialist authoring for IaC/k8s domain content (terraform, opentofu, state, modules, k8s workloads/networking/storage/rbac/helm/kustomize) where the existing tech-writer persona lacks the domain expertise. Active for v0.2 P1–P4 only; removed after milestone v0.2 completes (per D-027, D-014).
|
||||
- **reason:** Specialist authoring for IaC/k8s domain content (terraform, opentofu, state, modules, k8s workloads/networking/storage/rbac/helm/kustomize) where the existing tech-writer persona lacks the domain expertise. Was active for v0.2 P1–P4 only; removed after milestone v0.2 completed (per D-027, D-014). Roster returns to 3 active personas.
|
||||
|
||||
## Territory Enforcement
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -66,8 +82,9 @@ Mode: `warn` (per config.json `personas.territory_enforcement`).
|
||||
|
||||
At `warn`, territory violations are logged but not blocked. This is appropriate for a docs project where tech-writer may touch `.ciagent/` files incidentally (e.g., updating ROADMAP status). Strict mode would be appropriate once territories stabilize.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Persona Roster Summary
|
||||
## v0.3 Persona Roster Summary
|
||||
|
||||
Active personas for v0.2 (4): lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert, platform-engineer (phase-specific).
|
||||
Inactive personas (3, unchanged from v0.1): data-engineer, backend-engineer, frontend-engineer.
|
||||
Post-v0.2: platform-engineer removed; roster returns to 3 active personas (lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert).
|
||||
Active personas for v0.3 (5): lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert (span full milestone), platform-engineer (phase-specific, P1 gitops-operators), ml-engineer (phase-specific, P2 ai-ml).
|
||||
- **Phase assignment:** P1 GitOps/Operators → platform-engineer; P2 AI/ML → ml-engineer; P3 i18n + Compliance → tech-writer + domain-expert (D-022); P4–P5 matrix/review/examples → tech-writer + domain-expert + lead-developer.
|
||||
Inactive personas (3, unchanged): data-engineer, backend-engineer, frontend-engineer.
|
||||
Post-v0.3: platform-engineer + ml-engineer removed; roster returns to 3 active personas (lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert).
|
||||
+249
-1
@@ -371,4 +371,252 @@ Tag: v0.1.0
|
||||
| 3 | ATELIER-48..52, 59 | 6 |
|
||||
| 4 | ATELIER-53..56 | 4 |
|
||||
| 5 | ATELIER-57, 58 | 2 |
|
||||
| **Total** | | **24** |
|
||||
| **Total** | | **24** |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Atelier — Plan (v0.3)
|
||||
|
||||
> Vertical-slice plans with wave ordering for milestone v0.3 (GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance). Plans reference REQ-IDs from `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` (ATELIER-60..91). NFR milestone — all phases produce docs; no `feat` code. Per `parallelization.max_concurrent_agents = 5`, wave parallelism is capped at 5 concurrent tasks; waves larger than 5 are split into sub-waves.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0 — Pre-Execution (COMPLETE)
|
||||
|
||||
Stages: SPECIFY ✓ → CLARIFY ✓ → RESEARCH ✓ → IDEATE ✓ → PLAN ✓ → GRILL → SHIP
|
||||
Branch: `atelier/phase/00-pre-execution`
|
||||
Tag: v0.2.0
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1 — GitOps + Operators Domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Author the `domains/gitops-operators/` tree — 10 first principles (P1–P10) plus 4 derived docs (argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery). Grounded in CNCF OpenGitOps Principles v1.0.0 + the Operator pattern. Each P-rule derives from core C1–C8 (matrix extension lands in P4).
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/01-gitops-operators` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
|
||||
**Personas:** platform-engineer (author), domain-expert (validate traceability), tech-writer (style/format)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.2.1
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-60, ATELIER-61, ATELIER-62, ATELIER-63, ATELIER-64
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — first-principles must exist before derived docs)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 01-01-01 | `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-60 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Git is Source of Truth, Pull Don't Push, Continuous Reconciliation, Operators Encode Domain Knowledge, Progressive Delivery is Reversible, Reconcile Don't Mutate, Failure is Observable, Least Privilege Reconciliation); each names the core C-rule(s) it derives from; each has definition + "what violates" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — 4 derived docs, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 01-02-01 | `domains/gitops-operators/argocd.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-61 | Application CRD, App-of-Apps, sync waves, health/status, diff, RBAC/SSO, multi-cluster, sync windows; **ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix** (IDEATE-21, D-039); cross-link to flux.md, kubernetes/{workloads,rbac,helm,kustomize}.md, devops, security/secrets, observability/metrics |
|
||||
| 01-02-02 | `domains/gitops-operators/flux.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-62 | GitOps Toolkit controllers (source, kustomize, helm, notification), composable architecture, HR/Kustomization/HelmRelease CRDs, OCI sources; **ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix** (IDEATE-21, D-039); cross-link to argocd.md + kubernetes/helm.md + kubernetes/kustomize.md |
|
||||
| 01-02-03 | `domains/gitops-operators/operators.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-63 | Operator pattern, CRDs, controllers, Operator SDK/OLM, when-to-write-an-operator vs Helm chart, scope/responsibility boundaries; cross-link kubernetes/{workloads,rbac}.md + infrastructure-as-code/modules.md |
|
||||
| 01-02-04 | `domains/gitops-operators/progressive-delivery.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-64 | Argo Rollouts + Flagger, canary/blue-green, analysis templates (metrics/counters), abort/rollback; cross-link devops (P4 Rollback First, P5 Progressive Delivery) + observability/metrics + kubernetes/workloads.md |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P1):**
|
||||
- Structural: 5 files exist under `domains/gitops-operators/`
|
||||
- Behavioral: every P1–P10 in first-principles names ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
|
||||
- Security: P3 (Pull, Don't Push) + P10 (Least Privilege Reconciliation) sections present
|
||||
- Quality: each derived doc has ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc (IDEATE-08 carried forward); argocd.md and flux.md share the decision matrix consistently (IDEATE-21)
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2 — AI/ML Domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Author the `domains/ai-ml/` tree — 10 first principles (P1–P10) plus 4 derived docs (data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift). Scope = engineering discipline (D-023), NOT algorithm/model design. Reproducibility and lineage are non-negotiables.
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/02-ai-ml` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
|
||||
**Personas:** ml-engineer (author), domain-expert (validate traceability), tech-writer (style/format)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.2.2
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-65, ATELIER-66, ATELIER-67, ATELIER-68, ATELIER-69
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — first-principles first)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 02-01-01 | `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-65 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Reproducibility First Class, Data is Versioned Not Just Code, Lineage Traceable End-to-End, Evaluation Defined Before Training, Models are Versioned Artifacts, Serving is Observable, Drift is Expected and Detected, Inference Inputs are Validated, Pipelines Compose Notebooks Don't, Rollback Includes the Model); each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates"; ml-engineer constraint "engineering discipline not algorithm design (D-023)" enforced |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — 4 derived docs, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 02-02-01 | `domains/ai-ml/data-versioning.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-66 | DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS patterns, data lineage, dataset hashing, train/val/test split versioning; **tool comparison table: DVC vs Delta Lake vs LakeFS** covering versioning model, lineage, use-case fit (IDEATE-22, D-040); cross-link data/{migrations,schema-design}.md + devops/P1 Reproducibility |
|
||||
| 02-02-02 | `domains/ai-ml/model-evaluation.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-67 | Metric selection, offline/online eval, holdout integrity, bias/fairness checks (engineering angle), eval-as-a-gate; cross-link data/schema-design.md (eval input contract) + testing/pyramid.md |
|
||||
| 02-02-03 | `domains/ai-ml/serving.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-68 | KServe/Seldon/BentoML, inference as a service, batching, latency SLAs, canarying models; cross-link kubernetes/workloads.md + devops (P5 Progressive Delivery, P7 Immutability) + performance/backend.md + security/input-validation.md |
|
||||
| 02-02-04 | `domains/ai-ml/monitoring-drift.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-69 | Evidently/Great Expectations, alerting, retraining triggers; **drift-type enumeration: data drift, concept drift, prediction drift — each with a distinct detection signal** (IDEATE-30, D-048); cross-link observability/{metrics,logging}.md + ai-ml/serving.md |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P2):**
|
||||
- Structural: 5 files exist under `domains/ai-ml/`
|
||||
- Behavioral: every P1–P10 traces to ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
|
||||
- Security: P8 (Inference Inputs are Validated) section present
|
||||
- Quality: each derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link (IDEATE-08); data-versioning.md tool comparison table present (IDEATE-22); monitoring-drift.md enumerates 3 drift types with detection signals (IDEATE-30); no algorithm-design content (D-023 enforced, ml-engineer constraint)
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3 — i18n + Compliance Domains
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Author two smaller-surface domains in one phase (D-022): `domains/i18n/` (10 first principles + 4 derived docs) and `domains/compliance/` (10 first principles + 4 derived docs). i18n grounded in ICU/CLDR + BCP 47 + W3C i18n. Compliance is framework-agnostic (D-024 — no regulation-specific docs). Both domains' first-principles land in Wave 1 (independent of each other), then derived docs in Wave 2.
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/03-i18n-compliance` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
|
||||
**Personas:** tech-writer (author, both domains), domain-expert (validate traceability for both)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.2.3
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-70, ATELIER-71, ATELIER-72, ATELIER-73, ATELIER-74, ATELIER-75, ATELIER-76, ATELIER-77, ATELIER-78, ATELIER-79
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (parallel — 2 first-principles, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 03-01-01 | `domains/i18n/first-principles.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-70 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Source Language is a Locale Not the Default, Locale Identifiers Standardized BCP 47, Resources External Not Inline, Plural/Gender Parameterized ICU MessageFormat, Formatting Locale-Aware ICU/CLDR, Text Direction is Layout Primitive, Layout Accommodates Expansion, Pseudo-Locales Test Early, Images/Icons Cultural, Translation Reversible and Versioned); each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates" |
|
||||
| 03-01-02 | `domains/compliance/first-principles.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-75 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Audit Logs Append-Only, Every Significant Action Logged, Retention is Policy Not Storage, Policy is Code, Policy Evaluated as a Gate, Evidence Collected Continuously, Identity Attributable, Subject Access Honored, Secrets Redacted in Audit, Compliance Posture Observable); each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates"; framework-agnostic (D-024 — no GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2-specific content) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — 8 derived docs, independent; split into 2 sub-waves of 4 to respect max_concurrent_agents=5)
|
||||
|
||||
**Wave 2a (i18n derived docs, ≤5 concurrent)**
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 03-02a-01 | `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-71 | Resource file formats (.po/.pot, JSON, Fluent FTL, ICU Resource Bundle), key naming, namespaces, fallback chains, extraction tooling; cross-link uiux/copywriting.md + api/error-responses.md |
|
||||
| 03-02a-02 | `domains/i18n/formatting.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-72 | ICU/CLDR/Intl for dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, relative time, plural rules; BCP 47 tags; cross-link api/error-responses.md (localized errors) + data/schema-design.md |
|
||||
| 03-02a-03 | `domains/i18n/rtl-bidi.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-73 | Logical vs physical CSS properties, bidi algorithm (UAX #9), `dir` attribute, mirroring, common pitfalls (icons, numbers in RTL); cross-link uiux/{components,accessibility}.md |
|
||||
| 03-02a-04 | `domains/i18n/testing-i18n.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-74 | Pseudo-locales, snapshot testing per locale, RTL coverage, missing-key detection; **pseudo-locale tier mapping to testing pyramid: unit (missing-key), integration (snapshot per locale), e2e (RTL coverage)** (IDEATE-28, D-046); cross-link testing/{fixtures,pyramid}.md |
|
||||
|
||||
**Wave 2b (compliance derived docs, ≤5 concurrent; runs in parallel with 2a — total 8 tasks, but capped at 5 → executor schedules 5 then 3)**
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 03-02b-01 | `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-76 | Append-only log patterns, structured audit events, CloudTrail/Cloud-Audit-Log conventions, queryability, retention of logs; cross-link observability/logging.md + security/authorization.md |
|
||||
| 03-02b-02 | `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-77 | Retention policies as code, lifecycle rules, deletion-as-a-feature, GDPR/CCPA abstracted to principles (not regulation-specific, D-024), retention vs backup distinction; cross-link data/{migrations,schema-design}.md |
|
||||
| 03-02b-03 | `domains/compliance/policy-as-code.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-78 | OPA/Cedar/Sentinel/Kyverno patterns, policy as CI/CD + admission gate, policy testing, versioning policy; **engine comparison table: OPA vs Cedar vs Kyverno vs Sentinel** covering policy language, evaluation gate, ecosystem (IDEATE-23, D-041); cross-link infrastructure-as-code (declarative intent) + kubernetes/rbac.md (admission) |
|
||||
| 03-02b-04 | `domains/compliance/evidence.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-79 | Evidence collection as a byproduct, audit-ready export, provenance; **fenced signed-attestation example (Cosign OR in-toto)** — not prose-only (IDEATE-29, D-047); cross-link security/supply-chain.md + observability/{metrics,tracing}.md |
|
||||
|
||||
> **Parallelism note:** Wave 2a + 2b together = 8 independent tasks. The executor schedules at most 5 concurrently per `parallelization.max_concurrent_agents`; the remaining 3 run as soon as slots free. The 2a/2b labels are organizational (by domain), not a hard sequencing barrier — both sub-waves are in the same dependency tier (all depend only on Wave 1).
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P3):**
|
||||
- Structural: 10 files exist (5 under `domains/i18n/`, 5 under `domains/compliance/`)
|
||||
- Behavioral: every P1–P10 in both first-principles traces to ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
|
||||
- Security: i18n P6 (Text Direction) + compliance P1 (Append-Only) + P9 (Redacted) sections present
|
||||
- Quality: each derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link (IDEATE-08); testing-i18n.md pseudo-locale→pyramid mapping present (IDEATE-28); policy-as-code.md engine comparison table present (IDEATE-23); evidence.md has a fenced signed-attestation example (IDEATE-29); no regulation-specific content in compliance (D-024)
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4 — Matrix + Review + Manifest Integration
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Extend the matrix (+40 P-rule → C-rule mappings, 10 per new domain), domain-coverage (per-domain rows + Core Principle Coverage table for 4 new domains), review docs (agent + peer-review + anti-patterns with v0.3 chaos anti-patterns), and the manifest (all v0.3 docs + `examples/` directory listing closing v0.2 ESC-002 drift). Closes the traceability loop and makes the manifest authoritative for v0.3.
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/04-matrix-review-manifest` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
|
||||
**Personas:** domain-expert (matrix + anti-patterns + coverage), tech-writer (checklists + manifest), lead-developer (manifest authoritative index)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.2.4
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-80, ATELIER-81, ATELIER-82, ATELIER-83, ATELIER-84, ATELIER-85, ATELIER-91
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — matrix is the arbiter, must be authoritative first)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 04-01-01 | `matrix/principles-matrix.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-80 | Add 4 sections (GitOps + Operators, AI/ML, i18n, Compliance), 10 rows each, format matching v0.1/v0.2 tables; **review check: row count per new domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule** (IDEATE-02, IDEATE-13 carried forward); **update Coverage Summary to "post-v0.3: 17 domains, 170 P-rules"** — both the summary block AND the per-domain section count (IDEATE-18, D-036) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — 5 independent extensions; exactly at max_concurrent_agents=5)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 04-02-01 | `matrix/domain-coverage.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-81 | Add "v0.3 Domain Coverage" table with 4 rows (schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status per IDEATE-03); **AND update the "Core Principle Coverage" table (C1–C8 → domains) for the 4 new domains** — C4 Locality adds i18n + gitops; C5 Reversibility adds ai-ml + compliance + gitops + i18n; etc. (IDEATE-19, D-037) |
|
||||
| 04-02-02 | `review/agent-checklist.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-82 | Add "If GitOps + Operators", "If AI/ML", "If i18n", "If Compliance" trigger sections (IDEATE-05 carried forward); ai-ml section includes a D-023 scope check (reject algorithm-design content) |
|
||||
| 04-02-03 | `review/peer-review-checklist.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-83 | Add 4 new domain peer-review sections (parity with agent-checklist, IDEATE-09 carried forward) |
|
||||
| 04-02-04 | `review/anti-patterns.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-84 | Add "v0.3 Chaos Anti-Patterns" section covering: (a) **v0.3 deployable artifact types** — .po resource files, .rego policy files, model artifacts, signed manifests as standalone files (IDEATE-20); (b) **GitOps push-pattern violation** (P3 Pull Don't Push, IDEATE-24, D-042); (c) **i18n LTR-only assumption violation** (P6 Text Direction, IDEATE-25, D-043); (d) **AI/ML orphan-model violation** — deployed prediction with no lineage trace (P3 Lineage, IDEATE-27, D-045); plus domain-specific anti-patterns per RESEARCH.md/REQUIREMENTS.md notes: gitops (push-based deploy P3, manual kubectl apply on GitOps-managed resource P8, cluster-admin GitOps robot P10), ai-ml (unreproducible training run P1, "the latest" model P5, notebook in production P9, orphan model P3), i18n (inline string concatenation P3, `if (n==1)` plural branching P4, LTR-only layout P6, hand-rolled date formatter P5), compliance (mutable audit log P1, shared/generic identity in audit P7, secret leaked in audit log P9, manual evidence assembly at audit time P6) |
|
||||
| 04-02-05 | `MANIFEST.md` (extend) | lead-developer | ATELIER-85, ATELIER-91 | Add 4 new domains + all 18 derived docs to the Domains table (IDEATE-04 carried forward); update Cross-Cutting counts to "17 domains, 170 P-rules post-v0.3"; **add an `examples/` directory listing section** (good + bad files) closing the v0.2 ESC-002 drift — manifest is authoritative (IDEATE-17, D-035) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P4):**
|
||||
- Structural: matrix has 17 domain sections (13 v0.1/v0.2 + 4 new), 170 P-rules total; domain-coverage has both the per-domain v0.3 table AND the updated C-rule coverage table; 3 review docs extended; MANIFEST lists all v0.3 docs + examples/
|
||||
- Behavioral: every new P-rule has a matrix row; domain-expert verifies no orphans (IDEATE-13); Coverage Summary reads "17 domains, 170 P-rules" (IDEATE-18)
|
||||
- Security: anti-patterns cover GitOps push-pattern (P3), AI/ML orphan-model (P3), i18n LTR-only (P6), compliance mutable audit log (P1) + secret-in-audit (P9)
|
||||
- Quality: MANIFEST is authoritative — every v0.3 file listed, examples/ listed (ATELIER-91 closes ESC-002); unlisted = not part of framework; agent-checklist + peer-review-checklist have parity across the 4 new domains (ATELIER-82 ↔ ATELIER-83)
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5 — Examples + Cross-Links
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Add 2 good + 2 bad examples (D-025 — highest illustration value) and verify cross-domain links from all 4 new domains to existing ones. Examples are markdown with fenced code only (no standalone .yaml/.po/.rego/model artifacts — D-020).
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/05-examples-crosslinks` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
|
||||
**Personas:** tech-writer (examples + cross-link audit), domain-expert (P-rule citation + cross-link validation)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.2.5
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-86, ATELIER-87, ATELIER-88
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (parallel — 4 examples, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 05-01-01 | `examples/good/gitops-pr.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-86 | Good GitOps example; markdown with fenced YAML only (no standalone .yaml); demonstrates P1 Git is Source of Truth + P3 Pull Don't Push + P5 State Immutable and Versioned; cross-link to argocd.md + flux.md + kubernetes/workloads.md |
|
||||
| 05-01-02 | `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md` | tech-writer (ml-engineer consult) | ATELIER-86 | Good AI/ML example; markdown with fenced code only (no model artifacts); demonstrates P1 Reproducibility + P2 Data Versioned + P3 Lineage Traceable + P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts; cross-link to data-versioning.md + serving.md |
|
||||
| 05-01-03 | `examples/bad/i18n-string-concat.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-87 | Bad i18n example; cites P3 breached (inline string concatenation, Resources External Not Inline) per IDEATE-07; cross-link to locale-resources.md + formatting.md |
|
||||
| 05-01-04 | `examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-87 | Bad compliance example; **TWO breaches in one example** (IDEATE-26, D-044): append-only violation (mutation/deletion of an audit record, P1) AND redaction failure (secret leaked in audit log, P9); cites both P-rules breached; cross-link to audit-logs.md + evidence.md |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (sequential — cross-link audit after all docs exist)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 05-02-01 | Cross-link audit (all 18 new derived docs across 4 domains) | tech-writer | ATELIER-88 | Review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed existing domain doc (devops/security/observability/data/kubernetes/infrastructure-as-code); links resolve (IDEATE-08 carried forward); domain-expert validates the cross-link targets are correct (not just present) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P5):**
|
||||
- Structural: 4 new example files exist (all .md)
|
||||
- Behavioral: each bad example cites the P-rule(s) breached (i18n: P3; compliance: P1 + P9 two-breach per IDEATE-26); each good example cites the P-rules it demonstrates
|
||||
- Security: no standalone .yaml/.po/.rego/model artifacts (deployable artifact mitigation, IDEATE-20, D-020)
|
||||
- Quality: all cross-links from the 18 new derived docs resolve to MANIFEST-listed docs; no back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content (D-026 extended — one-directional outward)
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 6 — Final Review + Ship (N+1)
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Multi-persona review across all v0.3 phases, audit, milestone ship. P6 IS the v0.3 release (NFR → no separate minor tag; v0.2.6 IS the deliverable). Phase-specific personas (platform-engineer, ml-engineer) are removed after milestone completion.
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/06-final-review-ship` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
|
||||
**Personas:** lead-developer (coordinate + ship), domain-expert (review), tech-writer (review), platform-engineer (review, then removed), ml-engineer (review, then removed)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.2.6 (IS the v0.3 milestone release — NFR, no separate minor tag)
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-89, ATELIER-90
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — review → audit → ship → complete)
|
||||
| Task | Activity | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|----------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 06-01-01 | `ciagent-review` — multi-persona review of all v0.3 changes | lead-developer | ATELIER-89 | Auto-apply P0 fixes; flag P1+ for post-hoc; if P1+ found, fix in this phase; platform-engineer reviews gitops-operators content; ml-engineer reviews ai-ml content (D-023 scope check); domain-expert verifies all 40 new P-rules trace to ≥1 C-rule (no orphans) |
|
||||
| 06-01-02 | `ciagent-audit` — reconstruction + discipline | lead-developer | ATELIER-89 | git log matches .ciagent/ files; branch hygiene; commit discipline (every commit has `---ci---` block with `project: atelier`); MANIFEST reconstruction test (every listed doc exists, every existing doc is listed — incl. examples/ per ATELIER-91); matrix row-count test (10 per domain × 17 = 170) |
|
||||
| 06-01-03 | `ciagent-ship` — milestone ship | lead-developer | ATELIER-90 | Merge `atelier/phase/06` → `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier` → `main`; tag `v0.2.6`; Gitea release with full milestone summary; delete all v0.3 branches (tags preserve history) |
|
||||
| 06-01-04 | Complete milestone (REQUIREMENTS + ROADMAP + PERSONAS) | lead-developer | ATELIER-90 | Mark all v0.3 requirements (ATELIER-60..91) `covered`; ROADMAP v0.3 → complete; PERSONAS: remove platform-engineer + ml-engineer (roster returns to 3 active); clear checkpoint |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P6):**
|
||||
- Structural: all 32 v0.3 requirements (ATELIER-60..91) marked covered
|
||||
- Behavioral: reconstruction test passes (git log ↔ .ciagent/); matrix row-count test passes (170); MANIFEST reconstruction test passes (incl. examples/)
|
||||
- Security: audit clean (no critical issues); no regulation-specific compliance content (D-024); no algorithm-design ai-ml content (D-023); no standalone runtime artifacts (D-020)
|
||||
- Quality: milestone merged to main, tag v0.2.6 exists, all v0.3 branches deleted; platform-engineer + ml-engineer personas removed (roster = 3)
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Wave Ordering Summary
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Waves | Parallelism |
|
||||
|-------|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| P0 | (pre-exec) | Sequential stages (specify→clarify→research→ideate→plan→grill) |
|
||||
| P1 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (4 derived docs) |
|
||||
| P2 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (4 derived docs) |
|
||||
| P3 | 2 | Wave 1 parallel (2 first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (8 derived docs — 2a i18n + 2b compliance, capped at 5 concurrent) |
|
||||
| P4 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (matrix arbiter), Wave 2 parallel (5 extensions — exactly max_concurrent) |
|
||||
| P5 | 2 | Wave 1 parallel (4 examples), Wave 2 sequential (cross-link audit) |
|
||||
| P6 | 1 | Sequential: review → audit → ship → complete |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Requirements → Phase Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Requirements | Count |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|-------|
|
||||
| 1 | ATELIER-60..64 | 5 |
|
||||
| 2 | ATELIER-65..69 | 5 |
|
||||
| 3 | ATELIER-70..79 | 10 |
|
||||
| 4 | ATELIER-80..85, 91 | 7 |
|
||||
| 5 | ATELIER-86..88 | 3 |
|
||||
| 6 | ATELIER-89, 90 | 2 |
|
||||
| **Total** | | **32** |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Ideation Refinements → Task Bake-In Map
|
||||
|
||||
All 14 accepted ideation refinements (IDEATE-17..30) are baked into the relevant phase tasks as explicit must-have notes:
|
||||
|
||||
| IDEATE-ID | Refinement | Baked Into Task(s) | How |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|-----|
|
||||
| IDEATE-17 | examples/ in MANIFEST (new req ATELIER-91) | 04-02-05 | MANIFEST gains an examples/ directory listing (closes v0.2 ESC-002 drift) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-18 | matrix coverage summary = "17 domains, 170 P-rules" | 04-01-01 | Coverage Summary block + per-domain section count both updated |
|
||||
| IDEATE-19 | Core Principle Coverage table update for 4 new domains | 04-02-01 | C1–C8 → domains table extended (C4 adds i18n+gitops; C5 adds ai-ml+compliance+gitops+i18n; etc.) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-20 | anti-patterns pre-specify domain violations + v0.3 artifact types | 04-02-04 | .po/.rego/model/signed-manifest artifact types + 16 domain-specific anti-patterns (4 per domain) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-21 | ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix | 01-02-01, 01-02-02 | Both argocd.md and flux.md carry the decision matrix (parallel to v0.2 Helm vs Kustomize) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-22 | data versioning tool comparison (DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS) | 02-02-01 | data-versioning.md comparison table (versioning model, lineage, use-case fit) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-23 | policy-as-code engine comparison (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel) | 03-02b-03 | policy-as-code.md comparison table (policy language, evaluation gate, ecosystem) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-24 | GitOps push-pattern anti-pattern (violates P3) | 04-02-04 | Named chaos anti-pattern; pre-specified to reject on sight |
|
||||
| IDEATE-25 | i18n LTR-only assumption anti-pattern (violates P6) | 04-02-04 | Named chaos anti-pattern; pre-specified to reject on sight |
|
||||
| IDEATE-26 | compliance-audit-log bad example = 2 breaches (P1 + P9) | 05-01-04 | examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md covers append-only violation + redaction failure |
|
||||
| IDEATE-27 | AI/ML orphan-model anti-pattern (violates P3 Lineage) | 04-02-04 | Named chaos anti-pattern; deployed prediction with no lineage trace |
|
||||
| IDEATE-28 | i18n testing pseudo-locale → testing pyramid tiers | 03-02a-04 | testing-i18n.md maps unit (missing-key), integration (snapshot per locale), e2e (RTL coverage) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-29 | compliance evidence.md signed-attestation fenced example | 03-02b-04 | evidence.md includes a fenced Cosign OR in-toto attestation (not prose-only) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-30 | ai-ml monitoring-drift.md 3 drift types with detection signals | 02-02-04 | monitoring-drift.md enumerates data/concept/prediction drift, each with a detection signal |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Decisions Logged (planning stage)
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Decision | Rationale | Confidence |
|
||||
|----|----------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| D-049 | P3 splits Wave 2 into 2a (i18n) + 2b (compliance) labels but both are the same dependency tier | 8 derived docs are all independent post-Wave-1; the 2a/2b labels organize by domain, the executor schedules ≤5 concurrent per config.json. Avoids inventing a false dependency between i18n and compliance | 0.88 |
|
||||
| D-050 | P4 Wave 2 runs exactly 5 concurrent tasks (at the max_concurrent_agents cap) | matrix, coverage, agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns, manifest = 6 extensions, but anti-patterns (04-02-04) and manifest (04-02-05) are combined under lead-developer for manifest to sequence after anti-patterns content is settled. Net 5 concurrent slots | 0.82 |
|
||||
| D-051 | P5 ai-ml-reproducibility.md example authored by tech-writer with ml-engineer consultation (not ml-engineer primary) | ml-engineer is removed after P2 per PERSONAS.md; P5 examples are tech-writer territory. ml-engineer constraints are baked into the task must-have (P1/P2/P3/P5 demonstrated) so the constraint survives the persona | 0.80 |
|
||||
| D-052 | P6 review uses platform-engineer + ml-engineer for content review before removal | Phase-specific personas review their authored content one final time in P6 Wave 1, then are removed in 06-01-04. Ensures D-023 (ai-ml scope) and GitOps correctness are checked by the specialist before the roster returns to 3 | 0.84 |
|
||||
| D-053 | Vertical-slice integrity: each phase is independently shippable | P1 ships gitops-operators domain docs (matrix rows land in P4 — acceptable because the domain is self-consistent; matrix extension is the traceability closure, not a blocker for the domain's internal consistency). P3 ships 2 domains together (D-022). P4 closes traceability + manifest. P5 closes examples + cross-links. P6 ships the release | 0.86 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Assumptions Logged
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Assumption | Confidence |
|
||||
|---|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| A-001 | The v0.2 ESC-002 drift note (examples/ unlisted in MANIFEST) is the only pre-existing manifest drift; no other v0.1/v0.2 docs are unlisted | 0.85 |
|
||||
| A-002 | The 4 new domains' P-rules map to existing core C1–C8 without needing new core principles (core is stable at 8) | 0.95 |
|
||||
| A-003 | Wave 2 of P3 (8 derived docs) can be scheduled by the executor as 5-then-3 without a hard sub-wave barrier | 0.90 |
|
||||
| A-004 | The ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix (IDEATE-21) is the only decision matrix required in P1 (no separate operators-vs-Helm matrix beyond operators.md's "when to write an operator vs a Helm chart" guidance) | 0.82 |
|
||||
| A-005 | P4 anti-patterns (04-02-04) and manifest (04-02-05) can be concurrent because anti-patterns content does not block the manifest's examples/ listing (manifest lists file paths, not anti-pattern content) | 0.80 |
|
||||
@@ -78,6 +78,48 @@ Build **Atelier** — a first-principles, docs-as-code engineering framework for
|
||||
- New examples: `examples/good/terraform-module.md`, `examples/good/k8s-deployment.md`, `examples/bad/` counterparts
|
||||
- Cross-links from new domains to existing `devops/`, `security/`, `observability/`, `data/` domains
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` runtime code)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.2.x (previous minor from v0.3)
|
||||
**Scope:** Extend the domain tree with four new top-level domains covering GitOps/operator patterns, AI/ML, internationalization, and compliance. Plus matrix, review, examples, and cross-link integration. All content is docs-only markdown with illustrative code fences; no runtime/deployable artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
### New Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/gitops-operators/` — platform-automation domain (ArgoCD + Flux + Operators)
|
||||
- `first-principles.md` — 10 GitOps/operator principles (P1–P10)
|
||||
- Derived: `argocd.md`, `flux.md`, `operators.md`, `progressive-delivery.md`
|
||||
- `domains/ai-ml/` — ML engineering domain
|
||||
- `first-principles.md` — 10 AI/ML principles (P1–P10)
|
||||
- Derived: `data-versioning.md`, `model-evaluation.md`, `serving.md`, `monitoring-drift.md`
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/` — internationalization domain
|
||||
- `first-principles.md` — 10 i18n principles (P1–P10)
|
||||
- Derived: `locale-resources.md`, `formatting.md`, `rtl-bidi.md`, `testing-i18n.md`
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/` — compliance/audit domain
|
||||
- `first-principles.md` — 10 compliance principles (P1–P10)
|
||||
- Derived: `audit-logs.md`, `data-retention.md`, `policy-as-code.md`, `evidence.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 40 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain)
|
||||
- Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with the four new domains
|
||||
- Extend `review/agent-checklist.md`, `review/peer-review-checklist.md`, and `review/anti-patterns.md` with new domain sections
|
||||
- Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new v0.3 documents (manifest is authoritative)
|
||||
- New examples (good + bad): gitops-pr, ai-ml-reproducibility, i18n-string-concat, compliance-audit-log
|
||||
- Cross-links from new domains to existing `devops/`, `security/`, `observability/`, `data/`, `kubernetes/`, `infrastructure-as-code/` domains
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase Plan (proposed, finalized in PLAN)
|
||||
|
||||
- P0 Pre-Execution: spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, grill
|
||||
- P1 GitOps + Operators domain
|
||||
- P2 AI/ML domain
|
||||
- P3 i18n + Compliance domains
|
||||
- P4 Matrix + Review Integration (40 new mappings, manifest, checklist parity)
|
||||
- P5 Examples + Cross-Links
|
||||
- P6 Final Review + Ship (IS the v0.3 release → tag v0.2.6)
|
||||
|
||||
NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.2.6) IS the v0.3 deliverable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Decision | Rationale | Confidence |
|
||||
@@ -97,6 +139,31 @@ Build **Atelier** — a first-principles, docs-as-code engineering framework for
|
||||
| D-013 | v0.2 tags run on v0.1.x patch line (prev minor from v0.2) | Per branch-strategy.md: milestone 0.2 → tags v0.1.0..v0.1.5; v0.1.5 IS the v0.2 release (NFR → no separate minor tag) | 0.90 |
|
||||
| D-014 | Add phase-specific `platform-engineer` persona for P1–P4 | IaC/k8s domain authoring benefits from a specialist persona with declarative-first/stateless-examples constraints; removed after milestone | 0.82 |
|
||||
| D-015 | 4 execution phases (P1–P4) + final phase P5 | P1 IaC domain, P2 k8s domain, P3 matrix+review, P4 examples+cross-links, P5 final review+ship | 0.85 |
|
||||
| D-016 | v0.3 covers 4 deferred domains: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance | Carries forward v0.2 deferred ideation (IDEATE-15, IDEATE-16); single milestone groups them to limit release overhead | 0.86 |
|
||||
| D-017 | v0.3 tags run on v0.2.x patch line (prev minor from v0.3) | Per branch-strategy.md: milestone 0.3 → tags v0.2.0..v0.2.6; v0.2.6 IS the v0.3 release (NFR → no separate minor tag) | 0.90 |
|
||||
| D-018 | v0.3 splits P1 GitOps/Operators, P2 AI/ML, P3 i18n+Compliance, P4 Matrix+Review, P5 Examples, P6 Final | Each domain cluster is a coherent vertical slice; i18n + compliance paired (smaller surface) to balance phase load | 0.84 |
|
||||
| D-019 | Reuse `platform-engineer` persona (extended) + add `ml-engineer` phase-specific persona for P2 | GitOps/Operators/k8s reuse platform-engineer; AI/ML benefits from a data/ML-specialist persona with reproducibility/data-lineage constraints; removed after milestone | 0.80 |
|
||||
| D-020 | v0.3 remains docs-only (NFR milestone type) | PROJECT.md constraint "no runtime code" preserved; manifests/models/locale resources appear only as illustrative code-fence content in examples | 0.95 |
|
||||
| D-021 | GitOps-operators domain groups ArgoCD + Flux + Operators + Progressive Delivery under one first-principles doc | All four share the declarative-source-of-truth reconciliation loop; splitting would fragment the P-rules and duplicate the core principles they trace to | 0.84 |
|
||||
| D-022 | i18n + compliance paired in P3 (not separate phases) | Both are smaller-surface domains (4 derived docs each); pairing balances phase load against the heavier P1/P2 single-domain phases | 0.83 |
|
||||
| D-023 | AI/ML domain scope = engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT algorithm/model design | Atelier is a framework for engineering practice; algorithm choice is domain-knowledge out of scope. Mirrors how iac/k8s docs cover practice not implementation | 0.88 |
|
||||
| D-024 | Compliance domain is framework-agnostic (audit logs, retention, policy-as-code, evidence), NOT tied to a specific regulation (GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2) | Regulation-specific docs would bloat the framework and go stale; principles derive from core Security/Correctness and apply across regulations | 0.86 |
|
||||
| D-025 | Examples set = 2 good + 2 bad (not 4+4) | v0.3 adds 4 domains; 4+4 examples would unbalance P5. 2 good (gitops-pr, ai-ml-reproducibility) + 2 bad (i18n-string-concat, compliance-audit-log) cover the highest-illustration-value cases; remaining domains covered by cross-links and anti-patterns | 0.80 |
|
||||
| D-026 | 40 new matrix mappings (10 per domain × 4 domains) | Consistent with v0.1 (110 mappings / 11 domains = 10) and v0.2 (20 mappings / 2 domains = 10). Each P-rule maps to ≥1 C-rule | 0.92 |
|
||||
| D-035 | Add `examples/` directory listing to MANIFEST.md in v0.3 P4 (ATELIER-91) | v0.2 audit escalation ESC-002 note flagged examples/ unlisted; manifest is authoritative, so this is pre-existing drift that v0.3 closes | 0.85 |
|
||||
| D-036 | Matrix coverage summary must state post-v0.3 totals (17 domains, 170 P-rules) | Both the summary block and per-domain section count must update; consistent with v0.2's "post-v0.2" summary | 0.93 |
|
||||
| D-037 | domain-coverage.md Core Principle Coverage table (C1–C8 → domains) must update for 4 new domains | ATELIER-81 covers the per-domain row schema; this is the complementary C-rule → domains table that also needs the 4 new domains | 0.90 |
|
||||
| D-038 | v0.3 anti-patterns must pre-specify domain-specific violations + v0.3 artifact types | Avoids generic "deployable example artifact" only; v0.3 has new artifact types (.po, .rego, model files) and 4 domains × ~4 anti-patterns each | 0.86 |
|
||||
| D-039 | ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix required in argocd.md + flux.md | Parallel to v0.2 Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix (IDEATE-10); both tools share the GitOps model but differ in architecture (App CRD vs composable controllers) | 0.82 |
|
||||
| D-040 | Data versioning tool comparison table required in data-versioning.md (DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS) | Parallel to v0.2 state comparison table (IDEATE-11); three主流 tools with distinct versioning/lineage models | 0.80 |
|
||||
| D-041 | Policy-as-code engine comparison table required in policy-as-code.md (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel) | Parallel to v0.2 PSS coverage (IDEATE-12); four engines with distinct policy languages and gate models | 0.81 |
|
||||
| D-042 | GitOps push-pattern is a named anti-pattern (violates P3 Pull Don't Push) | Chaos scenario: a "GitOps" example that uses push-based deploy is a fundamental violation; pre-specify to reject on sight | 0.85 |
|
||||
| D-043 | i18n LTR-only assumption is a named anti-pattern (violates P6 Text Direction) | Chaos scenario: formatting/layout examples that assume LTR only fail RTL/bidi users; pre-specify to reject | 0.83 |
|
||||
| D-044 | compliance-audit-log bad example must cover both append-only violation (P1) and redaction failure (P9) | Two-breach example maximizes illustration value; mirrors v0.2 named-bad-example pattern but doubles the breach surface for the highest-stakes domain | 0.87 |
|
||||
| D-045 | AI/ML orphan-model anti-pattern required (deployed prediction with no lineage trace, violates P3) | Chaos scenario: a serving example with no model→training→data lineage is the AI/ML analog of v0.2 orphaned P-rule; pre-specify | 0.84 |
|
||||
| D-046 | i18n testing-i18n.md must map pseudo-locale testing to testing pyramid tiers | Avoids generic "test i18n" guidance; maps to unit (missing-key), integration (snapshot per locale), e2e (RTL coverage) | 0.78 |
|
||||
| D-047 | compliance evidence.md must include a fenced signed-attestation example (Cosign or in-toto) | Prose-only evidence guidance is weak; a fenced example demonstrates the principle concretely (P6 Evidence Collected Continuously) | 0.80 |
|
||||
| D-048 | ai-ml monitoring-drift.md must enumerate 3 drift types (data/concept/prediction) with a detection signal per type | Avoids conflating drift types; each has distinct detection signals and retraining triggers | 0.82 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Project References
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -105,4 +172,4 @@ None yet. Atelier is a standalone docs framework.
|
||||
## Milestone History
|
||||
|
||||
- **v0.1** — Initial Framework (COMPLETE). 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principles, full matrix, 4+3 examples, 4 languages. Tag v0.0.7.
|
||||
- **v0.2** — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes (IN PROGRESS). Adds 2 domains (20 new P-rules), matrix/review/examples integration. Tags v0.1.0–v0.1.5.
|
||||
- **v0.2** — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes (COMPLETE). Adds 2 domains (20 new P-rules), matrix/review/examples integration. Tags v0.1.0–v0.1.5; v0.1.5 is the v0.2 release.
|
||||
@@ -69,25 +69,25 @@ All 35 requirements covered. 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principle
|
||||
| ATELIER-38 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/opentofu.md` — OpenTofu derived doc | P1 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-39 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/state.md` — IaC state management derived doc | P1 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-40 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md` — IaC module composition derived doc | P1 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-41 | `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md` — 10 k8s principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-42 | `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` — workloads derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-43 | `domains/kubernetes/networking.md` — networking derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-44 | `domains/kubernetes/storage.md` — storage derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-45 | `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` — RBAC derived doc incl. Pod Security Standards/Admission (cross-link security/authorization) | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-46 | `domains/kubernetes/helm.md` — Helm derived doc (with Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix) | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-47 | `domains/kubernetes/kustomize.md` — Kustomize derived doc (with Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix) | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-48 | Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 20 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain; review check: row count per domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule) | P0 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-49 | Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with infrastructure-as-code + kubernetes (row schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status) | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-50 | Extend `review/agent-checklist.md` with IaC + k8s trigger sections | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-51 | Extend `review/anti-patterns.md` with IaC + k8s violations incl. orphaned P-rule + deployable example artifact | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-52 | Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new v0.2 documents (manifest authoritative) | P0 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-53 | `examples/good/terraform-module.md` — good IaC example (markdown with fenced HCL only; no standalone .tf) | P2 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-54 | `examples/good/k8s-deployment.md` — good k8s example (markdown with fenced YAML only; no standalone .yaml) | P2 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-55 | `examples/bad/terraform-unlocked-state.md` + `examples/bad/k8s-bare-pod-no-resources.md` — 2 named bad examples (each cites the P-rule breached) | P2 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-56 | Cross-links from new domains to existing devops/security/observability/data domains (review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc) | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-57 | Final review passes (all v0.2 phases reviewed, audit clean) | P0 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-58 | Milestone v0.2 released (tag v0.1.5, merged to main) | P0 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-59 | Extend `review/peer-review-checklist.md` with IaC + k8s sections (parity with agent-checklist) | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-41 | `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md` — 10 k8s principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-42 | `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` — workloads derived doc | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-43 | `domains/kubernetes/networking.md` — networking derived doc | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-44 | `domains/kubernetes/storage.md` — storage derived doc | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-45 | `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` — RBAC derived doc incl. Pod Security Standards/Admission (cross-link security/authorization) | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-46 | `domains/kubernetes/helm.md` — Helm derived doc (with Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix) | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-47 | `domains/kubernetes/kustomize.md` — Kustomize derived doc (with Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix) | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-48 | Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 20 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain; review check: row count per domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule) | P0 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-49 | Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with infrastructure-as-code + kubernetes (row schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status) | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-50 | Extend `review/agent-checklist.md` with IaC + k8s trigger sections | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-51 | Extend `review/anti-patterns.md` with IaC + k8s violations incl. orphaned P-rule + deployable example artifact | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-52 | Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new v0.2 documents (manifest authoritative) | P0 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-53 | `examples/good/terraform-module.md` — good IaC example (markdown with fenced HCL only; no standalone .tf) | P2 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-54 | `examples/good/k8s-deployment.md` — good k8s example (markdown with fenced YAML only; no standalone .yaml) | P2 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-55 | `examples/bad/terraform-unlocked-state.md` + `examples/bad/k8s-bare-pod-no-resources.md` — 2 named bad examples (each cites the P-rule breached) | P2 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-56 | Cross-links from new domains to existing devops/security/observability/data domains (review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc) | P1 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-57 | Final review passes (all v0.2 phases reviewed, audit clean) | P0 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-58 | Milestone v0.2 released (tag v0.1.5, merged to main) | P0 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-59 | Extend `review/peer-review-checklist.md` with IaC + k8s sections (parity with agent-checklist) | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Traceability Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -124,4 +124,110 @@ All 35 requirements covered. 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principle
|
||||
| IDEATE-13 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.85 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-48, ATELIER-51 (orphan mitigation) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-14 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.87 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-53, ATELIER-51 (deployable artifact mitigation) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-15 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.72 | deferred v0.3 | — (GitOps/operators domain) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-16 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.68 | deferred v0.3 | — (ai-ml/i18n/compliance) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-16 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.68 | deferred v0.3 | — (ai-ml/i18n/compliance) |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Requirements — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.2.x (previous minor from v0.3)
|
||||
|
||||
| REQ-ID | Requirement | Priority | Phase | Status |
|
||||
|--------|-------------|----------|-------|--------|
|
||||
| ATELIER-60 | `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md` — 10 GitOps/operator principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-61 | `domains/gitops-operators/argocd.md` — ArgoCD derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-62 | `domains/gitops-operators/flux.md` — Flux derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-63 | `domains/gitops-operators/operators.md` — Kubernetes Operators derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-64 | `domains/gitops-operators/progressive-delivery.md` — progressive delivery derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-65 | `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md` — 10 AI/ML principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-66 | `domains/ai-ml/data-versioning.md` — data/model versioning derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-67 | `domains/ai-ml/model-evaluation.md` — evaluation derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-68 | `domains/ai-ml/serving.md` — model serving derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-69 | `domains/ai-ml/monitoring-drift.md` — monitoring/drift derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-70 | `domains/i18n/first-principles.md` — 10 i18n principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-71 | `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — locale resource management derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-72 | `domains/i18n/formatting.md` — formatting (dates/numbers/units) derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-73 | `domains/i18n/rtl-bidi.md` — RTL/bidi layout derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-74 | `domains/i18n/testing-i18n.md` — i18n testing derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-75 | `domains/compliance/first-principles.md` — 10 compliance principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-76 | `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — audit logging derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-77 | `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` — data retention derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-78 | `domains/compliance/policy-as-code.md` — policy-as-code derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-79 | `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — evidence collection derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-80 | Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 40 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain; review check: row count per domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule) | P0 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-81 | Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance (row schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status) | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-82 | Extend `review/agent-checklist.md` with 4 new domain trigger sections | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-83 | Extend `review/peer-review-checklist.md` with 4 new domain sections (parity with agent-checklist) | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-84 | Extend `review/anti-patterns.md` with 4 new domain violations incl. orphaned P-rule + deployable example artifact | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-85 | Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new v0.3 documents (manifest authoritative) | P0 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-86 | `examples/good/gitops-pr.md` + `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md` — 2 good examples (markdown with fenced code only) | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-87 | `examples/bad/i18n-string-concat.md` + `examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md` — 2 named bad examples (each cites the P-rule breached) | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-88 | Cross-links from new domains to existing devops/security/observability/data/kubernetes/infrastructure-as-code domains (review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc) | P1 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-89 | Final review passes (all v0.3 phases reviewed, audit clean) | P0 | 6 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-90 | Milestone v0.3 released (tag v0.2.6, merged to main) | P0 | 6 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-91 | Add `examples/` directory listing to `MANIFEST.md` (pre-existing drift from v0.2 audit escalation ESC-002 note: examples/ unlisted; manifest is authoritative) | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Traceability Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Requirements |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| 0 (Pre-Execution) | (governance: spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan) |
|
||||
| 1 (GitOps + Operators Domain) | ATELIER-60..ATELIER-64 |
|
||||
| 2 (AI/ML Domain) | ATELIER-65..ATELIER-69 |
|
||||
| 3 (i18n + Compliance Domains) | ATELIER-70..ATELIER-79 |
|
||||
| 4 (Matrix + Review Integration) | ATELIER-80..ATELIER-85, ATELIER-91 |
|
||||
| 5 (Examples + Cross-Links) | ATELIER-86..ATELIER-88 |
|
||||
| 6 (Final Review + Ship) | ATELIER-89, ATELIER-90 |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Ideation Log
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated:** 14 ideas (mechanical: 5, backend-enriched: 7, within-project transfer: 2 merged)
|
||||
**Accepted:** 14 (all v0.3-scope, confidence ≥ 0.78, above 0.6 autonomy threshold → auto-accepted)
|
||||
**Deferred to v0.4:** 0
|
||||
**Rejected:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
| IDEATE-ID | Source | Category | Confidence | Decision | Mapped REQ |
|
||||
|-----------|--------|----------|------------|----------|------------|
|
||||
| IDEATE-17 | mechanical (audit escalation ESC-002 note) | drift | 0.85 | accepted → new req | ATELIER-91 (examples/ in MANIFEST) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-18 | mechanical (MANIFEST + matrix coverage summary) | coverage | 0.93 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-80, ATELIER-85 (v0.3 totals: 17 domains, 170 P-rules) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-19 | mechanical (domain-coverage.md Core Principle Coverage table) | coverage | 0.90 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-81 (C-rule count updates for 4 new domains) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-20 | mechanical (anti-patterns specificity) | quality | 0.86 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84 (pre-specify domain anti-patterns + v0.3 artifact types: .po, .rego, model files) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-21 | backend-enriched (v0.2 IDEATE-10 pattern transfer) | improvement | 0.82 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-61, ATELIER-62 (ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-22 | backend-enriched (v0.2 IDEATE-11 pattern transfer) | improvement | 0.80 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-66 (data versioning tool comparison: DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-23 | backend-enriched (v0.2 IDEATE-12 pattern transfer) | improvement | 0.81 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-78 (policy-as-code engine comparison: OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-24 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.85 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84 (GitOps push-pattern anti-pattern, violates P3 Pull Don't Push) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-25 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.83 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84, ATELIER-72 (i18n LTR-only assumption anti-pattern) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-26 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.87 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-87 (compliance-audit-log bad example must cover append-only violation + secret redaction failure, P1 + P9) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-27 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.84 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84 (AI/ML orphan-model anti-pattern: deployed prediction with no lineage trace) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-28 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.78 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-74 (i18n testing-i18n.md pseudo-locale tier mapping to testing/pyramid) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-29 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.80 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-79 (compliance evidence.md signed attestation fenced example, Cosign/in-toto) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-30 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.82 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-69 (ai-ml monitoring-drift.md drift-type enumeration: data/concept/prediction with detection signals) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Refinements Notes (applied to existing reqs at execute time, not changing req rows)
|
||||
|
||||
- **ATELIER-80** (IDEATE-18): matrix coverage summary must read "post-v0.3: 17 domains, 170 P-rules"; update both the summary block and per-domain section count.
|
||||
- **ATELIER-81** (IDEATE-19): the "Core Principle Coverage" table (C1–C8 → domains) must be updated with the 4 new domains, not just the per-domain row schema table.
|
||||
- **ATELIER-84** (IDEATE-20, IDEATE-24, IDEATE-25, IDEATE-27): anti-patterns extension must include (a) v0.3 deployable artifact types (.po resource files, .rego policy files, model artifacts, signed manifests as standalone files), (b) GitOps push-pattern violation (P3), (c) i18n LTR-only assumption violation (P6), (d) AI/ML orphan-model violation (P3 Lineage). Domain-specific anti-patterns to pre-specify:
|
||||
- gitops-operators: push-based deploy (P3), manual kubectl apply on GitOps-managed resource (P8), cluster-admin GitOps robot (P10)
|
||||
- ai-ml: unreproducible training run (P1), "the latest" model (P5), notebook in production (P9), orphan model with no lineage (P3)
|
||||
- i18n: inline string concatenation (P3), `if (n == 1)` plural branching (P4), LTR-only layout assumption (P6), hand-rolled date formatter (P5)
|
||||
- compliance: mutable audit log (P1), shared/generic identity in audit (P7), secret leaked in audit log (P9), manual evidence assembly at audit time (P6)
|
||||
- **ATELIER-61/62** (IDEATE-21): argocd.md and flux.md must include an "ArgoCD vs Flux" decision matrix (parallel to v0.2 Helm vs Kustomize in ATELIER-46/47).
|
||||
- **ATELIER-66** (IDEATE-22): data-versioning.md must include a tool comparison table (DVC vs Delta Lake vs LakeFS) covering versioning model, lineage, and use-case fit.
|
||||
- **ATELIER-78** (IDEATE-23): policy-as-code.md must include an engine comparison table (OPA vs Cedar vs Kyverno vs Sentinel) covering policy language, evaluation gate, and ecosystem.
|
||||
- **ATELIER-87** (IDEATE-26): the compliance-audit-log bad example must illustrate both an append-only violation (mutation/deletion of an audit record, P1) AND a redaction failure (secret in audit log, P9) — two breaches in one example.
|
||||
- **ATELIER-74** (IDEATE-28): testing-i18n.md must map pseudo-locale testing to the testing pyramid tiers (unit: missing-key detection; integration: snapshot per locale; e2e: RTL coverage).
|
||||
- **ATELIER-79** (IDEATE-29): evidence.md must include a fenced signed-attestation example (Cosign or in-toto), not prose-only.
|
||||
- **ATELIER-69** (IDEATE-30): monitoring-drift.md must enumerate the three drift types (data drift, concept drift, prediction drift) with a detection signal per type.
|
||||
|
||||
### Within-Project Pattern Transfer (v0.1 → v0.2 → v0.3) — verified
|
||||
|
||||
| v0.2 Lesson | v0.3 Application | Status |
|
||||
|-------------|------------------|--------|
|
||||
| IDEATE-09 → ATELIER-59 (peer-review parity) | ATELIER-83 already covers this | ✓ carried forward |
|
||||
| IDEATE-13/14 (chaos anti-patterns: orphan P-rule, deployable artifact) | ATELIER-84 + IDEATE-20/24/25/27 extend with v0.3-specific chaos | ✓ extended |
|
||||
| IDEATE-08 (cross-link verification: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link) | ATELIER-88 already covers this | ✓ carried forward |
|
||||
| IDEATE-02 (matrix row count = 10 per domain) | ATELIER-80 already covers this | ✓ carried forward |
|
||||
| IDEATE-03 (domain-coverage row schema) | ATELIER-81 + IDEATE-19 extend with C-rule coverage table update | ✓ extended |
|
||||
| IDEATE-07 (named bad examples cite P-rule breached) | ATELIER-87 + IDEATE-26 refine (two-breach example) | ✓ extended |
|
||||
| IDEATE-10/11/12 (decision/comparison tables) | IDEATE-21/22/23 transfer the pattern to 3 v0.3 derived docs | ✓ transferred |
|
||||
| v0.2 audit ESC-002 note (examples/ not in MANIFEST) | IDEATE-17 → ATELIER-91 | ✓ addressed |
|
||||
@@ -215,4 +215,251 @@ See `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the updated roster. v0.2 adds one phase-s
|
||||
4. State and modules get their own derived docs (cross-cutting IaC concerns).
|
||||
5. K8s derived docs mirror the k8s concept taxonomy: workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize.
|
||||
6. A phase-specific platform-engineer persona is warranted for P1–P4; removed after v0.2.
|
||||
7. No runtime code; examples are illustrative markdown only.
|
||||
7. No runtime code; examples are illustrative markdown only.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# v0.3 Research — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
> Research conducted during v0.3 P0 RESEARCH stage. Informs the four new domains, matrix extension (+40 mappings), and the two phase-specific personas (platform-engineer extended, ml-engineer added). See CLARIFY.md D-021..D-026 for resolved ambiguities and PROJECT.md D-016..D-026 for milestone decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain A: GitOps + Operators (ArgoCD, Flux, Operators, Progressive Delivery)
|
||||
|
||||
### Prior Art
|
||||
|
||||
- **CNCF OpenGitOps Principles v1.0.0** (GitOps Working Group, TAG App Delivery): the canonical 4 principles — **Declarative**, **Versioned and Immutable**, **Pulled Automatically**, **Continuously Reconciled**. Atelier's gitops-operators domain derives its first-principles from these plus the Operator pattern. ([opengitops.dev](https://opengitops.dev/), [github.com/open-gitops/documents](https://github.com/open-gitops/documents))
|
||||
- **ArgoCD** (CNCF graduated): pull-based GitOps controller for k8s. Core concepts: Application CRD, sync waves, health/status assessment, diff against live cluster, RBAC, SSO. Declarative desired state from git; reconciled onto the cluster. ([argoCD.readthedocs.io](https://argoCD.readthedocs.io/))
|
||||
- **Flux** (CNCF graduated): GitOps Toolkit — a set of composable controllers (source-controller, kustomize-controller, helm-controller, notification-controller). Pulls git/Helm/OCI sources, reconciles via kustomize/helm, emits events. Composable-controller architecture is a C6 (Composability) exemplar. ([fluxcd.io](https://fluxcd.io/))
|
||||
- **Kubernetes Operator Pattern** (CNCF): a controller that encodes human operational knowledge as CRDs + control loops. Pattern documented in the k8s docs and "Operator Framework" (Operator SDK, OLM). Domain expertise as code; the deepest expression of k8s P1 Declarative Desired State. ([kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/operator](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/operator/))
|
||||
- **Progressive Delivery** — Argo Rollouts, Flagger: canary/blue-green traffic shifting driven by analysis (metrics, counters). Extends k8s rolling updates with metric-gated promotion. Cross-links devops/P5 Progressive Delivery.
|
||||
- **Google SRE** (already in Atelier v0.1 observability/devops): reconciliation loops, error budgets, progressive rollout. Cross-cutting influence.
|
||||
- **v0.2 in-tree prior art**: `kubernetes/first-principles.md` P1 (Declarative Desired State), P10 (Roll Forward Roll Back); `infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` P1 (Declarative Intent), P3 (State is Truth), P9 (Drift is Recoverable). GitOps-operators is the deployment-automation layer above these.
|
||||
|
||||
### Principles Identified for `gitops-operators/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
|
||||
|
||||
Each derived from a core C-rule (matrix extensions in P4):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P1 Git is the Source of Truth** — desired state lives in a versioned, immutable git store; the cluster is a derivative, not an authority. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
2. **P2 Declarative Over Imperative** — express desired cluster state, not the commands to reach it. (C2 Clarity, C3 Simplicity)
|
||||
3. **P3 Pull, Don't Push** — agents running inside the target pull desired state; no outside push credentials into the cluster. (C1 Correctness via security, C4 Locality)
|
||||
4. **P4 Continuous Reconciliation** — the loop is the primitive; drift is detected and corrected automatically, not on-demand. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
5. **P5 State is Immutable and Versioned** — every change is a commit; history is the audit trail and the rollback path. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
6. **P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge** — operational expertise lives as CRDs + controllers, not runbooks that humans must remember. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
7. **P7 Progressive Delivery is Reversible by Construction** — canary/blue-green are staged, metric-gated, and one-command abortable. Promotion without a rollback path is a violation. (C5 Reversibility, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
8. **P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand** — manual `kubectl apply`/`kubectl edit` on a GitOps-managed resource is an incident; drift back to git is the recovery. (C1 Correctness, C7 Observability)
|
||||
9. **P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced** — sync failures, health degradation, and rollout-stall events emit status + notifications; silent drift is the bug. (C7 Observability)
|
||||
10. **P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation** — the controller's credentials are scoped to the namespaces/resources it reconciles; no cluster-admin GitOps robots. (C1 Correctness via security, C8 Economy of trust)
|
||||
|
||||
### Derived Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `argocd.md` — Application CRD, App-of-Apps, sync waves, health checks, diffs, RBAC/SSO, multi-cluster, sync windows.
|
||||
- `flux.md` — GitOps Toolkit controllers (source, kustomize, helm, notification), composable architecture, HR/Kustomization/HelmRelease CRDs, OCI sources.
|
||||
- `operators.md` — Operator pattern, CRDs, controllers, Operator SDK/OLM, when to write an operator vs a Helm chart, scope/responsibility boundaries.
|
||||
- `progressive-delivery.md` — Argo Rollouts + Flagger, canary/blue-green, analysis templates (metrics, counters), abort/rollback, cross-link devops/P5.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3, per D-026 extended)
|
||||
|
||||
- `kubernetes/P1 Declarative Desired State` ← gitops P2
|
||||
- `kubernetes/P10 Roll Forward Roll Back` ← gitops P7
|
||||
- `infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← gitops P2
|
||||
- `infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← gitops P1, P5
|
||||
- `infrastructure-as-code/P9 Drift is Recoverable` ← gitops P4, P8
|
||||
- `devops/P1 Reproducibility` ← gitops P1, P5
|
||||
- `devops/P4 Rollback First` ← gitops P5, P7
|
||||
- `devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← gitops P7
|
||||
- `devops/P6 Configuration as Code` ← gitops P1, P2
|
||||
- `security/secrets` ← gitops P3, P10 (reconciliation credentials)
|
||||
- `security/supply-chain` ← gitops P5 (signed/immutable manifest provenance)
|
||||
- `observability/metrics` ← gitops P4, P9 (reconciliation + rollout metrics)
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain B: AI / ML (Engineering Discipline)
|
||||
|
||||
### Prior Art
|
||||
|
||||
- **Google MLOps / "Hidden Technical Debt in ML Systems"** (Sculley et al., 2015): the foundational paper framing ML systems as software-engineering problems with debt surfaces (data dependencies, configuration, glue code, reproducibility). Atelier's ai-ml domain is the principles-layer response.
|
||||
- **DVC / Data Version Control** (iterative.ai): git for data + pipelines; treats datasets, features, and models as versioned artifacts. C5 (Reversibility) and C6 (Composability) exemplar.
|
||||
- **MLflow** (Linux Foundation): experiment tracking, model registry, model packaging, deployment stages. Tracking → registry → serving lifecycle.
|
||||
- **Kubeflow** (CNCF): k8s-native ML pipelines, training operators, serving (KServe). Brings ML onto the k8s reconciliation model (cross-link kubernetes).
|
||||
- **KServe / Seldon Core / BentoML**: model serving runtimes; inference as a scalable, observable service. Cross-link devops/P7 Immutability, observability/metrics.
|
||||
- **Evidently AI / Great Expectations**: data drift detection, data quality, model monitoring. C7 (Observability) for ML.
|
||||
- **"Machine Learning Operations (MLOps)"** frameworks — Microsoft MLOps, AWS MLOps, Google MLOps maturity model. Converge on: version data, track experiments, evaluate models, serve reproducibly, monitor drift.
|
||||
- **v0.2 in-tree prior art**: `kubernetes/first-principles.md` (serving on k8s), `infrastructure-as-code/` (training pipelines as declarative infra), `data/` (schema, migrations — data versioning analog).
|
||||
|
||||
### Principles Identified for `ai-ml/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
|
||||
|
||||
Scope per D-023: engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT algorithm/model design. Each derived from a core C-rule:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P1 Reproducibility is the First Class** — every training run is reproducible from pinned data + code + config + environment. Unreproducible runs are unreviewable. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
2. **P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code** — datasets, features, and splits are first-class versioned artifacts with lineage; `git` alone is insufficient. (C5 Reversibility, C7 Observability)
|
||||
3. **P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End** — any deployed prediction traces back through model → training run → dataset → source. No orphan models. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
4. **P4 Evaluation is Defined Before Training** — metrics, splits, and thresholds are declared a priori; cherry-picking metrics post-hoc is a correctness violation. (C1 Correctness, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
5. **P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts** — a model is a pinned, immutable, registry-tracked artifact with a unique identifier; never "the latest." (C5 Reversibility, C6 Composability)
|
||||
6. **P6 Serving is Observable** — inference latency, throughput, input distributions, and prediction confidence are first-class signals. Silent serving is a bug. (C7 Observability)
|
||||
7. **P7 Drift is Expected and Detected** — data drift, concept drift, and prediction drift are monitored; a drift signal is an incident, not a curiosity. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
8. **P8 Inference Inputs are Validated** — the model's contract (schema, ranges, types) is enforced at the serving boundary; out-of-contract inputs are rejected, not silently scored. (C1 Correctness via security/input-validation)
|
||||
9. **P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't** — training/serving flows are composable pipelines with explicit steps and contracts; notebooks are for exploration, not production. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
10. **P10 Rollback Includes the Model** — a serving rollback restores the prior model artifact, not just the prior code; promotion is reversible at the model layer. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
|
||||
### Derived Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `data-versioning.md` — DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS patterns, data lineage, dataset hashing, train/val/test split versioning, cross-link data/migrations.
|
||||
- `model-evaluation.md` — metric selection, offline/online eval, holdout integrity, bias/fairness checks (engineering angle), eval as a gate.
|
||||
- `serving.md` — KServe/Seldon/BentoML, inference as a service, batching, latency SLAs, canarying models, cross-link kubernetes + devops.
|
||||
- `monitoring-drift.md` — Evidently/Great Expectations, drift types (data/concept/prediction), alerting, retraining triggers, cross-link observability/metrics.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3)
|
||||
|
||||
- `data/migrations` ← ai-ml P2 (data versioning ↔ migration discipline)
|
||||
- `data/schema-design` ← ai-ml P8 (inference input contract)
|
||||
- `observability/metrics` ← ai-ml P6, P7
|
||||
- `observability/logging` ← ai-ml P3 (lineage)
|
||||
- `devops/P1 Reproducibility` ← ai-ml P1
|
||||
- `devops/P7 Immutability` ← ai-ml P5 (model images)
|
||||
- `devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← ai-ml P10 (model canary)
|
||||
- `security/input-validation` ← ai-ml P8
|
||||
- `security/secrets` ← ai-ml P8 (serving credentials)
|
||||
- `performance/backend` ← ai-ml P6 (serving latency)
|
||||
- `kubernetes/workloads` ← ai-ml P9 (serving on k8s)
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain C: Internationalization (i18n)
|
||||
|
||||
### Prior Art
|
||||
|
||||
- **Unicode / ICU / CLDR** (Unicode Consortium): the foundation — ICU (International Components for Unicode) for formatting/collation, CLDR (Common Locale Data Repository) for locale data. The de-facto source for date/number/currency/plural/relative-time formatting. ([unicode.org/cldr](https://cldr.unicode.org/), [icu.unicode.org](https://icu.unicode.org/))
|
||||
- **W3C Internationalization** (W3C i18n WG): the canonical web i18n guidance — "Internationalization techniques", "Language tags in HTML and XML", bidi/RTL authoring. Cross-links WCAG for accessibility-of-locale. ([w3.org/International](https://www.w3.org/International/))
|
||||
- **RFC 5646 / BCP 47** — language tags (`en-US`, `ar-EG`, `zh-Hans-CN`). The locale identifier standard.
|
||||
- **RFC 9229 / RFC 9230** (and earlier BCP 47 extensions) — Unicode locale extensions (`-u-`).
|
||||
- **gettext / ICU MessageFormat / FormatJS / react-intl / i18next / Fluent (Mozilla)** — message-format libraries; ICU MessageFormat is the cross-ecosystem baseline for plural/gender/select. Fluent pioneered "localization 2.0" with asymmetric translations.
|
||||
- **JavaScript Intl API** — browser-native formatting built on ICU/CLDR; the runtime baseline.
|
||||
- **WCAG 2.1 AA** (already in Atelier uiux/accessibility): cross-cutting — locale support is an a11y concern for non-Latin-script users; RTL layout is a UI-correctness concern.
|
||||
- **Google i18n + Mozilla L10n guides** — operational practice (string extraction, pseudo-locale testing, RTL testing).
|
||||
- **v0.2/v0.1 in-tree prior art**: `uiux/` (accessibility, components, copywriting — i18n's consumer), `testing/` (fixtures, pyramid — i18n testing parallels), `api/error-responses` (localized API errors).
|
||||
|
||||
### Principles Identified for `i18n/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
|
||||
|
||||
Each derived from a core C-rule:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default** — the developer's language is one locale among many, not the "neutral" form. Strings are extracted from day one. (C2 Clarity, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
2. **P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized** — use BCP 47 language tags; no ad-hoc locale codes. (C2 Clarity, C6 Composability)
|
||||
3. **P3 Resources are External, Not Inline** — user-facing strings live in locale resource files, never concatenated inline in code. (C4 Locality, C6 Composability)
|
||||
4. **P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized** — use ICU MessageFormat (or equivalent) for plural/gender/select; never `if (n == 1)` branching. (C1 Correctness, C6 Composability)
|
||||
5. **P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware** — dates, times, numbers, currencies, units via ICU/CLDR/`Intl`; never hand-rolled formatters. (C1 Correctness, C7 Observability of format correctness)
|
||||
6. **P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive** — RTL/bidi is a first-class layout concern, not a CSS afterthought; logical properties (`start`/`end`) over physical (`left`/`right`). (C1 Correctness, C4 Locality)
|
||||
7. **P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion** — translated text expands/contracts; layouts are flexible (no fixed pixel widths for text). (C8 Economy of rework, C3 Simplicity)
|
||||
8. **P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early** — test with pseudo-locales (accented, lengthened, RTL-mirrored) before real translations arrive. (C7 Observability, C5 Reversibility of finding bugs late)
|
||||
9. **P9 Images and Icons are Cultural** — icons, colors, and imagery are locale-sensitive; avoid locale-bound symbols as universal. (C1 Correctness, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
10. **P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned** — resource files are versioned; a bad translation is a rollback, not a hot-patch. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
|
||||
### Derived Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `locale-resources.md` — resource file formats (.po/.pot, JSON, Fluent FTL, ICU Resource Bundle), key naming, namespaces, fallback chains, extraction tooling.
|
||||
- `formatting.md` — ICU/CLDR/`Intl` for dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, relative time, plural rules; BCP 47 tags; cross-link api/error-responses for localized errors.
|
||||
- `rtl-bidi.md` — logical vs physical CSS properties, bidi algorithm (UAX #9), `dir` attribute, mirroring, common pitfalls (icons, numbers in RTL), cross-link uiux/components + uiux/accessibility.
|
||||
- `testing-i18n.md` — pseudo-locales, snapshot testing per locale, RTL coverage, missing-key detection, cross-link testing/fixtures + testing/pyramid.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3)
|
||||
|
||||
- `uiux/accessibility` ← i18n P6 (RTL/bidi is an a11y concern for non-Latin users)
|
||||
- `uiux/components` ← i18n P6, P7
|
||||
- `uiux/copywriting` ← i18n P1, P3
|
||||
- `testing/fixtures` ← i18n P8
|
||||
- `testing/pyramid` ← i18n P8
|
||||
- `api/error-responses` ← i18n P5 (localized error messages)
|
||||
- `data/schema-design` ← i18n P2, P3 (locale data shapes)
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain D: Compliance (Audit, Retention, Policy-as-Code, Evidence)
|
||||
|
||||
### Prior Art
|
||||
|
||||
**Note (D-024):** the compliance domain is framework-agnostic — it abstracts regulation-specific requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, PCI-DSS, NIST 800-53, ISO 27001) into engineering principles. No regulation-specific docs; they would bloat the framework and go stale.
|
||||
|
||||
- **NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) / NIST 800-53** — controls catalog (audit, retention, evidence, policy). Atelier abstracts the *principles*, not the controls.
|
||||
- **SOC 2 (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria** — Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy. Audit logs, retention, and evidence are explicit criteria.
|
||||
- **GDPR / CCPA** — data subject rights, retention limits, lawful basis. Abstracted to "retention is a function of policy, not storage."
|
||||
- **OWASP AppSec / ASVS** — already in Atelier security domain; compliance extends to auditability of security controls.
|
||||
- **Open Policy Agent (OPA) / Rego, Cedar (AWS), HashiCorp Sentinel, Kyverno** — policy-as-code engines; policy evaluated as a gate, not a document. C6 (Composability) + C1 (Correctness) exemplars. ([openpolicyagent.org](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/), [kyverno.io](https://kyverno.io/))
|
||||
- **Cosign / Sigstore / in-toto** — signed attestations and provenance; evidence-as-artifact. Cross-link security/supply-chain.
|
||||
- **Google Cloud Audit Logs / AWS CloudTrail / Azure Activity Log** — the canonical audit-log patterns; immutable, append-only, queryable, time-ordered.
|
||||
- **v0.2/v0.1 in-tree prior art**: `security/` (authorization, secrets, supply-chain), `observability/` (logging, metrics, tracing — audit logs are structured logging), `data/` (schema, migrations — retention schema), `infrastructure-as-code/` (policy-as-code parallels declarative IaC), `kubernetes/` (rbac — audit subject identity).
|
||||
|
||||
### Principles Identified for `compliance/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
|
||||
|
||||
Each derived from a core C-rule. Framework-agnostic per D-024:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only** — audit records are immutable once written; deletion or mutation is itself an auditable incident. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
2. **P2 Every Significant Action is Logged** — the set of auditable actions is defined a priori; "we forgot to log it" is a violation. Auth changes, data access, config changes, policy changes. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
3. **P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage** — data lifetime is declared and enforced; deletion at end-of-life is a feature, not a failure. (C5 Reversibility, C8 Economy of storage)
|
||||
4. **P4 Policy is Code** — compliance policy is expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable code (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno), not in spreadsheets or prose. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
5. **P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate** — policy violations block before the action, not after the audit; admission/CI/CD-time enforcement. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
6. **P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously** — evidence of compliance (logs, configs, scans, attestations) is gathered as a byproduct of operation, not assembled manually at audit time. (C7 Observability, C3 Simplicity of audit)
|
||||
7. **P7 Identity is Attributable** — every logged action traces to an authenticated principal; shared/generic identities are violations. (C1 Correctness via security, C7 Observability)
|
||||
8. **P8 Subject Access is Honored** — data-subject rights (access, export, deletion) are operations with defined contracts and audit trails; not ad-hoc. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
9. **P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit** — audit logs themselves must not leak secrets; redaction is structural, not opportunistic. (C1 Correctness via security, C3 Simplicity)
|
||||
10. **P10 Compliance Posture is Observable** — the system reports its own compliance state (drift from policy, open violations, retention status); silent non-compliance is the bug. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
|
||||
### Derived Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `audit-logs.md` — append-only log patterns, structured audit events, CloudTrail/Cloud-Audit-Log conventions, queryability, retention of logs themselves, cross-link observability/logging + security/authorization.
|
||||
- `data-retention.md` — retention policies as code, lifecycle rules, deletion as a feature, GDPR/CCPA abstracted, retention vs. backup distinction, cross-link data/migrations.
|
||||
- `policy-as-code.md` — OPA/Cedar/Sentinel/Kyverno patterns, policy as a CI/CD + admission gate, policy testing, versioning policy, cross-link infrastructure-as-code (declarative intent) + kubernetes (admission).
|
||||
- `evidence.md` — evidence collection as a byproduct, signed attestations (Cosign/in-toto), audit-ready export, provenance, cross-link security/supply-chain + observability/metrics.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3)
|
||||
|
||||
- `security/authorization` ← compliance P7 (attributable identity)
|
||||
- `security/secrets` ← compliance P9 (redaction)
|
||||
- `security/supply-chain` ← compliance P6, evidence.md (signed attestations)
|
||||
- `observability/logging` ← compliance P1, P2 (audit logs = structured logging)
|
||||
- `observability/metrics` ← compliance P10 (compliance posture metrics)
|
||||
- `observability/tracing` ← compliance P6 (evidence from distributed traces)
|
||||
- `data/schema-design` ← compliance P3 (retention schema)
|
||||
- `data/migrations` ← compliance P3 (retention migration discipline)
|
||||
- `infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← compliance P4 (policy-as-code)
|
||||
- `infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← compliance P10 (compliance posture truth)
|
||||
- `kubernetes/rbac` ← compliance P7 (audit subject identity)
|
||||
- `devops/P6 Configuration as Code` ← compliance P4 (policy as code)
|
||||
|
||||
## Architectural Fit (v0.1/v0.2 Contract Preservation)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Hierarchy preserved:** all four new domains depend on `core/`; their P-rules trace to C1–C8 via the matrix. No lateral authority.
|
||||
- **10 P-rules per domain** (per D-018, D-030, D-026): consistent with v0.1 (11 domains) and v0.2 (2 domains). v0.3 adds 40 new P-rules → matrix grows 130 → 170.
|
||||
- **Manifest authoritative:** all new documents added to `MANIFEST.md` in P4. Unlisted = not part of the framework.
|
||||
- **No runtime code** (per D-020, PROJECT.md constraint): examples are illustrative markdown with code fences only. No `.yaml` manifests, `.po` resource files, model artifacts, policy `.rego` files, or deployable artifacts as standalone files — only fenced code blocks inside `.md` files.
|
||||
- **Conflict resolution unchanged:** matrix extended, not replaced. Core precedence (C1 > C2 > ... > C8) governs any new vs existing rule conflict. Compliance rules tracing to C1 (Correctness) inherit C1's non-tradeable status where they overlap with security (per core/conflict-resolution.md §6).
|
||||
- **Cross-links one-directional** (D-026 extended): new domains link outward to existing; existing domains unchanged in v0.3 (no back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content).
|
||||
|
||||
## Prior Art Position (v0.3 extension)
|
||||
|
||||
Existing GitOps/AI-ML/i18n/compliance guidance (OpenGitOps principles, ArgoCD/Flux docs, Operator pattern, MLOps maturity models, ICU/CLDR, W3C i18n, NIST/SOC 2, OPA/Kyverno) state practices and controls but none map every domain rule back to a small set of universal core principles. Atelier's v0.3 contribution is the same differentiation as v0.1 and v0.2: **traceable principle hierarchy with a join table**. The four new domains add 40 P-rules, each traced to ≥1 core C-rule, extending the matrix from 130 to 170 domain principles across 13 → 17 domains.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Persona Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
See `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the updated roster. v0.3 adds two phase-specific personas (per D-019, D-020):
|
||||
|
||||
- **platform-engineer** (phase-specific, extended from v0.2): domain = infrastructure/platform-automation; territory = `domains/gitops-operators/**`, gitops examples; constraints add "source-of-truth is git" and "reconciliation loop is the primitive"; active for P1 GitOps/Operators only; removed after v0.3 completes.
|
||||
- **ml-engineer** (phase-specific, new): domain = machine-learning engineering; territory = `domains/ai-ml/**`, `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md`; constraints = ["reproducibility is non-negotiable", "data lineage is traceable", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code", "engineering discipline not algorithm design (D-023)"]; active for P2 AI/ML only; removed after v0.3 completes.
|
||||
- **i18n (P3) + compliance (P3)** covered by tech-writer + domain-expert (D-022 — no new personas; both domains are smaller-surface and within the existing personas' competence).
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Risks and Mitigations
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Mitigation |
|
||||
|------|-----------|
|
||||
| New P-rules orphaned from core (no matrix trace) | P4 extends matrix; domain-expert persona verifies every new P-rule traces to ≥1 C-rule before sign-off |
|
||||
| GitOps-operators overlaps kubernetes/infrastructure-as-code (declarative, state, drift) | Cross-links one-directional (D-026); each domain owns its angle (k8s P1 desired-state vs gitops P1 git-as-source-of-truth vs iac P3 state-is-truth) |
|
||||
| AI/ML domain drifts into algorithm/model-design (out of scope per D-023) | ml-engineer persona constraint "engineering discipline not algorithm design"; review/agent-checklist gains an ai-ml scope check in P4 |
|
||||
| Compliance domain bloats into regulation-specific docs (GDPR/SOC2) | D-024 framework-agnostic; review check in P4 rejects regulation-specific content |
|
||||
| i18n and compliance overlap on "retention of locale data" | Each owns its angle: i18n P10 (translation versioning) vs compliance P3 (data retention policy) |
|
||||
| Examples become runtime artifacts (model files, .rego, .po) | persona constraints "no runtime code"; examples are markdown with fenced code only; P5 review check |
|
||||
| Persona explosion (5 active in v0.3) | Both new personas are phase-specific and removed post-milestone; roster returns to 3 |
|
||||
| Matrix row-count verification (40 new mappings, 10 per domain) | D-026 review check: row count per domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule, executed in P4 |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Four new top-level domains extend the framework without breaking the v0.1/v0.2 contract.
|
||||
2. 40 new P-rules (10 per domain) all trace to core C1–C8 — matrix extends from 130 to 170 across 13 → 17 domains.
|
||||
3. GitOps-operators unifies ArgoCD/Flux/Operators/Progressive Delivery under the shared declarative-source-of-truth reconciliation loop (D-021) — splitting would fragment the P-rules.
|
||||
4. AI/ML is scoped to engineering discipline (D-023): data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift — NOT algorithm design. Reproducibility and lineage are the non-negotiables.
|
||||
5. i18n is grounded in ICU/CLDR + BCP 47 + W3C i18n; the source language is a locale, not a default.
|
||||
6. Compliance is framework-agnostic (D-024): audit/retention/policy-as-code/evidence abstract NIST/SOC2/GDPR into principles that derive from core Security/Correctness/Observability.
|
||||
7. Two phase-specific personas (platform-engineer extended, ml-engineer added); both removed post-v0.3.
|
||||
8. No runtime code; examples are illustrative markdown only.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
|
||||
# Atelier — v0.2 Final Review + Audit (P5)
|
||||
|
||||
> Generated during final phase P5 (REVIEW + AUDIT) of milestone v0.2. Per run.md FINAL PHASE.
|
||||
|
||||
## Review (multi-persona, ci-code-reviewer)
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope:** all v0.2 changes (32 files, +1787/-34 lines), all commits `main..atelier/phase/05-final-review-ship`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P0 checks (all pass)
|
||||
|
||||
1. ✅ IaC first-principles: exactly 10 P-rules (P1–P10)
|
||||
2. ✅ K8s first-principles: exactly 10 P-rules (P1–P10)
|
||||
3. ✅ Matrix IaC section: 10 rows, each ≥1 valid C-rule, no orphans
|
||||
4. ✅ Matrix K8s section: 10 rows, each ≥1 valid C-rule, no orphans
|
||||
5. ✅ Every P-rule name in first-principles matches its matrix row
|
||||
6. ✅ All required files exist (ATELIER-36..56, 59): 2 first-principles + 4 IaC derived + 6 k8s derived + 4 examples + matrix/manifest/review extensions
|
||||
7. ✅ MANIFEST lists both new domains with all derived docs — no manifest drift
|
||||
8. ✅ No standalone .tf/.yaml/.yml files — "no runtime code" constraint preserved (all code is fenced in .md)
|
||||
9. ✅ No hardcoded real secrets — bad examples use AWS doc placeholders and `hunter2`; good examples use `registry.example.com` + Secret refs
|
||||
10. ✅ anti-patterns.md covers secrets-in-HCL and cluster-admin
|
||||
11. ✅ rbac.md covers Pod Security Standards + Admission
|
||||
12. ✅ All cross-link targets resolve to MANIFEST-listed docs
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict: PASS — No P0 issues.**
|
||||
|
||||
### P1+ issues (flagged, then fixed in this phase per run.md)
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Severity | Issue | Fix applied |
|
||||
|----|----------|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| REV-1 | P1 | 5 derived docs missing cross-domain links (terraform, state, modules, workloads, networking) | Added cross-links to `domains/security/secrets.md`, `domains/devops/first-principles.md`, `domains/observability/metrics.md`, `domains/security/authorization.md` |
|
||||
| REV-2 | P2 | networking.md "Dual-Stack (P4 Locality)" — wrong P-rule label | Corrected to "(C4 Locality)" |
|
||||
| REV-3 | P2 | domain-coverage.md "Concurrency broadest (7)" stale — IaC + k8s also 7 | Updated to "Concurrency, IaC, Kubernetes tied (7 each)" |
|
||||
|
||||
All P1+ issues fixed in commit `87daca3`. No loop back to EXECUTE (per run.md final-phase rule).
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit (lead-developer)
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Reconstruction test
|
||||
- git log `main..atelier/phase/05-final-review-ship` shows 10 v0.2 commits (P00 complete, P01 execute/verify/complete/status, P02, P03, P04, P05 review fix).
|
||||
- REQUIREMENTS.md status (covered) matches shipped phases: ATELIER-36..56, 59 all `covered`; ATELIER-57, 58 `pending` (final phase, completed at ship).
|
||||
- ROADMAP.md phase statuses match: P0–P4 `complete`, P5 `pending` (→ complete at ship).
|
||||
- ✅ Reconstruction passes.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Branch hygiene
|
||||
- Active branches: `atelier/milestone/v0.2-iac-k8s`, `atelier/phase/05-final-review-ship`.
|
||||
- All execution phase branches (00–04) deleted after ship. ✅
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Commit discipline
|
||||
- All 10 v0.2 commits contain `---ci---` blocks with project, phase, milestone, status, requirements. ✅
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. File discipline
|
||||
- `.ciagent/atelier/` contains all 8 required files: PROJECT, ROADMAP, REQUIREMENTS, ARCHITECTURE, PERSONAS, PLAN, RESEARCH, CLARIFY. ✅
|
||||
- (v0.1 legacy AUDIT-P2.md, REVIEW-P7.md also present — not removed, harmless.)
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Tag sequence
|
||||
- v0.0.0–v0.0.7 (milestone v0.1) → v0.1.0–v0.1.4 (milestone v0.2 phases 0–4).
|
||||
- All v0.1.x strictly > v0.0.7. All v0.1.x strictly increasing. ✅
|
||||
- Final phase tag will be v0.1.5 (next patch, IS the v0.2 milestone release per NFR rule).
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Manifest discipline
|
||||
- All 12 new domain docs (infrastructure-as-code/*, kubernetes/*) listed in MANIFEST.md Domains table. ✅
|
||||
- matrix, review (agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns) all listed in Cross-Cutting. ✅
|
||||
|
||||
**Audit verdict: CLEAN — no critical issues.**
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
Review PASS (no P0, all P1+ fixed). Audit CLEAN. Milestone v0.2 is ready to ship as v0.1.5.
|
||||
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.0.7) IS the v0.1 deliv
|
||||
- Milestone v0.1 complete. All phases shipped.
|
||||
- Future: v0.2 could add `domains/ai-ml/`, `domains/i18n/`, `domains/compliance/` per spec Part 6 next-steps.
|
||||
|
||||
## Milestone: v0.2 — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes (IN PROGRESS)
|
||||
## Milestone: v0.2 — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes (COMPLETE)
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` code)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.1.x (previous minor from v0.2)
|
||||
@@ -49,10 +49,10 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.0.7) IS the v0.1 deliv
|
||||
|-------|------|------|--------|------------------|
|
||||
| 0 | Pre-Execution | docs | complete | Spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, PERSONAS.md (adds platform-engineer persona) |
|
||||
| 1 | Infrastructure as Code Domain | docs | complete | domains/infrastructure-as-code/{first-principles, terraform, opentofu, state, modules}.md |
|
||||
| 2 | Kubernetes Domain | docs | pending | domains/kubernetes/{first-principles, workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize}.md |
|
||||
| 3 | Matrix + Review Integration | docs | pending | matrix/principles-matrix.md (20 new mappings), matrix/domain-coverage.md, review/{agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns}.md, MANIFEST.md |
|
||||
| 4 | Examples + Cross-Links | docs | pending | examples/good/{terraform-module, k8s-deployment}.md, examples/bad/{terraform-unlocked-state, k8s-bare-pod-no-resources}.md, cross-links to devops/security/observability/data |
|
||||
| 5 | Final Review + Ship | docs | pending | Review passed, audit clean, milestone merged to main, tag v0.1.5 |
|
||||
| 2 | Kubernetes Domain | docs | complete | domains/kubernetes/{first-principles, workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize}.md |
|
||||
| 3 | Matrix + Review Integration | docs | complete | matrix/principles-matrix.md (20 new mappings), matrix/domain-coverage.md, review/{agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns}.md, MANIFEST.md |
|
||||
| 4 | Examples + Cross-Links | docs | complete | examples/good/{terraform-module, k8s-deployment}.md, examples/bad/{terraform-unlocked-state, k8s-bare-pod-no-resources}.md, cross-links to devops/security/observability/data |
|
||||
| 5 | Final Review + Ship | docs | complete | Review passed, audit clean, milestone merged to main, tag v0.1.5 |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Phase Tag Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -76,9 +76,50 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.1.5) IS the v0.2 deliv
|
||||
- 2 deferred to v0.3 (GitOps/operators domain; ai-ml/i18n/compliance domains)
|
||||
- See `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` "v0.2 Ideation Log" for the full table
|
||||
|
||||
## Milestone: v0.3 — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance (ACTIVE)
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` code)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.2.x (previous minor from v0.3)
|
||||
**Phases:** P0 (pre-execution) + P1–P5 (execution) + P6 (final review+ship)
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Name | Type | Status | Key Deliverables |
|
||||
|-------|------|------|--------|------------------|
|
||||
| 0 | Pre-Execution | docs | active | Spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, PERSONAS.md (extends platform-engineer, adds ml-engineer) |
|
||||
| 1 | GitOps + Operators Domain | docs | pending | domains/gitops-operators/{first-principles, argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery}.md |
|
||||
| 2 | AI/ML Domain | docs | pending | domains/ai-ml/{first-principles, data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift}.md |
|
||||
| 3 | i18n + Compliance Domains | docs | pending | domains/i18n/{first-principles, locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n}.md, domains/compliance/{first-principles, audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence}.md |
|
||||
| 4 | Matrix + Review Integration | docs | pending | matrix/principles-matrix.md (+40 mappings), matrix/domain-coverage.md (incl. C-rule coverage table update), review/{agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns}.md, MANIFEST.md (+ examples/ listing per ATELIER-91) |
|
||||
| 5 | Examples + Cross-Links | docs | pending | examples/good + examples/bad for 4 domains, cross-links to devops/security/observability/data/k8s/iac |
|
||||
| 6 | Final Review + Ship | docs | pending | Review passed, audit clean, milestone merged to main, tag v0.2.6 |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Phase Tag Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
Per branch-strategy.md, milestone `v0.3` tags run on the `v0.2.x` patch line:
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Tag | Notes |
|
||||
|-------|-----|-------|
|
||||
| P0 | v0.2.0 | Pre-execution release |
|
||||
| P1 | v0.2.1 | GitOps + Operators domain |
|
||||
| P2 | v0.2.2 | AI/ML domain |
|
||||
| P3 | v0.2.3 | i18n + Compliance domains |
|
||||
| P4 | v0.2.4 | Matrix + review integration |
|
||||
| P5 | v0.2.5 | Examples + cross-links |
|
||||
| P6 | v0.2.6 | Final review + ship — **IS the v0.3 milestone release** |
|
||||
|
||||
NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.2.6) IS the v0.3 deliverable.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Ideation Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
- 14 ideas generated (mechanical 5, backend-enriched 7, within-project transfer 2 merged)
|
||||
- 14 accepted (all v0.3-scope, confidence ≥ 0.78, above 0.6 autonomy threshold → auto-accepted)
|
||||
- 1 new requirement added: ATELIER-91 (examples/ in MANIFEST — pre-existing drift from v0.2 audit escalation)
|
||||
- 13 refinements to existing reqs ATELIER-61..90 (decision matrices, chaos anti-patterns, drift-type enumeration, etc.)
|
||||
- 0 deferred to v0.4
|
||||
- See `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` "v0.3 Ideation Log" for the full table
|
||||
|
||||
## Future Milestones
|
||||
|
||||
- **v0.3** (candidates from ideation): `domains/gitops-operators/` (ArgoCD, Flux), `domains/ai-ml/`, `domains/i18n/`, `domains/compliance/` per spec Part 6 and v0.2 deferred ideation.
|
||||
- **v0.4** (candidates): `domains/edge/`, `domains/quantum/`, language-specific derived docs, tooling adapters (linters), translation/localization of framework docs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"slug": "atelier",
|
||||
"name": "Atelier",
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.2",
|
||||
"status": "specify"
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.3",
|
||||
"status": "active"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"active_project": "atelier",
|
||||
|
||||
+7
-3
@@ -34,11 +34,15 @@
|
||||
| Documentation | ✓ | doc-templates |
|
||||
| Concurrency | ✓ | patterns |
|
||||
| DevOps | ✓ | ci-cd, environments |
|
||||
| Infrastructure as Code | ✓ | terraform, opentofu, state, modules |
|
||||
| Kubernetes | ✓ | workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize |
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Cutting
|
||||
|
||||
| Document | Purpose |
|
||||
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|
||||
| `matrix/principles-matrix.md` | Maps domain → core principles |
|
||||
| `review/agent-checklist.md` | Pre-completion agent checklist |
|
||||
| `review/anti-patterns.md` | Catalog of violations |
|
||||
| `matrix/principles-matrix.md` | Maps domain → core principles (13 domains, 130 P-rules post-v0.2) |
|
||||
| `matrix/domain-coverage.md` | Maps core → domains; per-domain coverage |
|
||||
| `review/agent-checklist.md` | Pre-completion agent checklist (incl. IaC + k8s triggers) |
|
||||
| `review/peer-review-checklist.md` | Human peer-review checklist (incl. IaC + k8s sections) |
|
||||
| `review/anti-patterns.md` | Catalog of violations (incl. IaC + k8s + chaos anti-patterns) |
|
||||
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
|
||||
- A module is the unit of reuse, review, and versioning in IaC. It encapsulates a repeatable pattern behind a typed interface.
|
||||
- Composition — building large from small — is the IaC expression of core C6 Composability. Without modules, every stack is a one-off; with modules, a stack is an assembly of reviewed parts.
|
||||
- A good module has one job (a VPC, a database, a load balancer), a small typed surface, and no hidden side effects.
|
||||
- A versioned module is the IaC expression of `domains/devops/first-principles.md` P1 (Reproducibility) and P6 (Configuration as Code): a module pins a reusable, rebuildable pattern that any environment can call.
|
||||
|
||||
## Module Structure (P1 Declarative Intent, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
|
||||
| Postgres | TX | DB encryption | DBA-owned infra | Row-level locking |
|
||||
|
||||
- Pick one backend per environment family. Mixing backends across environments fragments operational knowledge (C4 Locality).
|
||||
- The backend config is part of the configuration, not a runtime secret. Credentials for the backend are runtime secrets.
|
||||
- The backend config is part of the configuration, not a runtime secret. Credentials for the backend are runtime secrets. The state file itself is a secret-bearing artifact — treat it per `domains/security/secrets.md`: encrypt at rest, restrict access, never commit it.
|
||||
|
||||
## State Isolation per Environment (P4 Plan Before Apply, C4 Locality)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
|
||||
## Secrets (P10 Secrets Never in Code)
|
||||
|
||||
- Secrets via provider data sources (`aws_secretsmanager_secret_version`), environment variables, or a dedicated secrets provider. Never a literal string in a resource block.
|
||||
- State may contain plaintext secrets if a resource attribute is sensitive. Mark attributes `sensitive = true` to keep them out of plan output; use a backend that encrypts state at rest (see `state.md`).
|
||||
- State may contain plaintext secrets if a resource attribute is sensitive. Mark attributes `sensitive = true` to keep them out of plan output; use a backend that encrypts state at rest (see `state.md`). This is the IaC angle on `domains/security/secrets.md` — secret hygiene is non-tradeable.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Terraform Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Kustomize when you patch existing manifests or keep env deltas in one repo. Use Helm when you distribute a reusable app or consume third-party charts.
|
||||
- Mixing both is fine and common: Kustomize for the internal apps, Helm for the packaged parts. The decision is per-workload, not per-cluster.
|
||||
- `commonLabels` is the kustomize-native enforcement of P3 (Labels Select); see `domains/devops/first-principles.md` P6 (Configuration as Code) for the upstream principle that the rendered manifest — not a console click — is the source of truth.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Kustomize Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
|
||||
|
||||
- A NetworkPolicy is a firewall rule for pods. Default-deny ingress; allow by namespace and pod selector.
|
||||
- Without a default-deny NetworkPolicy, every pod can reach every other pod. In production, default-deny is the baseline; allows are the exceptions.
|
||||
- NetworkPolicy is the network-layer expression of zero-trust authorization — see `domains/security/authorization.md`. RBAC (see `rbac.md`) governs the API; NetworkPolicy governs the network; together they bound blast radius (P6).
|
||||
- NetworkPolicy is enforced by the CNI plugin (Calico, Cilium, etc.). A NetworkPolicy with no supporting CNI is a no-op. Verify the CNI enforces before relying on it.
|
||||
|
||||
## DNS (P3 Labels Select)
|
||||
@@ -31,7 +32,7 @@
|
||||
- Headless Services (`clusterIP: None`) resolve directly to pod IPs — use for StatefulSet peer discovery (`<statefulset>-0.<service>`).
|
||||
- DNS is how workloads find each other without hardcoded IPs. Use the DNS name, not the ClusterIP.
|
||||
|
||||
## Dual-Stack (P4 Locality)
|
||||
## Dual-Stack (C4 Locality)
|
||||
|
||||
- IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack is opt-in per cluster. Services can be single-stack or dual-stack per Service.
|
||||
- Decide at cluster creation. Migrating a single-stack cluster to dual-stack is disruptive and rarely worth it.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
|
||||
- Every container in production has a CPU request, a memory request, and a memory limit. CPU limits are optional but recommended to bound noisy neighbours.
|
||||
- QoS classes: `Guaranteed` (requests == limits), `Burstable` (requests < limits), `BestEffort` (no requests). `BestEffort` is first evicted under node pressure — never for prod.
|
||||
- A workload without requests is an unbounded gamble on the scheduler. Set them.
|
||||
- The rolling update + rollout history described below is the k8s expression of `domains/observability/metrics.md` for health and `domains/devops/first-principles.md` P5 (Progressive Delivery): the platform observes the rollout via probes and metrics and can stop or reverse it.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Workload Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
|
||||
# Bad Example: Bare Pod, No Resources
|
||||
|
||||
> A Kubernetes manifest that violates Atelier's Kubernetes principles. Each violation is cited.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Code
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: v1
|
||||
kind: Pod
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: api
|
||||
namespace: default
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
containers:
|
||||
- name: api
|
||||
image: api:latest # :latest, unversioned
|
||||
ports:
|
||||
- containerPort: 8080
|
||||
env:
|
||||
- name: DATABASE_URL
|
||||
value: "postgres://admin:hunter2@db:5432/app" # secret in plaintext, in the manifest
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The team applies it with `kubectl apply -f api-pod.yaml`. When the pod crashes, they `kubectl delete pod api && kubectl apply -f api-pod.yaml` to "restart" it. There are no probes, no resource requests, no RBAC, no NetworkPolicy.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Bad
|
||||
|
||||
### Bare Pod, No Controller (k8s P2 Pods are Mortal)
|
||||
- A `kind: Pod` with no controller. When the node dies, the pod does not come back. When the team needs three replicas, they copy the YAML twice and rename it.
|
||||
- The "restart" workflow (`delete pod && apply`) is manual recovery — exactly the manual-mutation anti-pattern from `domains/devops/`.
|
||||
- **Fix:** use a `Deployment`. The controller replaces dead pods, scales, and rolls back. See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### No Resource Requests (k8s P4 Requests and Limits are Contracts)
|
||||
- The container has no `resources.requests` or `resources.limits`. It is `BestEffort` — first evicted under node pressure. The scheduler has no signal to place it well; it lands wherever there is room, then gets killed when the node is full.
|
||||
- A workload without requests is an unbounded gamble on the scheduler.
|
||||
- **Fix:** set CPU and memory requests on every prod container; set a memory limit; consider a CPU limit. See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### No Probes (k8s P5 Probes Drive Health)
|
||||
- No `readinessProbe` — the Service routes traffic to the pod before it is ready. Users see 502s during startup.
|
||||
- No `livenessProbe` — a wedged container runs forever; no one notices until the outage.
|
||||
- The platform cannot heal what it cannot see. A pod without probes is invisible to the controller's reconciliation.
|
||||
- **Fix:** define readiness and liveness probes that check the workload's own health. See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### `:latest` Image Tag (k8s P1 + IaC P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
- `image: api:latest` is unversioned. Every `kubectl apply` pulls whatever is newest at that moment. Two pods "running the same manifest" run different images if `latest` moved between applies.
|
||||
- Rollback is impossible — there is no version to roll back to.
|
||||
- **Fix:** pin the image to a version or a digest: `image: registry.example.com/api:v1.4.2` or `image: registry.example.com/api@sha256:...`. See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` and `domains/infrastructure-as-code/terraform.md` (P5 Version Everything).
|
||||
|
||||
### Secret in Plaintext in the Manifest (k8s P9 Config and Secrets are Separate, IaC P10)
|
||||
- `DATABASE_URL` with the password is in the manifest in plaintext. If the manifest is committed (it is), the secret is in git.
|
||||
- Rotating the secret requires editing the manifest and re-applying — no separation of config from secret.
|
||||
- **Fix:** put the URL in a `Secret` (created out-of-band or via a secrets tool) and reference it with `valueFrom.secretKeyRef`. The manifest contains the reference, not the value. See `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` and `domains/security/secrets.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### `default` Namespace (k8s P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius)
|
||||
- The pod runs in `default`. There is no namespace boundary for quota, RBAC, or NetworkPolicy. Every other workload in `default` can reach it; an outage in one affects the namespace all share.
|
||||
- **Fix:** give every prod workload a named namespace sized to its blast radius. `default` is for nothing in production. See `domains/kubernetes/networking.md` and `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### No RBAC, No NetworkPolicy (k8s P7 RBAC by Intent, P6 Namespaces Bound Blast)
|
||||
- No `serviceAccountName` — the pod uses the `default` ServiceAccount, a shared identity.
|
||||
- No `NetworkPolicy` — every pod in the cluster can reach `api`. The network is flat by default.
|
||||
- **Fix:** a dedicated ServiceAccount with a least-privilege Role bound by intent. A default-deny NetworkPolicy with explicit allows. See `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` and `domains/kubernetes/networking.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Cascade
|
||||
|
||||
The violations compound. A bare pod with no probes crashes silently and is not restarted. `:latest` means the "restart" pulls a different image than the one that crashed. The plaintext secret in the manifest is now in git, so rotating it means editing the manifest and re-applying — and the new manifest still has no controller, so the next crash starts the manual loop again. `default` namespace means the blast radius is the whole cluster.
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Domain Links
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P4 Rollback First` — with `:latest` and no controller, there is no rollback path.
|
||||
- `domains/security/authorization` — the shared `default` ServiceAccount and flat network are the k8s expression of zero-trust violation.
|
||||
- `domains/errors/P2 Fail Loudly` — a pod with no probes fails silently; the platform has no signal to act on.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
|
||||
# Bad Example: Unlocked Local State
|
||||
|
||||
> An IaC configuration that violates Atelier's Infrastructure as Code principles. Each violation is cited.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Code
|
||||
|
||||
```hcl
|
||||
# main.tf — committed to the repo
|
||||
terraform {
|
||||
required_providers {
|
||||
aws = {
|
||||
source = "hashicorp/aws"
|
||||
# no version pin
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
provider "aws" {
|
||||
region = "us-east-1"
|
||||
access_key = "AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE" # committed
|
||||
secret_key = "wJalrXUtnFEMI/K7MDENG/bPxRfiCYEXAMPLEKEY" # committed
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
resource "aws_s3_bucket" "logs" {
|
||||
bucket = "app-logs-prod"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
resource "aws_db_instance" "primary" {
|
||||
identifier = "app-prod"
|
||||
username = "admin"
|
||||
password = "hunter2" # committed, in plaintext, in state
|
||||
allocated_storage = 20
|
||||
engine = "postgres"
|
||||
instance_class = "db.t3.micro"
|
||||
skip_final_snapshot = true
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The team runs `terraform apply` from their laptops. The state file `terraform.tfstate` is committed alongside `main.tf` "so everyone is on the same page."
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Bad
|
||||
|
||||
### Local State in a Shared Environment (IaC P8 Remote State with Locking)
|
||||
- State is `terraform.tfstate` on each laptop. Two team members run `terraform apply` simultaneously; the second to finish silently overwrites the first's changes. There is no lock.
|
||||
- The state file is committed to the repo. It contains the DB password in plaintext. It is a secret-bearing artifact in version control.
|
||||
- **Fix:** use a remote backend with locking (S3 + DynamoDB, GCS, etc.). Never commit state. See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/state.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Hardcoded Secrets (IaC P10 Secrets Never in Code)
|
||||
- `access_key` and `secret_key` are committed in `main.tf`. The DB `password` is committed and also written to state in plaintext.
|
||||
- The secrets are now in the git history. Rotating them is not optional; the history must be scrubbed or the credentials rotated and the old ones revoked.
|
||||
- **Fix:** credentials from environment, a secrets manager, or a `data` source (`aws_secretsmanager_secret_version`). Mark sensitive attributes `sensitive = true`. See `domains/security/secrets.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Unpinned Provider (IaC P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
- The `aws` provider has no `version`. The next `terraform init` pulls whatever is latest — a different provider version can change resource behavior with no review.
|
||||
- **Fix:** pin `version = "~> 5.0"`. Commit the lock file (`.terraform.lock.hcl`). See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/terraform.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Manual Drift, No Plan Review (IaC P4 Plan Before Apply, P9 Drift is Recoverable)
|
||||
- The team applies from laptops with no `plan` review. When the DB password is wrong, someone SSHes in and changes it manually — drift that `plan` will later report as a surprise.
|
||||
- Manual changes to managed resources are an incident, not a shortcut. Each one is a future `plan` diff that no one can explain.
|
||||
- **Fix:** run `terraform plan` in CI; review the diff; `apply` from CI on merge. Treat every drift report as an incident to investigate. See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/state.md` (Drift and Reconciliation).
|
||||
|
||||
### No Module Composition (IaC P6 Modules Compose)
|
||||
- The S3 bucket and DB instance are inline. When the team needs a second bucket, they copy-paste the block and rename it. The two copies drift over time.
|
||||
- **Fix:** a versioned module for each reusable pattern. The difference is a variable, not a copy. See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md` (the module-vs-copy boundary).
|
||||
|
||||
## The Cascade
|
||||
|
||||
The violations compound. Unlocked local state lets two `apply` runs race. Committed secrets mean the race loser's changes — and the secrets — are in the repo. Manual drift hides the corruption until a `plan` surfaces a diff no one can explain. The unpinned provider means that diff might be the provider's fault, not the team's, and no one can tell which.
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Domain Links
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/security/secrets.md` — secret hygiene is non-tradeable; this example violates it in three places.
|
||||
- `domains/security/supply-chain.md` — committed credentials in git are a supply-chain incident.
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P6 Configuration as Code` — config in the repo is correct; committed *state and secrets* is the violation.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
|
||||
# Good Example: Kubernetes Deployment
|
||||
|
||||
> A Kubernetes Deployment that follows Atelier's Kubernetes principles. Each aspect cites the principle it satisfies.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Deployment
|
||||
|
||||
A stateless web service deployed as a Deployment with probes, resource contracts, RBAC, and a rolling update strategy — the canonical "production workload" pattern.
|
||||
|
||||
### Manifest
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: apps/v1
|
||||
kind: Deployment
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: api
|
||||
namespace: api-prod
|
||||
labels:
|
||||
app: api
|
||||
tier: web
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
replicas: 3
|
||||
selector:
|
||||
matchLabels:
|
||||
app: api
|
||||
strategy:
|
||||
type: RollingUpdate
|
||||
rollingUpdate:
|
||||
maxSurge: 1
|
||||
maxUnavailable: 0
|
||||
template:
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
labels:
|
||||
app: api
|
||||
tier: web
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
serviceAccountName: api
|
||||
automountServiceAccountToken: false
|
||||
containers:
|
||||
- name: api
|
||||
image: registry.example.com/api:v1.4.2 # pinned, not :latest
|
||||
ports:
|
||||
- containerPort: 8080
|
||||
resources:
|
||||
requests:
|
||||
cpu: 250m
|
||||
memory: 256Mi
|
||||
limits:
|
||||
memory: 512Mi
|
||||
readinessProbe:
|
||||
httpGet:
|
||||
path: /healthz/ready
|
||||
port: 8080
|
||||
initialDelaySeconds: 5
|
||||
periodSeconds: 5
|
||||
livenessProbe:
|
||||
httpGet:
|
||||
path: /healthz/live
|
||||
port: 8080
|
||||
initialDelaySeconds: 15
|
||||
periodSeconds: 10
|
||||
env:
|
||||
- name: LOG_LEVEL
|
||||
valueFrom:
|
||||
configMapKeyRef:
|
||||
name: api-config
|
||||
key: log_level
|
||||
- name: DATABASE_URL
|
||||
valueFrom:
|
||||
secretKeyRef:
|
||||
name: api-secrets
|
||||
key: database_url
|
||||
volumeMounts:
|
||||
- name: config
|
||||
mountPath: /etc/api
|
||||
readOnly: true
|
||||
volumes:
|
||||
- name: config
|
||||
configMap:
|
||||
name: api-config
|
||||
---
|
||||
apiVersion: v1
|
||||
kind: Service
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: api
|
||||
namespace: api-prod
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
selector:
|
||||
app: api
|
||||
ports:
|
||||
- port: 80
|
||||
targetPort: 8080
|
||||
---
|
||||
apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
|
||||
kind: NetworkPolicy
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: api-deny-ingress
|
||||
namespace: api-prod
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
podSelector:
|
||||
matchLabels:
|
||||
app: api
|
||||
policyTypes:
|
||||
- Ingress
|
||||
ingress:
|
||||
- from:
|
||||
- namespaceSelector:
|
||||
matchLabels:
|
||||
tier: edge
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Good
|
||||
|
||||
### Controller, Not Bare Pod (k8s P2 Pods are Mortal)
|
||||
- A `Deployment` manages the pods. If one dies, the controller replaces it. A bare pod has no recovery.
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Resource Contracts (k8s P4 Requests and Limits are Contracts)
|
||||
- Every container has CPU and memory requests and a memory limit. The workload is `Burstable`, not `BestEffort` (first evicted under pressure).
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` for QoS classes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Probes (k8s P5 Probes Drive Health)
|
||||
- `readinessProbe` gates traffic: a pod that is not ready is removed from the Service's endpoints.
|
||||
- `livenessProbe` restarts a wedged container.
|
||||
- The probes check the workload's own health (`/healthz/ready`, `/healthz/live`), not a dependency. A liveness probe that calls the database would cascade-restart on a DB blip.
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Image Pinning (k8s P1 + IaC P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
- `image: registry.example.com/api:v1.4.2` — pinned to a version, not `:latest`. A pod restart pulls the same image it was built with.
|
||||
- See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/terraform.md` and `domains/devops/P7 Immutability` for the immutability angle.
|
||||
|
||||
### RBAC (k8s P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity)
|
||||
- `serviceAccountName: api` — the workload runs as a dedicated ServiceAccount, not the `default` shared identity.
|
||||
- `automountServiceAccountToken: false` — the workload does not call the API, so it gets no token. See `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`.
|
||||
- A matching `Role` + `RoleBinding` (not shown) would grant `get, list, watch` on `configmaps` in this namespace — least privilege, scoped by intent.
|
||||
|
||||
### Config and Secrets Separate (k8s P9 Config and Secrets are Separate)
|
||||
- `LOG_LEVEL` from a ConfigMap (non-sensitive). `DATABASE_URL` from a Secret (sensitive). Both injected at runtime; neither baked into the image.
|
||||
- A configuration change does not require a rebuild. A secret rotation does not require an image redeploy.
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` and `domains/security/secrets.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Namespaces Bound Blast Radius (k8s P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius)
|
||||
- The workload lives in `api-prod`, not `default`. The namespace is the unit of quota, RBAC, and NetworkPolicy. A problem in `api-prod` does not leak to other workloads.
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/networking.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### NetworkPolicy Default-Deny (k8s P6, P7)
|
||||
- The `NetworkPolicy` allows ingress only from the `edge` namespace. Without it, every pod in the cluster could reach `api`. Default-deny is the baseline; allows are the exceptions.
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/networking.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Roll Forward, Roll Back (k8s P10 Roll Forward Roll Back)
|
||||
- `strategy: RollingUpdate` with `maxSurge: 1, maxUnavailable: 0` — the rollout adds a new pod before removing an old one. Availability is maintained.
|
||||
- `kubectl rollout undo deployment/api` reverts to the previous ReplicaSet. The rollback is tested before it is needed.
|
||||
- See `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` and `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P4 Rollback First` — the rollout strategy makes the deploy reversible.
|
||||
- `domains/security/authorization` — the ServiceAccount + Role model is the k8s expression of least-privilege authorization.
|
||||
- `domains/observability/metrics` — the probes are the platform's observability into the workload's health; the workload's own metrics complete the picture.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
|
||||
# Good Example: Terraform Module
|
||||
|
||||
> A reusable Terraform module that follows Atelier's Infrastructure as Code principles. Each aspect cites the principle it satisfies.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Module
|
||||
|
||||
A versioned module that provisions an S3 bucket with logging, versioning, and encryption — the canonical "secure bucket" pattern, composed rather than copy-pasted.
|
||||
|
||||
### Consumer Call
|
||||
|
||||
```hcl
|
||||
module "logs_bucket" {
|
||||
source = "registry.example.com/infra/secure-bucket/aws"
|
||||
version = "1.2.0"
|
||||
|
||||
name = "app-logs"
|
||||
region = "us-east-1"
|
||||
force_destroy = false
|
||||
retention_days = 90
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Module Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
secure-bucket/
|
||||
├── main.tf # the resource
|
||||
├── variables.tf # typed inputs
|
||||
├── outputs.tf # the interface to consumers
|
||||
├── versions.tf # provider pin
|
||||
└── README.md # the module contract
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### `versions.tf` (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
```hcl
|
||||
terraform {
|
||||
required_version = ">= 1.5.0"
|
||||
required_providers {
|
||||
aws = {
|
||||
source = "hashicorp/aws"
|
||||
version = "~> 5.0"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### `variables.tf` (P1 Declarative Intent, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
|
||||
```hcl
|
||||
variable "name" {
|
||||
type = string
|
||||
description = "Globally unique bucket name."
|
||||
validation {
|
||||
condition = can(regex("^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9-]{1,61}[a-z0-9]$", var.name))
|
||||
error_message = "Bucket name must be lowercase, 3-63 chars, DNS-compatible."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
variable "retention_days" {
|
||||
type = number
|
||||
default = 30
|
||||
description = "S3 lifecycle transition age in days."
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### `main.tf` (P1, P3 State is Truth, P10 Secrets Never in Code)
|
||||
|
||||
```hcl
|
||||
resource "aws_s3_bucket" "this" {
|
||||
bucket = var.name
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
resource "aws_s3_bucket_versioning" "this" {
|
||||
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.this.id
|
||||
versioning_configuration {
|
||||
status = "Enabled"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
resource "aws_s3_bucket_server_side_encryption_configuration" "this" {
|
||||
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.this.id
|
||||
rule {
|
||||
apply_server_side_encryption_by_default {
|
||||
sse_algorithm = "AES256"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
resource "aws_s3_bucket_lifecycle_configuration" "this" {
|
||||
bucket = aws_s3_bucket.this.id
|
||||
rule {
|
||||
id = "retention"
|
||||
status = "Enabled"
|
||||
filter { prefix = "" }
|
||||
expiration { days = var.retention_days }
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Good
|
||||
|
||||
### Composition (IaC P6 Modules Compose, C6 Composability)
|
||||
- The bucket pattern is one module, versioned once, consumed many times. A new consumer does not copy 40 lines of HCL — they call the module with a `name` and a `retention_days`.
|
||||
- See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md` for the module-vs-copy boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
### Pinning (IaC P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
- The consumer pins `version = "1.2.0"`. The module pins its provider (`version = "~> 5.0"`) and the required Terraform version. A commit is a complete, reproducible world.
|
||||
- No `latest` anywhere. See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/terraform.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### State Discipline (IaC P3 State is Truth, P8 Remote State with Locking)
|
||||
- The consumer's root configuration declares a remote backend with locking (S3 + DynamoDB, GCS, etc.). The module itself does not declare a backend — the consumer owns state.
|
||||
- See `domains/infrastructure-as-code/state.md` for backend selection and locking.
|
||||
|
||||
### Secrets Hygiene (IaC P10 Secrets Never in Code)
|
||||
- The bucket is encrypted at rest (SSE-S3 AES256). No secret is hardcoded; encryption is a provider-managed default. If KMS were used, the key would come from a `data` source or a dedicated KMS module — never a literal.
|
||||
- See `domains/security/secrets.md` for the general secrets principles.
|
||||
|
||||
### Plan Before Apply (IaC P4 Plan Before Apply)
|
||||
- The consumer runs `terraform plan` before `apply`. The plan shows the new bucket, versioning, encryption, and lifecycle. Every line is reviewed. The plan is the contract review; `apply` is the signature.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P1 Reproducibility` — the module makes the bucket reproducible from source.
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P6 Configuration as Code` — the bucket is config, not a console click.
|
||||
- `domains/security/supply-chain` — a versioned, signed module from a trusted registry is a supply-chain control.
|
||||
+20
-10
@@ -6,14 +6,14 @@
|
||||
|
||||
| Core Principle | Domains that derive from it | Count |
|
||||
|----------------|---------------------------|-------|
|
||||
| C1 Correctness | All 11 (security, data, api, testing, performance, observability, errors, uiux, documentation, concurrency, devops) | Universal |
|
||||
| C2 Clarity | uiux, api, data, testing, observability, errors, documentation, devops | 8 |
|
||||
| C3 Simplicity | security, data, testing, performance, documentation, concurrency, devops | 7 |
|
||||
| C4 Locality | testing, concurrency | 2 |
|
||||
| C5 Reversibility | api, data, uiux, concurrency, devops | 5 |
|
||||
| C6 Composability | api, security, observability, errors, documentation, concurrency | 6 |
|
||||
| C7 Observability | api, data, testing, performance, observability, errors, devops | 7 |
|
||||
| C8 Economy | security, testing, performance, observability, concurrency | 5 |
|
||||
| C1 Correctness | All 13 (v0.1: 11; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes) | Universal |
|
||||
| C2 Clarity | v0.1: uiux, api, data, testing, observability, errors, documentation, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 10 |
|
||||
| C3 Simplicity | v0.1: security, data, testing, performance, documentation, concurrency, devops | 7 |
|
||||
| C4 Locality | v0.1: testing, concurrency; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 4 |
|
||||
| C5 Reversibility | v0.1: api, data, uiux, concurrency, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 7 |
|
||||
| C6 Composability | v0.1: api, security, observability, errors, documentation, concurrency; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 8 |
|
||||
| C7 Observability | v0.1: api, data, testing, performance, observability, errors, devops; v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes | 9 |
|
||||
| C8 Economy | v0.1: security, testing, performance, observability, concurrency; v0.2: kubernetes | 6 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -37,10 +37,20 @@
|
||||
| Documentation | C1, C2, C3, C5, C6 | Docs-as-code + living docs |
|
||||
| Concurrency | C1, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 | Broadest derivation; locality (C4) unique |
|
||||
| DevOps | C1, C2, C3, C5, C7 | Reproducibility + rollback |
|
||||
| Infrastructure as Code | C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 | Declarative + state + composition; broadest derivation alongside Concurrency |
|
||||
| Kubernetes | C1, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 | Declarative + reversibility + economy; broad derivation (7 C-rules) |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Domain Coverage (per IDEATE-03 schema)
|
||||
|
||||
| Domain | P-count | Derived-doc-count | Manifest-listed | Status |
|
||||
|--------|---------|-------------------|-----------------|--------|
|
||||
| Infrastructure as Code | 10 | 4 (terraform, opentofu, state, modules) | ✓ | complete |
|
||||
| Kubernetes | 10 | 6 (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize) | ✓ | complete |
|
||||
|
||||
## Gaps and Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- No domain derives from only one C-rule. The minimum is 4 (UI/UX: C1, C2, C3, C5, C7 — actually 5). Every domain is multi-rooted.
|
||||
- **Concurrency** has the broadest derivation (7 C-rules) — it touches the most core concerns.
|
||||
- **Concurrency**, **Infrastructure as Code**, and **Kubernetes** are tied for the broadest derivation (7 C-rules each) — these domains touch the most core concerns.
|
||||
- **UI/UX** and **API** are the most user-facing; they emphasize C2 (Clarity) heavily.
|
||||
- **Security** is the only domain with explicit non-tradeable declarations; this promotes 8 of its rules to C1-equivalent per `core/conflict-resolution.md` §6.
|
||||
- **Security** is the only domain with explicit non-tradeable declarations; this promotes 8 of its rules to C1-equivalent per `core/conflict-resolution.md` §6.
|
||||
- **v0.2 expansion:** C4 (Locality) grew from 2 to 4 domains (added infrastructure-as-code state locality, kubernetes namespace blast-radius). C6 (Composability) grew from 6 to 8. The two new domains are broad-derivation domains (7 C-rules each), consistent with Concurrency's breadth.
|
||||
@@ -173,4 +173,40 @@ C5=Reversibility · C6=Composability · C7=Observability · C8=Economy
|
||||
| P7 Immutability | C1 | Correctness of deploys |
|
||||
| P8 Security at Every Layer | C1 | Correctness includes security |
|
||||
| P9 Documentation in Pipeline | C2 | Clarity of operations |
|
||||
| P10 Failure as Expected | C1, C7 | Correctness; observability |
|
||||
| P10 Failure as Expected | C1, C7 | Correctness; observability |
|
||||
|
||||
## Infrastructure as Code
|
||||
|
||||
| IaC Principle | Core | Why |
|
||||
|---------------------------|------|---------------------------------------|
|
||||
| P1 Declarative Intent | C2, C3 | Clarity; simplicity of declaration |
|
||||
| P2 Idempotence | C1 | Correctness of repeated apply |
|
||||
| P3 State is Truth | C1, C7 | Correctness; observability of reality |
|
||||
| P4 Plan Before Apply | C5 | Reversibility of changes |
|
||||
| P5 Version Everything | C5 | Reversibility of reproduction |
|
||||
| P6 Modules Compose | C6 | Composability of infrastructure |
|
||||
| P7 Least Privilege Providers | C1 | Correctness via security |
|
||||
| P8 Remote State with Locking | C1, C4 | Correctness; locality of state |
|
||||
| P9 Drift is Recoverable | C5, C7 | Reversibility; observability of drift |
|
||||
| P10 Secrets Never in Code | C1 | Correctness includes secret safety |
|
||||
|
||||
## Kubernetes
|
||||
|
||||
| K8s Principle | Core | Why |
|
||||
|---------------------------|------|---------------------------------------|
|
||||
| P1 Declarative Desired State | C1, C2 | Correctness; clarity of intent |
|
||||
| P2 Pods are Mortal | C5 | Reversibility of workloads |
|
||||
| P3 Labels Select | C2, C6 | Clarity; composability of selection |
|
||||
| P4 Requests and Limits | C1, C8 | Correctness; economy of resources |
|
||||
| P5 Probes Drive Health | C1, C7 | Correctness; observability of health |
|
||||
| P6 Namespaces Bound Blast | C4 | Locality of blast radius |
|
||||
| P7 RBAC by Intent | C1 | Correctness via security |
|
||||
| P8 Storage is Explicit | C4, C5 | Locality; reversibility of data |
|
||||
| P9 Config and Secrets Sep | C2 | Clarity of configuration |
|
||||
| P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back | C5 | Reversibility of deploys |
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Summary (post-v0.2)
|
||||
|
||||
- 13 domains (11 v0.1 + 2 v0.2: infrastructure-as-code, kubernetes)
|
||||
- 130 domain principles total (110 v0.1 + 20 v0.2)
|
||||
- Every domain P-rule traces to ≥1 core C-rule (C1–C8). No orphans.
|
||||
@@ -125,6 +125,28 @@ If the task touches a domain, run that domain's checklist:
|
||||
- [ ] Config is in code, not on the server
|
||||
- [ ] Environments are parity (dev = prod modulo data)
|
||||
|
||||
### If Infrastructure as Code (see `domains/infrastructure-as-code/`)
|
||||
- [ ] Configuration is declarative, not scripted (P1)
|
||||
- [ ] Provider versions are pinned, never `latest` (P5)
|
||||
- [ ] State is remote with locking; never committed (P3, P8)
|
||||
- [ ] `plan` is reviewed before every `apply` (P4)
|
||||
- [ ] No secrets in HCL; secrets via providers/stores (P10)
|
||||
- [ ] Modules are versioned; copy-paste replaced by module calls (P6)
|
||||
- [ ] Drift is treated as an incident, not a shortcut (P9)
|
||||
- [ ] Provider credentials scoped per environment, least privilege (P7)
|
||||
|
||||
### If Kubernetes (see `domains/kubernetes/`)
|
||||
- [ ] No bare pods; controllers used (P2)
|
||||
- [ ] Resource requests set on every prod container (P4)
|
||||
- [ ] Liveness/readiness/startup probes defined (P5)
|
||||
- [ ] RBAC bound to ServiceAccounts by intent; no `cluster-admin` (P7)
|
||||
- [ ] No `:latest` image tag in prod (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
- [ ] StatefulSet PVCs use `volumeClaimTemplates`; `emptyDir` only for scratch (P8)
|
||||
- [ ] ConfigMaps and Secrets separate; secrets not in image (P9)
|
||||
- [ ] Default-deny NetworkPolicy baseline (P6)
|
||||
- [ ] Rollout history retained; rollback tested (P10)
|
||||
- [ ] Namespaces used to bound blast radius; not `default` in prod (P6)
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Gate
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Have I read the relevant domain's first-principles?
|
||||
|
||||
+35
-1
@@ -121,6 +121,32 @@ When you see a pattern listed here, it is a defect. Cite the principle it violat
|
||||
| Rebuild per environment | P7 Immutability | Different artifacts |
|
||||
| Snowflake server | P1, P6 | Not reproducible |
|
||||
|
||||
### Infrastructure as Code
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
|
||||
|--------------|----------|-----|
|
||||
| Unpinned provider (`source` without `version`) | P5 Version Everything | Unversioned drift |
|
||||
| `terraform apply` without a read `plan` | P4 Plan Before Apply | Unreviewed mutation |
|
||||
| Local state in a shared environment | P8 Remote State with Locking | No lock = corruption |
|
||||
| Hardcoded secret in HCL | P10 Secrets Never in Code | Committed secret |
|
||||
| Copy-pasted block instead of a module | P6 Modules Compose | Bug duplicated |
|
||||
| Manual change to a managed resource | P9 Drift is Recoverable | Unreconciled drift |
|
||||
| Admin credentials in CI | P7 Least Privilege Providers | Overbroad grant |
|
||||
| Committed `terraform.tfstate` | P3 State is Truth, P10 | Secret-bearing artifact in repo |
|
||||
|
||||
### Kubernetes
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
|
||||
|--------------|----------|-----|
|
||||
| Bare pod (no controller) | P2 Pods are Mortal | No recovery/scale |
|
||||
| No resource requests in prod | P4 Requests and Limits | BestEffort, first evicted |
|
||||
| Liveness probe checks a dependency | P5 Probes Drive Health | Cascade restart |
|
||||
| `cluster-admin` bound to a workload | P7 RBAC by Intent | Overbroad grant |
|
||||
| `:latest` image tag in prod | P5 Version Everything | Unversioned drift |
|
||||
| `emptyDir` for data that must persist | P8 Storage is Explicit | Data lost on pod death |
|
||||
| Secrets baked into the image | P9 Config and Secrets Separate | No rotation without rebuild |
|
||||
| `default` namespace in prod | P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius | No blast boundary |
|
||||
| Shared PVC across StatefulSet replicas | P8 Storage is Explicit | Concurrent write corruption |
|
||||
| `Delete` reclaim policy on prod storage | P8, P5 Reversibility | PVC delete = data delete |
|
||||
|
||||
## Cross-Cutting Anti-Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
|
||||
@@ -129,4 +155,12 @@ When you see a pattern listed here, it is a defect. Cite the principle it violat
|
||||
| "It's just a prototype" | C5 (irreversible by default) | Prototypes go to prod |
|
||||
| Copy-paste code | C6 (no composition) | Bug duplicated |
|
||||
| God object | C3, C6 | One thing, many things |
|
||||
| Leaky abstraction | C6, C2 | Hidden coupling |
|
||||
| Leaky abstraction | C6, C2 | Hidden coupling |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Chaos Anti-Patterns (from IDEATE-13, IDEATE-14)
|
||||
|
||||
| Anti-Pattern | Breaches | Why |
|
||||
|--------------|----------|-----|
|
||||
| Orphaned P-rule (a domain principle with no matrix row) | matrix completeness, C6 | Breaks the conflict-resolution arbiter; the rule has no core trace |
|
||||
| Deployable example artifact (standalone `.tf`/`.yaml` under `examples/`) | PROJECT.md "no runtime code", D-025 | Violates the docs-only contract; examples must be `.md` with fenced code |
|
||||
| Unlisted v0.2 doc (new doc not added to MANIFEST) | manifest rule | Not part of the framework by definition |
|
||||
@@ -59,7 +59,25 @@ A peer review is a second set of eyes on correctness, clarity, and completeness.
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain-Specific (if applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
Run the relevant domain section from `agent-checklist.md` (UI/UX, API, Security, Data, Testing, Performance, Observability, Errors, Concurrency, DevOps). The author ran it; the reviewer verifies.
|
||||
Run the relevant domain section from `agent-checklist.md` (UI/UX, API, Security, Data, Testing, Performance, Observability, Errors, Concurrency, DevOps, Infrastructure as Code, Kubernetes). The author ran it; the reviewer verifies.
|
||||
|
||||
### If Infrastructure as Code
|
||||
- [ ] Are providers pinned and modules version-pinned? (no `latest`)
|
||||
- [ ] Is state remote with locking, not committed?
|
||||
- [ ] Is the `plan` diff reviewed, not just the config?
|
||||
- [ ] Are secrets via providers/stores, not in HCL?
|
||||
- [ ] Are credentials scoped per environment?
|
||||
- [ ] Is drift being treated as an incident?
|
||||
|
||||
### If Kubernetes
|
||||
- [ ] Are controllers used, not bare pods?
|
||||
- [ ] Are resource requests set on every prod container?
|
||||
- [ ] Are probes defined and checking the workload, not its dependencies?
|
||||
- [ ] Is RBAC least-privilege, bound to ServiceAccounts by intent?
|
||||
- [ ] Are image tags pinned, not `:latest`?
|
||||
- [ ] Is persistent storage explicit (PVC + reclaim policy decided)?
|
||||
- [ ] Are ConfigMaps and Secrets separate?
|
||||
- [ ] Is the rollback path tested, not assumed?
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Etiquette
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user