Compare commits
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
 Jon Chery
|
ebcae21630 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
530ce3efed | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
2c15282ad4 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
ae1a33028f | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
ce29a2a213 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
b8c89f1a74 |
@@ -1,11 +1,8 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"phase": 2,
|
||||
"phase": 0,
|
||||
"stage": "complete",
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.3",
|
||||
"phase_role": "execution",
|
||||
"project": "atelier",
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.1",
|
||||
"phase_role": "pre_execution",
|
||||
"attempts": 0,
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-05T03:35:00Z",
|
||||
"phase_tag": "v0.2.2",
|
||||
"release_id": 470
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-05T00:04:00Z"
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -8,19 +8,12 @@ Atelier is a **documentation-only framework** — no runtime code, no build arti
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
atelier/
|
||||
├── core/ # Universal principles — the foundation
|
||||
├── 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)
|
||||
│ ├── 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
|
||||
└── examples/ # Worked examples (good + bad)
|
||||
├── core/ # Universal principles — the foundation
|
||||
├── domains/ # Domain-specific application of core
|
||||
├── languages/ # Language-specific application of domains
|
||||
├── review/ # Evaluation checklists and anti-patterns
|
||||
├── matrix/ # Cross-reference: domain ↔ core
|
||||
└── examples/ # Worked examples (good + bad)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependency direction (enforced):**
|
||||
@@ -75,35 +68,4 @@ When two documents disagree:
|
||||
|
||||
Atelier's differentiation: **traceable principle hierarchy with a join table**. Existing frameworks (ThoughtWorks Radar, Google Eng Practices, SOLID, 12-Factor, OWASP, WCAG) state principles; none provide a matrix mapping every domain rule back to a core rule. This makes Atelier's `matrix/principles-matrix.md` the conflict-resolution arbiter — the framework's unique value.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Domain Additions
|
||||
|
||||
Two new top-level domains extend the tree under the same hierarchy rules:
|
||||
|
||||
- **`infrastructure-as-code/`** — tooling domain. First principles govern declarative provisioning (terraform, opentofu, state, modules). Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `devops/` (P1 Reproducibility, P6 Configuration as Code) and `security/` (supply-chain, secrets).
|
||||
- **`kubernetes/`** — platform domain. First principles govern container orchestration (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize). Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `devops/` (P4 Rollback First, P5 Progressive Delivery), `security/` (authorization, secrets), `observability/` (metrics, tracing), `data/` (storage patterns).
|
||||
|
||||
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).
|
||||
|
||||
## 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).
|
||||
See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` for the full prior-art survey and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the persona roster (3 custom active personas; 3 default personas deactivated).
|
||||
@@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -31,29 +31,4 @@
|
||||
- All defaults auto-accepted per `full` autonomy level (`decision_confidence_threshold: 0.6`).
|
||||
- All decisions above 0.60 threshold → auto-decided, no HITL.
|
||||
- No escalation triggered (no decision fell below 0.60).
|
||||
- Clarify budget used: 18 of 10... wait — clarify_budget is 10 questions max. Decisions D-001..D-010 came from init; D-011..D-018 are the new clarify-stage ambiguities (8 questions, within budget).
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Clarifications
|
||||
|
||||
> Generated during v0.2 P0 CLARIFY stage. Autonomy level: `full` (defaults auto-accepted).
|
||||
> All decisions below are above the 0.60 confidence threshold → auto-decided.
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Ambiguity | Default (Accepted) | Confidence | Rationale |
|
||||
|----|-----------|--------------------|------------|-----------|
|
||||
| D-019 | Should terraform/opentofu be a new domain or extend `devops/`? | New top-level `domains/infrastructure-as-code/` | 0.88 | User confirmed two-domain split (tool vs platform); IaC tooling has its own 10 principles distinct from devops P-rules |
|
||||
| D-020 | Should kubernetes be a new domain or a `devops/` derived doc? | New top-level `domains/kubernetes/` | 0.88 | User confirmed; k8s platform concerns (workloads, networking, storage, rbac) warrant a full principle set, not a single derived doc |
|
||||
| D-021 | Should OpenTofu get its own domain or share with Terraform? | Share `infrastructure-as-code/` domain; separate derived docs | 0.85 | OpenTofu is a Terraform fork (Linux Foundation); same HCL/state model, fork-specific notes in opentofu.md |
|
||||
| D-022 | Which k8s derived docs? | workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize | 0.90 | Core k8s domains; operators/gitops deferred (can be IDEATE items) |
|
||||
| D-023 | Should IaC include a state-management derived doc separately from terraform/opentofu? | Yes — `state.md` covers state backends, locking, drift, independent of tool | 0.83 | State is a cross-cutting IaC concern; terraform.md and opentofu.md reference it |
|
||||
| D-024 | Should IaC include a modules derived doc? | Yes — `modules.md` covers composition, versioning, registry | 0.80 | Composition is core C6; modules are the IaC expression of it |
|
||||
| D-025 | Should examples include actual deployable manifests or illustrative markdown? | Illustrative markdown only — manifests in code fences for teaching | 0.95 | PROJECT.md "no runtime code" constraint; examples are docs-as-code teaching artifacts like existing examples/good/* |
|
||||
| D-026 | Cross-link direction for new domains? | New domains link outward to existing (devops, security, observability, data); existing domains unchanged in v0.2 (no back-link edits) | 0.82 | Minimize churn to v0.1 content; cross-links are one-directional in v0.2 |
|
||||
| D-027 | Should `platform-engineer` persona be phase-specific (removed after P5) or permanent? | Phase-specific — removed after milestone v0.2 completes | 0.80 | Per D-014; persona roster returns to 3 active personas post-v0.2 |
|
||||
| D-028 | Phase count for v0.2 | 4 execution phases (P1–P4) + final P5 | 0.85 | Per D-015; user confirmed 5-phase structure |
|
||||
| D-029 | Should IDEATE consider roadmap candidates (ai-ml, i18n, compliance) alongside IaC/k8s? | Yes — full mechanical + backend tiers (user selected); accepted non-IaC/k8s ideas defer to v0.3 | 0.78 | User chose full-tier ideation; v0.2 scope stays IaC/k8s, other ideas parked for v0.3 |
|
||||
| D-030 | Are the 10 P-rules per new domain fixed or can they differ? | Fixed at 10 each (matches v0.1 convention D-018) | 0.92 | Consistency with v0.1; matrix expects 10 per domain |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- All v0.2 decisions above 0.60 threshold → auto-decided, no HITL.
|
||||
- Clarify budget for v0.2: 12 new questions (D-019..D-030), within budget of 10... exceeds by 2. Rationale: 3 of the 12 (D-019, D-020, D-022) were pre-resolved by user answers during plan-mode clarification, so effective new questions = 9, within budget.
|
||||
- Clarify budget used: 18 of 10... wait — clarify_budget is 10 questions max. Decisions D-001..D-010 came from init; D-011..D-018 are the new clarify-stage ambiguities (8 questions, within budget).
|
||||
@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.**
|
||||
@@ -46,45 +46,10 @@
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase-Specific Personas
|
||||
|
||||
### 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. 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.
|
||||
None. All three active personas span the full milestone. No phase-scoped personas needed — the work is uniformly markdown authoring with domain validation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Territory Enforcement
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.3 Persona Roster Summary
|
||||
|
||||
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).
|
||||
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.
|
||||
+1
-416
@@ -204,419 +204,4 @@ Per branch-strategy.md, this is an NFR milestone (all phases are docs/chore —
|
||||
| P4 | 2 | Wave 1 matrix, Wave 2 review docs parallel |
|
||||
| P5 | 1 | Single parallel wave (7 examples) |
|
||||
| P6 | 1 | Single parallel wave (6 docs) |
|
||||
| P7 | 3 | Sequential: review → audit → ship |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Atelier — Plan (v0.2)
|
||||
|
||||
> Vertical-slice plans with wave ordering for milestone v0.2 (Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes). Plans reference REQ-IDs from `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` (ATELIER-36..59). NFR milestone — all phases produce docs; no `feat` code.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 0 — Pre-Execution (COMPLETE)
|
||||
|
||||
Stages: SPECIFY ✓ → CLARIFY ✓ → RESEARCH ✓ → IDEATE ✓ → PLAN ✓ → SHIP
|
||||
Branch: `atelier/phase/00-pre-execution`
|
||||
Tag: v0.1.0
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1 — Infrastructure as Code Domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Author the `domains/infrastructure-as-code/` tree — 10 first principles (P1–P10) plus 4 derived docs (terraform, opentofu, state, modules). Resolves architectural drift (IDEATE-01).
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/01-infrastructure-as-code` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.2-iac-k8s`)
|
||||
**Personas:** platform-engineer (author), domain-expert (validate traceability), tech-writer (style/format)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.1.1
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-36, ATELIER-37, ATELIER-38, ATELIER-39, ATELIER-40
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — first-principles must exist before derived docs)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 01-01-01 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-36 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md; each names the core C-rule(s) it derives from; each has definition + "what violates" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — derived docs, independent)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 01-02-01 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/terraform.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-37 | HCL structure, providers, resources, data sources, workspaces, init/plan/apply/destroy, registry, state backends; cross-link to state.md + modules.md |
|
||||
| 01-02-02 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/opentofu.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-38 | Fork lineage (BUSL→MPL via LF), CLI parity, registry parity, migration from Terraform, governance, when-to-choose; cross-link to terraform.md |
|
||||
| 01-02-03 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/state.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-39 | Backends (S3+DynamoDB, GCS, Azure, local), locking, env isolation, state commands, sensitive values, import/export; **state backend comparison table** (IDEATE-11) |
|
||||
| 01-02-04 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-40 | Module structure, inputs/outputs, versioning, source patterns (registry/git/local), composition, module-vs-copy boundary |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P1):**
|
||||
- Structural: 5 files exist under `domains/infrastructure-as-code/`
|
||||
- Behavioral: every P1–P10 in first-principles names ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
|
||||
- Security: P10 (Secrets Never in Code) section present
|
||||
- Quality: each derived doc has ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc (IDEATE-08)
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2 — Kubernetes Domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Author the `domains/kubernetes/` tree — 10 first principles (P1–P10) plus 6 derived docs (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize).
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/02-kubernetes` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.2-iac-k8s`)
|
||||
**Personas:** platform-engineer (author), domain-expert (validate), tech-writer (style)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.1.2
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-41, ATELIER-42, ATELIER-43, ATELIER-44, ATELIER-45, ATELIER-46, ATELIER-47
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — first-principles first)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 02-01-01 | `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-41 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md; each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates" |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — derived docs)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 02-02-01 | `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-42 | Pod, ReplicaSet, Deployment, StatefulSet, DaemonSet, Job/CronJob, probes, lifecycle, PDB |
|
||||
| 02-02-02 | `domains/kubernetes/networking.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-43 | Service types, Ingress, Gateway API, EndpointSlices, NetworkPolicy, DNS, dual-stack |
|
||||
| 02-02-03 | `domains/kubernetes/storage.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-44 | Volumes, PV/PVC, StorageClass, CSI, dynamic provisioning, snapshots, reclaim policies |
|
||||
| 02-02-04 | `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-45 | Role/ClusterRole, bindings, ServiceAccount, **Pod Security Standards + Admission** (IDEATE-12), RBAC good practices; cross-link security/authorization |
|
||||
| 02-02-05 | `domains/kubernetes/helm.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-46 | Chart structure, values, templates, registries, release mgmt; **Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix** (IDEATE-10) |
|
||||
| 02-02-06 | `domains/kubernetes/kustomize.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-47 | Base + overlays, kustomization.yaml, patches, no templating; **Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix** (IDEATE-10) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P2):**
|
||||
- Structural: 7 files exist under `domains/kubernetes/`
|
||||
- Behavioral: every P1–P10 traces to ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
|
||||
- Security: P7 (RBAC least privilege) + P9 (config/secrets separate) sections present
|
||||
- Quality: each derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link (IDEATE-08); helm.md and kustomize.md share the decision matrix consistently
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3 — Matrix + Review Integration
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Extend the matrix, review docs, and manifest to absorb the 20 new P-rules and 11 new documents. Closes the traceability loop.
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/03-matrix-review` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.2-iac-k8s`)
|
||||
**Personas:** domain-expert (matrix + anti-patterns), tech-writer (checklists + manifest), platform-engineer (content review)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.1.3
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-48, ATELIER-49, ATELIER-50, ATELIER-51, ATELIER-52, ATELIER-59
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — matrix is the arbiter, must be authoritative first)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 03-01-01 | `matrix/principles-matrix.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-48 | Add "Infrastructure as Code" + "Kubernetes" sections, 10 rows each, format matching v0.1 tables; **review check: row count per new domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule** (IDEATE-02, IDEATE-13) |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (parallel — independent extensions)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 03-02-01 | `matrix/domain-coverage.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-49 | Add rows for both new domains with schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status (IDEATE-03) |
|
||||
| 03-02-02 | `review/agent-checklist.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-50 | Add "If Infrastructure as Code" + "If Kubernetes" trigger sections (IDEATE-05) |
|
||||
| 03-02-03 | `review/peer-review-checklist.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-59 | Add IaC + k8s peer-review sections (parity with agent-checklist, IDEATE-09) |
|
||||
| 03-02-04 | `review/anti-patterns.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-51 | Add IaC violations (unlocked state, hardcoded secrets, unversioned modules, manual drift, local state in prod) + k8s violations (bare pod, no resources, cluster-admin, :latest, no probes, emptyDir for persistent data) + **orphaned P-rule** + **deployable example artifact** (IDEATE-06, IDEATE-13, IDEATE-14) |
|
||||
| 03-02-05 | `MANIFEST.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-52 | Add both new domains + all 11 derived docs to the Domains table (IDEATE-04) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P3):**
|
||||
- Structural: matrix has 13 domain sections (11 v0.1 + 2 new), 130 P-rules total
|
||||
- Behavioral: every new P-rule has a matrix row; domain-expert verifies no orphans
|
||||
- Security: anti-patterns cover secrets-in-HCL and cluster-admin
|
||||
- Quality: MANIFEST lists all new docs; unlisted = not part of framework
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4 — Examples + Cross-Links
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Add good + bad examples for IaC/k8s and verify cross-domain links from new domains to existing ones. Examples are markdown with fenced code only (no standalone .tf/.yaml).
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/04-examples-crosslinks` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.2-iac-k8s`)
|
||||
**Personas:** platform-engineer (examples), tech-writer (cross-link audit), domain-expert (P-rule citation)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.1.4
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-53, ATELIER-54, ATELIER-55, ATELIER-56
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (parallel — examples independent)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 04-01-01 | `examples/good/terraform-module.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-53 | Good IaC example; markdown with fenced HCL; demonstrates P6 Modules Compose + P8 Remote State; cross-link to modules.md + state.md |
|
||||
| 04-01-02 | `examples/good/k8s-deployment.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-54 | Good k8s example; markdown with fenced YAML; demonstrates P4 requests/limits + P5 probes + P7 RBAC; cross-link to workloads.md + rbac.md |
|
||||
| 04-01-03 | `examples/bad/terraform-unlocked-state.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-55 | Bad IaC example; cites P8 breached (no locking) + P10 if secrets in state; per IDEATE-07 |
|
||||
| 04-01-04 | `examples/bad/k8s-bare-pod-no-resources.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-55 | Bad k8s example; cites P2 (bare pod) + P4 (no requests/limits) breached; per IDEATE-07 |
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 2 (sequential — cross-link audit after all docs exist)
|
||||
| Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 04-02-01 | Cross-link audit (all new derived docs) | tech-writer | ATELIER-56 | Review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed existing domain doc (devops/security/observability/data); links resolve (IDEATE-08) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P4):**
|
||||
- Structural: 4 new example files exist (all .md)
|
||||
- Behavioral: each bad example cites the P-rule breached
|
||||
- Security: no standalone .tf/.yaml files (deployable artifact mitigation, IDEATE-14)
|
||||
- Quality: all cross-links resolve to MANIFEST-listed docs
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5 — Final Review + Ship (N+1)
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Multi-persona review across all v0.2 phases, audit, milestone ship.
|
||||
**Branch:** `atelier/phase/05-final-review-ship` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.2-iac-k8s`)
|
||||
**Personas:** lead-developer (coordinate), domain-expert (review), tech-writer (review), platform-engineer (review, then removed)
|
||||
**Tag:** v0.1.5 (IS the v0.2 milestone release — NFR, no separate minor tag)
|
||||
**Requirements:** ATELIER-57, ATELIER-58
|
||||
|
||||
### Wave 1 (sequential — review → audit → ship)
|
||||
| Task | Activity | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
|
||||
|------|----------|---------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| 05-01-01 | `ciagent-review` — multi-persona review of all v0.2 changes | lead-developer | ATELIER-57 | Auto-apply P0 fixes; flag P1+ for post-hoc; if P1+ found, fix in this phase |
|
||||
| 05-01-02 | `ciagent-audit` — reconstruction + discipline | lead-developer | ATELIER-57 | git log matches .ciagent/ files; branch hygiene; commit discipline; fix critical issues here |
|
||||
| 05-01-03 | `ciagent-ship` — milestone ship | lead-developer | ATELIER-58 | Merge phase/05 → milestone/v0.2 → main; tag v0.1.5; Gitea release; delete all v0.2 branches |
|
||||
| 05-01-04 | Complete milestone (REQUIREMENTS + ROADMAP) | lead-developer | ATELIER-58 | Mark all v0.2 requirements `covered`; ROADMAP v0.2 → complete; clear checkpoint |
|
||||
|
||||
**Verify (P5):**
|
||||
- Structural: all 24 v0.2 requirements (ATELIER-36..59) marked covered
|
||||
- Behavioral: reconstruction test passes (git log ↔ .ciagent/)
|
||||
- Security: audit clean (no critical issues)
|
||||
- Quality: milestone merged to main, tag v0.1.5 exists, all v0.2 branches deleted
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Wave Ordering Summary
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Waves | Parallelism |
|
||||
|-------|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| P0 | (pre-exec) | Sequential stages |
|
||||
| P1 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (4 derived docs) |
|
||||
| P2 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (6 derived docs) |
|
||||
| P3 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (matrix), Wave 2 parallel (5 extensions) |
|
||||
| P4 | 2 | Wave 1 parallel (4 examples), Wave 2 sequential (cross-link audit) |
|
||||
| P5 | 1 | Sequential: review → audit → ship → complete |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Requirements → Phase Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Requirements | Count |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|-------|
|
||||
| 1 | ATELIER-36..40 | 5 |
|
||||
| 2 | ATELIER-41..47 | 7 |
|
||||
| 3 | ATELIER-48..52, 59 | 6 |
|
||||
| 4 | ATELIER-53..56 | 4 |
|
||||
| 5 | ATELIER-57, 58 | 2 |
|
||||
| **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 |
|
||||
| P7 | 3 | Sequential: review → audit → ship |
|
||||
+1
-103
@@ -52,73 +52,6 @@ Build **Atelier** — a first-principles, docs-as-code engineering framework for
|
||||
- Translation/localization of the framework docs
|
||||
- Automated agent integration adapters beyond markdown consumption
|
||||
- Versioned per-domain release artifacts (the whole framework versions together)
|
||||
- Runtime code (terraform manifests, k8s YAML, deployable artifacts) — Atelier remains docs-only. Examples under `examples/iac/` and `examples/k8s/` are illustrative markdown (rendered manifests in code fences), never deployed.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` runtime code)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.1.x (previous minor from v0.2)
|
||||
**Scope:** Extend the domain tree with two new top-level domains covering IaC tooling and the Kubernetes platform, plus matrix, review, and examples integration.
|
||||
|
||||
### New Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/` — tooling domain
|
||||
- `first-principles.md` — 10 IaC principles (P1–P10)
|
||||
- Derived: `terraform.md`, `opentofu.md`, `state.md`, `modules.md`
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/` — platform domain
|
||||
- `first-principles.md` — 10 k8s principles (P1–P10)
|
||||
- Derived: `workloads.md`, `networking.md`, `storage.md`, `rbac.md`, `helm.md`, `kustomize.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Integration
|
||||
|
||||
- Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 20 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain)
|
||||
- Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with the two new domains
|
||||
- Extend `review/agent-checklist.md` and `review/anti-patterns.md` with IaC/k8s checks/violations
|
||||
- Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new documents (manifest is authoritative)
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -134,42 +67,7 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.2.6) IS the v0.3 deliv
|
||||
| D-008 | 6 execution phases (P1–P6) + final phase P7 | Mirrors spec Part 6 "Recommended Build Order" | 0.88 |
|
||||
| D-009 | NFR milestone type (all phases are docs/chore) | Every phase produces markdown docs, no feat code; NFR patch-line versioning | 0.92 |
|
||||
| D-010 | Tags run on v0.0.x patch line (prev minor from v0.1) | Per branch-strategy.md: milestone 0.1 → tags v0.0.0..v0.0.7 | 0.90 |
|
||||
| D-011 | v0.2 adds two new top-level domains: infrastructure-as-code + kubernetes | User directive to incorporate terraform/opentofu + kubernetes; two-domain split reflects tool-vs-platform distinction | 0.90 |
|
||||
| D-012 | v0.2 remains docs-only (NFR milestone type) | PROJECT.md constraint "no runtime code" preserved; manifests appear only as illustrative code-fence content in examples | 0.95 |
|
||||
| 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
|
||||
|
||||
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 (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.
|
||||
None yet. Atelier is a standalone docs framework.
|
||||
@@ -7,38 +7,38 @@
|
||||
| ATELIER-01 | `.ciagent/atelier/` governance files created | P0 | 0 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-02 | Milestone v0.1 branch hierarchy established | P0 | 0 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-03 | Initial framework content committed (MANIFEST, matrix, 11 domain first-principles, uiux components+a11y) | P0 | 0 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-04 | `core/first-principles.md` — 8 core principles (C1–C8) | P0 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-05 | `core/conflict-resolution.md` — cross-document conflict rules | P0 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-06 | `core/reading-order.md` — recommended consumption order | P0 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-07 | `README.md` — repo entry point, quickstart | P0 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-08 | `LICENSE` — MIT license | P0 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-09 | `domains/uiux/first-principles.md` — 10 UI/UX principles | P0 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-10 | `domains/errors/first-principles.md` — 10 error principles | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-11 | `domains/documentation/first-principles.md` | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-12 | `domains/concurrency/first-principles.md` | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-13 | `domains/devops/first-principles.md` | P1 | 2 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-14 | `domains/api/` derived: rest, graphql, versioning, error-responses, pagination | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-15 | `domains/security/` derived: authentication, authorization, input-validation, secrets, supply-chain | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-16 | `domains/data/` derived: schema-design, migrations, indexing | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-17 | `domains/testing/` derived: pyramid, fixtures | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-18 | `domains/performance/` derived: frontend, backend | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-19 | `domains/observability/` derived: logging, metrics, tracing | P1 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-20 | `domains/uiux/` derived: tokens, copywriting | P2 | 3 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-21 | `matrix/principles-matrix.md` — full domain → core mapping | P0 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-22 | `matrix/domain-coverage.md` | P1 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-23 | `review/agent-checklist.md` | P0 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-24 | `review/peer-review-checklist.md` | P1 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-25 | `review/anti-patterns.md` | P1 | 4 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-26 | `examples/good/api-endpoint.md` | P2 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-27 | `examples/good/react-component.md` | P2 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-28 | `examples/good/db-schema.md` | P2 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-29 | `examples/good/error-handler.md` | P2 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-30 | `examples/bad/god-object.md`, `silent-error.md`, `leaky-abstraction.md` | P2 | 5 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-31 | `languages/typescript.md`, `python.md`, `go.md`, `rust.md` | P2 | 6 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-32 | `CHANGELOG.md` | P1 | 6 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-33 | `CONTRIBUTING.md` | P1 | 6 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-34 | Final review passes (all phases reviewed, audit clean) | P0 | 7 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-35 | Milestone v0.1 released (tag v0.0.7, merged to main) | P0 | 7 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-04 | `core/first-principles.md` — 8 core principles (C1–C8) | P0 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-05 | `core/conflict-resolution.md` — cross-document conflict rules | P0 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-06 | `core/reading-order.md` — recommended consumption order | P0 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-07 | `README.md` — repo entry point, quickstart | P0 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-08 | `LICENSE` — MIT license | P0 | 1 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-09 | `domains/uiux/first-principles.md` — 10 UI/UX principles | P0 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-10 | `domains/errors/first-principles.md` — 10 error principles | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-11 | `domains/documentation/first-principles.md` | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-12 | `domains/concurrency/first-principles.md` | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-13 | `domains/devops/first-principles.md` | P1 | 2 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-14 | `domains/api/` derived: rest, graphql, versioning, error-responses, pagination | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-15 | `domains/security/` derived: authentication, authorization, input-validation, secrets, supply-chain | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-16 | `domains/data/` derived: schema-design, migrations, indexing | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-17 | `domains/testing/` derived: pyramid, fixtures | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-18 | `domains/performance/` derived: frontend, backend | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-19 | `domains/observability/` derived: logging, metrics, tracing | P1 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-20 | `domains/uiux/` derived: tokens, copywriting | P2 | 3 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-21 | `matrix/principles-matrix.md` — full domain → core mapping | P0 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-22 | `matrix/domain-coverage.md` | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-23 | `review/agent-checklist.md` | P0 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-24 | `review/peer-review-checklist.md` | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-25 | `review/anti-patterns.md` | P1 | 4 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-26 | `examples/good/api-endpoint.md` | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-27 | `examples/good/react-component.md` | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-28 | `examples/good/db-schema.md` | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-29 | `examples/good/error-handler.md` | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-30 | `examples/bad/god-object.md`, `silent-error.md`, `leaky-abstraction.md` | P2 | 5 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-31 | `languages/typescript.md`, `python.md`, `go.md`, `rust.md` | P2 | 6 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-32 | `CHANGELOG.md` | P1 | 6 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-33 | `CONTRIBUTING.md` | P1 | 6 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-34 | Final review passes (all phases reviewed, audit clean) | P0 | 7 | pending |
|
||||
| ATELIER-35 | Milestone v0.1 released (tag v0.0.7, merged to main) | P0 | 7 | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
## Traceability Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -51,183 +51,4 @@
|
||||
| 4 (Matrix + Review) | ATELIER-21, ATELIER-22, ATELIER-23, ATELIER-24, ATELIER-25 |
|
||||
| 5 (Examples) | ATELIER-26, ATELIER-27, ATELIER-28, ATELIER-29, ATELIER-30 |
|
||||
| 6 (Languages + Meta) | ATELIER-31, ATELIER-32, ATELIER-33 |
|
||||
| 7 (Final Review + Ship) | ATELIER-34, ATELIER-35 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Milestone Summary
|
||||
|
||||
All 35 requirements covered. 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principles, 27 derived docs, 4 good + 3 bad examples, 4 language docs, full matrix, 3 review docs. NFR milestone, 7 patches (v0.0.0–v0.0.7), v0.0.7 is the v0.1.0 release.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Requirements — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.1.x (previous minor from v0.2)
|
||||
|
||||
| REQ-ID | Requirement | Priority | Phase | Status |
|
||||
|--------|-------------|----------|-------|--------|
|
||||
| ATELIER-36 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` — 10 IaC principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| ATELIER-37 | `domains/infrastructure-as-code/terraform.md` — Terraform derived doc | P1 | 1 | covered |
|
||||
| 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 | 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
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Requirements |
|
||||
|-------|-------------|
|
||||
| 0 (Pre-Execution) | (governance: spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan) |
|
||||
| 1 (Infrastructure as Code Domain) | ATELIER-36..ATELIER-40 |
|
||||
| 2 (Kubernetes Domain) | ATELIER-41..ATELIER-47 |
|
||||
| 3 (Matrix + Review Integration) | ATELIER-48, ATELIER-49, ATELIER-50, ATELIER-51, ATELIER-52, ATELIER-59 |
|
||||
| 4 (Examples + Cross-Links) | ATELIER-53, ATELIER-54, ATELIER-55, ATELIER-56 |
|
||||
| 5 (Final Review + Ship) | ATELIER-57, ATELIER-58 |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Ideation Log
|
||||
|
||||
**Generated:** 16 ideas (mechanical: 9, backend-enriched: 7)
|
||||
**Accepted:** 14 (all v0.2-scope, confidence ≥ 0.79, above 0.6 autonomy threshold → auto-accepted)
|
||||
**Deferred to v0.3:** 2 (IDEATE-15 GitOps/operators domain; IDEATE-16 ai-ml/i18n/compliance domains)
|
||||
**Rejected:** 0
|
||||
|
||||
| IDEATE-ID | Source | Category | Confidence | Decision | Mapped REQ |
|
||||
|-----------|--------|----------|------------|----------|------------|
|
||||
| IDEATE-01 | mechanical | architecture | 0.97 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-36 (drift resolution) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-02 | mechanical | coverage | 0.95 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-48 (matrix format) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-03 | mechanical | spec | 0.82 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-49 (row schema) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-04 | mechanical | coverage | 0.96 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-52 (manifest table) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-05 | mechanical | quality | 0.94 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-50 (checklist triggers) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-06 | mechanical | quality | 0.93 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-51 (anti-patterns) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-07 | mechanical | spec | 0.88 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-55 (named examples) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-08 | mechanical | spec | 0.86 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-56 (link verification) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-09 | mechanical | coverage | 0.79 | accepted → new req | ATELIER-59 (peer-review parity) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-10 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.83 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-46 (decision matrix) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-11 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.81 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-39 (state comparison table) |
|
||||
| IDEATE-12 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.80 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-45 (PSS coverage) |
|
||||
| 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) |
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 |
|
||||
| 7 (Final Review + Ship) | ATELIER-34, ATELIER-35 |
|
||||
@@ -90,376 +90,4 @@ None. Atelier produces markdown only. No `package.json`, no runtime dependencies
|
||||
2. The 8 core principles are recoverable from `matrix/principles-matrix.md`'s key (D-011) — enough to author `core/first-principles.md` in P1.
|
||||
3. Custom personas needed: tech-writer (primary), domain-expert (validator). Default 3 inactive.
|
||||
4. No build/lint tooling in scope — markdown is the artifact (D-016, ARCHITECTURE.md).
|
||||
5. Phase ordering (P1–P6) follows the spec's build order; matrix + review come after all domains exist (P4).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# v0.2 Research — Infrastructure as Code + Kubernetes
|
||||
|
||||
> Research conducted during v0.2 P0 RESEARCH stage. Informs the two new domains, matrix extension, and the phase-specific platform-engineer persona. See CLARIFY.md D-019..D-030 for resolved ambiguities.
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain A: Infrastructure as Code (Terraform / OpenTofu)
|
||||
|
||||
### Prior Art
|
||||
|
||||
- **Terraform** (HashiCorp, 2014, original MPL-2.0): core workflow is **Write → Plan → Apply**. Declarative HCL; provider-based resource model; state file as the source of truth for drift detection. ([developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/intro/core-workflow](https://developer.hashicorp.com/terraform/intro/core-workflow))
|
||||
- **OpenTofu** (Linux Foundation, 2023 fork of MPL Terraform after HashiCorp's BUSL license change): community-driven, truly open source (MPL path), backwards-compatible with Terraform, layered and modular, impartial stewardship. ([opentofu.org/manifesto](https://opentofu.org/manifesto))
|
||||
- **Pulumi** (out of v0.2 scope per D-019 — user chose terraform+opentofu; general IaC principles cover the model).
|
||||
- **12-Factor** (already in Atelier v0.1 devops domain): config in environment, disposable, dev/prod parity.
|
||||
|
||||
### Principles Identified for `infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
|
||||
|
||||
Each derived from a core C-rule (see matrix updates in P3):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P1 Declarative Intent** — describe desired state, not steps to reach it. (C2 Clarity, C3 Simplicity)
|
||||
2. **P2 Idempotence** — applying the same config twice yields the same result. (C1 Correctness)
|
||||
3. **P3 State is Truth** — the state file is the authoritative record; drift is a bug. (C1 Correctness, C7 Observability)
|
||||
4. **P4 Plan Before Apply** — preview every change before mutating real infrastructure. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
5. **P5 Version Everything** — config, state, providers, modules all versioned and reproducible. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
6. **P6 Modules Compose** — encapsulate repeatable patterns as versioned modules; compose, don't copy. (C6 Composability)
|
||||
7. **P7 Least Privilege Providers** — provider credentials scoped to minimum needed. (C1 Correctness via security)
|
||||
8. **P8 Remote State with Locking** — state stored remotely with locking to prevent concurrent corruption. (C4 Locality, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
9. **P9 Drift is Recoverable** — `plan` detects drift; `apply` reconciles. Manual mutation is an incident. (C5 Reversibility, C7 Observability)
|
||||
10. **P10 Secrets Never in Code** — secrets via providers/external secret stores, never hardcoded in HCL. (C1 Correctness, security non-tradeable)
|
||||
|
||||
### Derived Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `terraform.md` — HCL structure, providers, resources, data sources, workspaces, `terraform init/plan/apply/destroy`, registry, state backends.
|
||||
- `opentofu.md` — fork lineage (BUSL → MPL via Linux Foundation), CLI parity, registry parity, migration path from Terraform, community governance, when to choose OpenTofu (license neutrality, supply-chain).
|
||||
- `state.md` — state backends (S3+DynamoDB lock, GCS, Azure blob, local for dev), locking, state isolation per environment, `terraform state` commands, sensitive values in state, state import/export.
|
||||
- `modules.md` — module structure, inputs/outputs, versioning (registry tags), `source` patterns (registry, git, local), module composition, the module-vs-copy boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.2, per D-026)
|
||||
|
||||
- `devops/P1 Reproducibility` ← IaC P1, P5
|
||||
- `devops/P6 Configuration as Code` ← IaC P1
|
||||
- `security/secrets` ← IaC P10
|
||||
- `security/supply-chain` ← OpenTofu license-stewardship angle (cross-link, not duplication)
|
||||
- `data/migrations` ← IaC state lifecycle (analog, not direct)
|
||||
|
||||
## Domain B: Kubernetes
|
||||
|
||||
### Prior Art
|
||||
|
||||
- **Kubernetes** (CNCF, graduated): container orchestration platform. Concept taxonomy (per kubernetes.io/docs/concepts): Workloads (Pod, Deployment, ReplicaSet, StatefulSet, DaemonSet, Job, CronJob), Services/Networking (Service, Ingress, Gateway API, NetworkPolicy, DNS), Storage (PV, PVC, StorageClass, CSI), Security (RBAC, ServiceAccounts, Pod Security Standards, Secrets, multi-tenancy), Configuration (ConfigMaps, Secrets, Resource Management), Policies (LimitRanges, ResourceQuotas), Scheduling/Eviction.
|
||||
- **Helm** (CNCF): package manager for k8s — charts as templated manifests, values overrides, registries.
|
||||
- **Kustomize** (built-in): overlay-based manifest customization without templating — base + overlays, no DSL.
|
||||
- **12-Factor App** — backing influence for k8s workload principles (disposability, config, logs).
|
||||
- **GitOps** (ArgoCD, Flux) — out of v0.2 first-principles scope but referenced as a deployment pattern for helm/kustomize; candidate IDEATE item.
|
||||
|
||||
### Principles Identified for `kubernetes/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P1 Declarative Desired State** — controllers reconcile current → desired. Imperative commands are exceptions. (C1 Correctness, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
2. **P2 Pods are Mortal** — never assume a pod's identity or lifetime. Use controllers, not bare pods. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
3. **P3 Labels Select** — labels + selectors are the join mechanism for workloads, services, policies. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
4. **P4 Requests and Limits are Contracts** — resource requests drive scheduling; limits drive QoS. Unspecified = best-effort = first evicted. (C8 Economy, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
5. **P5 Probes Drive Health** — liveness, readiness, startup probes; the platform cannot heal what it cannot see. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
|
||||
6. **P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius** — namespaces are the unit of quota, RBAC, network policy, and cleanup. (C4 Locality)
|
||||
7. **P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity** — bind roles to service accounts by workload purpose; least privilege; avoid cluster-admin. (C1 Correctness via security)
|
||||
8. **P8 Storage is Explicit** — ephemeral by default; persistence requires PVC + StorageClass + reclaim policy decisions. (C5 Reversibility, C4 Locality)
|
||||
9. **P9 Config and Secrets are Separate** — ConfigMaps for non-sensitive, Secrets for sensitive; both injected, never baked into images. (C2 Clarity, security)
|
||||
10. **P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back** — rolling updates + rollout history; every deployment has a known-good rollback. (C5 Reversibility)
|
||||
|
||||
### Derived Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- `workloads.md` — Pod, ReplicaSet, Deployment, StatefulSet (identity + ordering), DaemonSet, Job/CronJob, controllers, probes, lifecycle, disruption budgets.
|
||||
- `networking.md` — Service (ClusterIP/NodePort/LoadBalancer), Ingress, Gateway API, EndpointSlices, NetworkPolicy, DNS, dual-stack.
|
||||
- `storage.md` — Volumes, PV/PVC, StorageClass, CSI, dynamic provisioning, volume snapshots, reclaim policies, ephemeral volumes.
|
||||
- `rbac.md` — Role/ClusterRole, RoleBinding/ClusterRoleBinding, ServiceAccount, Pod Security Standards/Admission, RBAC good practices (cross-link `security/authorization`).
|
||||
- `helm.md` — chart structure, values.yaml, templates, registries, release management, when Helm fits vs Kustomize.
|
||||
- `kustomize.md` — base + overlays, kustomization.yaml, patches, no templating, when Kustomize fits vs Helm.
|
||||
|
||||
### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.2, per D-026)
|
||||
|
||||
- `devops/P4 Rollback First` ← k8s P10
|
||||
- `devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← k8s rolling updates, canary via labels
|
||||
- `devops/P3 Observability` ← k8s P5 probes, metrics
|
||||
- `security/authorization` ← k8s P7 RBAC
|
||||
- `security/secrets` ← k8s P9 Secrets
|
||||
- `observability/metrics` ← k8s P5, resource metrics pipeline
|
||||
- `data/storage` ← k8s P8 (analog: PVC lifecycle ↔ migration discipline)
|
||||
|
||||
## Architectural Fit (v0.1 Contract Preservation)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Hierarchy preserved:** both 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): consistent with v0.1.
|
||||
- **Manifest authoritative:** all new documents added to `MANIFEST.md` in P3. Unlisted = not part of the framework.
|
||||
- **No runtime code:** examples are illustrative markdown with manifests in code fences (per D-025, PROJECT.md constraint). No `.tf`, `.yaml`, `.sh` deployable artifacts — 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Prior Art Position (v0.2 extension)
|
||||
|
||||
Existing IaC/k8s guidance (Terraform docs, k8s docs, Helm/Kustomize docs, Google SRE, CNCF guides) state practices but none map every domain rule back to a small set of universal core principles. Atelier's v0.2 contribution is the same differentiation as v0.1: **traceable principle hierarchy with a join table**. The two new domains add 20 P-rules, each traced to a core C-rule, extending the matrix from 110 to 130 domain principles across 13 domains.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Persona Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
See `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the updated roster. v0.2 adds one phase-specific persona:
|
||||
|
||||
- **platform-engineer** (phase-specific, removed after v0.2): domain = infrastructure/platform; territory = `domains/infrastructure-as-code/**, domains/kubernetes/**, examples/good/{terraform-module,k8s-deployment}.md, examples/bad/*`; constraints = ["declarative-first", "stateless examples", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain"]; reason = specialist authoring for IaC/k8s content with domain expertise the existing tech-writer persona lacks.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Risks and Mitigations
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Mitigation |
|
||||
|------|-----------|
|
||||
| New P-rules orphaned from core (no matrix trace) | P3 extends matrix; domain-expert persona verifies every new P-rule traces to a C-rule before sign-off |
|
||||
| IaC and k8s domains overlap (state, secrets) | Cross-links are one-directional (D-026); each domain owns its own principle angle (IaC P3 state-as-truth vs k8s P8 storage-explicit) |
|
||||
| Examples become deployable (runtime code) | platform-engineer constraint "stateless examples"; examples are markdown with fenced code, never standalone `.tf`/`.yaml` files |
|
||||
| OpenTofu doc duplicates terraform.md | OpenTofu doc covers fork-specific governance/license/migration; references terraform.md for the shared HCL/state model |
|
||||
| Helm vs Kustomize preference bias | Both docs present neutral "when X fits" guidance; neither advocated over the other |
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
1. Two new top-level domains extend the framework without breaking the v0.1 contract.
|
||||
2. 20 new P-rules (10 per domain) all trace to core C1–C8 — matrix extends from 110 to 130.
|
||||
3. OpenTofu shares the IaC domain with Terraform (fork lineage); separate derived doc covers governance/license.
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
5. Phase ordering (P1–P6) follows the spec's build order; matrix + review come after all domains exist (P4).
|
||||
@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -1,69 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Atelier — Final Review + Audit (P7)
|
||||
|
||||
> Final phase review and audit for milestone v0.1. Conducted before milestone ship.
|
||||
|
||||
## Review (Multi-Persona, across all phases)
|
||||
|
||||
### Structural Review
|
||||
- **All 64 MANIFEST-listed documents exist:** ✓
|
||||
- 3 core, 11 domain first-principles, 27 derived, 2 matrix, 3 review, 4 good examples, 3 bad examples, 4 languages, 5 meta (README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG, CONTRIBUTING, MANIFEST)
|
||||
- **No unlisted docs:** the framework tree contains only docs in the manifest (plus `.ciagent/` governance, which is meta, not framework content).
|
||||
|
||||
### Behavioral Review
|
||||
- **Every domain has exactly 10 P-rules** (verified per domain: api 10, security 10, data 10, testing 10, performance 10, observability 10, errors 10, documentation 10, concurrency 10, devops 10, uiux 10).
|
||||
- **Matrix has exactly 110 rows** (11 domains × 10 principles).
|
||||
- **Every matrix row maps to a C-rule** that exists in `core/first-principles.md` (C1–C8 all present).
|
||||
- **Every example cites principles** (good: 10–18 citations; bad: 7–11 citations).
|
||||
|
||||
### Security Review
|
||||
- **No secret in git history:** the GITEA_API_TOKEN value does not appear in any committed file or commit message. `.ciagent/.env.secrets` is gitignored and never staged.
|
||||
- **No security anti-patterns in framework content:** the `review/anti-patterns.md` catalog is complete; examples/bad/* cite the security principles they violate.
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Review
|
||||
- **Document structure consistent:** all first-principles docs follow the template (Manifesto → Principles → Conflict Resolution → What Violates → Relationship to Core).
|
||||
- **Reading order links resolve:** `core/reading-order.md` forward references to P2–P6 docs now resolve (all created).
|
||||
- **CHANGELOG follows Keep a Changelog format:** Added section, phases enumerated.
|
||||
|
||||
### P1+ Issues Found (post-hoc, not blocking)
|
||||
1. **Squash-merge commits lack `---ci---` blocks:** the 7 `docs(P0N): complete ...` commits (consolidation points) and the initial `chore: initialize` commit do not have `---ci---` blocks. The task commits on phase branches all have them. Per commit-discipline, consolidation commits could include a `---ci---` block. This is a P1 (post-hoc) issue, not blocking. The milestone ship commit below includes a comprehensive `---ci---` block covering the milestone.
|
||||
|
||||
**P0 fixes applied:** none required. No blocking issues found.
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit
|
||||
|
||||
### Reconstruction Test
|
||||
- **MANIFEST.md lists all framework documents:** ✓ (64 docs)
|
||||
- **Every listed document exists:** ✓
|
||||
- **Git log reconstructs project state:** the `---ci---` blocks in task commits record phase, milestone, status, and requirements covered. The git log + `.ciagent/` files reconstruct the full project state.
|
||||
|
||||
### Branch Hygiene
|
||||
- **Before ship:** `main`, `milestone/v0.1-atelier`, 7 phase branches (00–06), `phase/07-final-review-ship` (current).
|
||||
- **After ship:** all phase branches deleted; `main` + `milestone/v0.1-atelier` remain briefly, then milestone branch deleted after merge to main. Tags preserve all history.
|
||||
|
||||
### Commit Discipline
|
||||
- **Task commits** (on phase branches): all have `---ci---` blocks with project, phase, milestone, status, requirements. ✓
|
||||
- **Squash-merge commits** (on milestone branch): consolidation commits without `---ci---` blocks. P1 (post-hoc).
|
||||
- **Init commit**: has full `---ci---` block. ✓
|
||||
|
||||
### File Discipline
|
||||
- `.ciagent/` holds only governance files (config, PROJECT, ROADMAP, REQUIREMENTS, ARCHITECTURE, PERSONAS, PLAN, RESEARCH, CLARIFY, AUDIT-P2, CHECKPOINT). ✓
|
||||
- Framework content is in the repo root (`core/`, `domains/`, etc.). ✓
|
||||
- `.env.secrets` is gitignored, never committed. ✓
|
||||
|
||||
## Milestone Ship Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] All execution phases (P1–P6) shipped (v0.0.1–v0.0.6)
|
||||
- [x] Review passed (structural, behavioral, security, quality)
|
||||
- [x] Audit clean (reconstruction, branch hygiene, file discipline)
|
||||
- [x] REQUIREMENTS.md updated (all 35 requirements covered)
|
||||
- [x] ROADMAP.md updated (milestone complete)
|
||||
- [ ] Merge `phase/07` → `milestone/v0.1-atelier`
|
||||
- [ ] Merge `milestone/v0.1-atelier` → `main`
|
||||
- [ ] Tag `v0.0.7` (IS the v0.1 milestone release)
|
||||
- [ ] Create Gitea release for v0.0.7
|
||||
- [ ] Delete all phase branches + milestone branch
|
||||
- [ ] Clear checkpoint (milestone complete)
|
||||
|
||||
## Conclusion
|
||||
|
||||
The milestone v0.1 is complete and ready to ship. 35/35 requirements covered. 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principles, all traced via the matrix. The framework is internally consistent and ready for consumption.
|
||||
+18
-100
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
# Atelier — Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
## Milestone: v0.1 — Initial Framework (COMPLETE)
|
||||
## Milestone: v0.1 — Initial Framework
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs/chore commits — no `feat` code)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.0.x (previous minor from v0.1)
|
||||
@@ -8,14 +8,14 @@
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Name | Type | Status | Key Deliverables |
|
||||
|-------|------|------|--------|------------------|
|
||||
| 0 | Pre-Execution | docs | complete | Spec, clarify, research, plan, PERSONAS.md |
|
||||
| 1 | Core Foundation | docs | complete | core/first-principles.md, core/conflict-resolution.md, core/reading-order.md, README.md, LICENSE |
|
||||
| 2 | Domain First Principles | docs | complete | uiux/first-principles.md, domain audit |
|
||||
| 3 | Domain Derived Docs | docs | complete | 27 derived docs across 11 domains |
|
||||
| 4 | Matrix + Review | docs | complete | matrix/domain-coverage.md, review/{agent,peer-review,anti-patterns}.md |
|
||||
| 5 | Examples | docs | complete | 4 good + 3 bad examples |
|
||||
| 6 | Languages + Meta | docs | complete | 4 language docs, CHANGELOG, CONTRIBUTING |
|
||||
| 7 | Final Review + Ship | docs | complete | Review passed, audit clean, milestone merged to main, tag v0.0.7 |
|
||||
| 0 | Pre-Execution | docs | in_progress | Spec, clarify, research, plan, PERSONAS.md |
|
||||
| 1 | Core Foundation | docs | pending | core/first-principles.md, core/conflict-resolution.md, core/reading-order.md, README.md, LICENSE |
|
||||
| 2 | Domain First Principles (remaining) | docs | pending | uiux/first-principles.md, errors/, documentation/, concurrency/, devops first-principles |
|
||||
| 3 | Domain Derived Docs | docs | pending | api/*, security/*, data/*, testing/*, performance/*, observability/* derived docs |
|
||||
| 4 | Matrix + Review | docs | pending | matrix/principles-matrix.md, matrix/domain-coverage.md, review/agent-checklist.md, review/peer-review-checklist.md, review/anti-patterns.md |
|
||||
| 5 | Examples | docs | pending | examples/good/*, examples/bad/* |
|
||||
| 6 | Languages + Meta | docs | pending | languages/*.md, CHANGELOG.md, CONTRIBUTING.md |
|
||||
| 7 | Final Review + Ship | docs | pending | Review, audit, milestone merge to main, tag v0.0.7, release |
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase Tag Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -36,97 +36,15 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.0.7) IS the v0.1 deliv
|
||||
|
||||
## Next
|
||||
|
||||
- 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 (COMPLETE)
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` code)
|
||||
**Tag line:** v0.1.x (previous minor from v0.2)
|
||||
**Phases:** P0 (pre-execution) + P1–P4 (execution) + P5 (final review+ship)
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Name | Type | Status | Key Deliverables |
|
||||
|-------|------|------|--------|------------------|
|
||||
| 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 | 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
|
||||
|
||||
Per branch-strategy.md, milestone `v0.2` tags run on the `v0.1.x` patch line:
|
||||
|
||||
| Phase | Tag | Notes |
|
||||
|-------|-----|-------|
|
||||
| P0 | v0.1.0 | Pre-execution release |
|
||||
| P1 | v0.1.1 | Infrastructure as Code domain |
|
||||
| P2 | v0.1.2 | Kubernetes domain |
|
||||
| P3 | v0.1.3 | Matrix + review integration |
|
||||
| P4 | v0.1.4 | Examples + cross-links |
|
||||
| P5 | v0.1.5 | Final review + ship — **IS the v0.2 milestone release** |
|
||||
|
||||
NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.1.5) IS the v0.2 deliverable.
|
||||
|
||||
## v0.2 Ideation Outcome
|
||||
|
||||
- 16 ideas generated (mechanical 9, backend-enriched 7)
|
||||
- 14 accepted (all in v0.2 scope; refined ATELIER-36..58, added ATELIER-59)
|
||||
- 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 | complete | Spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, PERSONAS.md (extends platform-engineer, adds ml-engineer) — shipped v0.2.0 |
|
||||
| 1 | GitOps + Operators Domain | docs | complete | domains/gitops-operators/{first-principles, argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery}.md — shipped v0.2.1 |
|
||||
| 2 | AI/ML Domain | docs | complete | domains/ai-ml/{first-principles, data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift}.md — shipped v0.2.2 |
|
||||
| 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
|
||||
|
||||
- **v0.4** (candidates): `domains/edge/`, `domains/quantum/`, language-specific derived docs, tooling adapters (linters), translation/localization of framework docs.
|
||||
- Phase 0: complete specify → clarify → research → plan → grill → ship
|
||||
- Phase 1: write core foundation documents
|
||||
|
||||
## Success Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] All 11 domains have first-principles.md
|
||||
- [x] Every domain P-rule traced to a core C-rule in matrix/principles-matrix.md
|
||||
- [x] MANIFEST.md lists all framework documents
|
||||
- [x] review/agent-checklist.md covers all core principles
|
||||
- [x] examples/ includes at least 4 good + 3 bad worked examples
|
||||
- [x] README.md provides quickstart for agents and humans
|
||||
- [x] Milestone v0.1 tagged and released
|
||||
- [ ] All 11 domains have first-principles.md
|
||||
- [ ] Every domain P-rule traced to a core C-rule in matrix/principles-matrix.md
|
||||
- [ ] MANIFEST.md lists all framework documents
|
||||
- [ ] review/agent-checklist.md covers all core principles
|
||||
- [ ] examples/ includes at least 4 good + 3 bad worked examples
|
||||
- [ ] README.md provides quickstart for agents and humans
|
||||
- [ ] Milestone v0.1 tagged and released
|
||||
@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"slug": "atelier",
|
||||
"name": "Atelier",
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.3",
|
||||
"status": "active"
|
||||
"milestone": "v0.1",
|
||||
"status": "specify"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"active_project": "atelier",
|
||||
@@ -53,13 +53,13 @@
|
||||
"release": {
|
||||
"forge": "gitea",
|
||||
"base_url": "https://git.cloudinit.dev",
|
||||
"owner": "coreci",
|
||||
"owner": "cloudinit-bot",
|
||||
"repo": "atelier"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"gitea": {
|
||||
"base_url": "https://git.cloudinit.dev",
|
||||
"api_token_env": "GITEA_API_TOKEN",
|
||||
"owner": "coreci",
|
||||
"owner": "cloudinit-bot",
|
||||
"repo": "atelier"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"ship": {
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Changelog
|
||||
|
||||
All notable changes to the Atelier framework are documented in this file.
|
||||
|
||||
The format is based on [Keep a Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.1.0/),
|
||||
and this project adheres to [Semantic Versioning](https://semver.org/spec/v2.0.0.html).
|
||||
|
||||
## [Unreleased]
|
||||
|
||||
## [0.1.0] — 2026-08-05
|
||||
|
||||
### Added
|
||||
- Eight core principles (C1–C8) in `core/first-principles.md` with definitions, precedence, and violation tables.
|
||||
- Formal conflict resolution procedure in `core/conflict-resolution.md` (hierarchy, precedence, worked examples, non-tradeable declarations).
|
||||
- Canonical reading order in `core/reading-order.md` with paths for agents, humans, conflict resolution, and review.
|
||||
- README with quickstart for AI agents and humans.
|
||||
- MIT license.
|
||||
- Eleven domain first-principles (P1–P10 each): UI/UX, API, Security, Data, Testing, Performance, Observability, Errors, Documentation, Concurrency, DevOps.
|
||||
- Twenty-seven domain derived/topic docs (REST, GraphQL, versioning, error-responses, pagination, authentication, authorization, input-validation, secrets, supply-chain, schema-design, migrations, indexing, pyramid, fixtures, frontend, backend, logging, metrics, tracing, tokens, copywriting, patterns, doc-templates, patterns, ci-cd, environments).
|
||||
- `matrix/principles-matrix.md` — full mapping of all 110 domain principles to core derivations.
|
||||
- `matrix/domain-coverage.md` — inverse mapping of core principles to domains.
|
||||
- `review/agent-checklist.md` — pre-completion gate for AI agents.
|
||||
- `review/peer-review-checklist.md` — human review checklist.
|
||||
- `review/anti-patterns.md` — catalog of violations with principle citations.
|
||||
- Four good worked examples: `examples/good/api-endpoint.md`, `react-component.md`, `db-schema.md`, `error-handler.md`.
|
||||
- Three bad worked examples: `examples/bad/god-object.md`, `silent-error.md`, `leaky-abstraction.md`.
|
||||
- Four language application docs: `languages/typescript.md`, `python.md`, `go.md`, `rust.md`.
|
||||
- `MANIFEST.md` — authoritative document index.
|
||||
- `CONTRIBUTING.md` — contribution guide.
|
||||
|
||||
### Framework Properties
|
||||
- 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principles, all traced via the matrix.
|
||||
- NFR milestone type (documentation only, no runtime code).
|
||||
- Tags: v0.0.0 (pre-execution) through v0.0.7 (final review + ship).
|
||||
- The v0.0.7 patch release IS the v0.1.0 milestone deliverable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phases
|
||||
- Phase 0 (v0.0.0): pre-execution — specify, clarify, research, plan, ship.
|
||||
- Phase 1 (v0.0.1): core foundation — first-principles, conflict-resolution, reading-order, README, LICENSE.
|
||||
- Phase 2 (v0.0.2): domain first-principles — uiux first-principles + audit.
|
||||
- Phase 3 (v0.0.3): domain derived docs — 27 topic files.
|
||||
- Phase 4 (v0.0.4): matrix + review — domain-coverage, agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns.
|
||||
- Phase 5 (v0.0.5): examples — 4 good + 3 bad.
|
||||
- Phase 6 (v0.0.6): languages + meta — typescript, python, go, rust, CHANGELOG, CONTRIBUTING.
|
||||
- Phase 7 (v0.0.7): final review + ship — milestone release.
|
||||
@@ -1,71 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Contributing to Atelier
|
||||
|
||||
Thank you for considering a contribution to Atelier. This framework lives by its principles; contributions are expected to follow them.
|
||||
|
||||
## What We Accept
|
||||
|
||||
- **New domain first-principles** — if a domain is missing (e.g., `domains/ai-ml/`), propose it with 10 principles (P1–P10), each traced to a core principle (C1–C8) in `matrix/principles-matrix.md`.
|
||||
- **New domain derived docs** — topic docs under an existing domain (e.g., `domains/api/webhooks.md`), deriving from the domain's first-principles.
|
||||
- **New language application docs** — `languages/<lang>.md` showing how domain principles apply in a specific language.
|
||||
- **New examples** — `examples/good/*` (with principle citations) or `examples/bad/*` (with violation citations).
|
||||
- **Corrections** — to existing principles, derivations, or examples. A correction to a core principle is a major version change; treat with care.
|
||||
- **Improvements to the matrix** — if a derivation is missing or wrong, propose the fix with the rationale.
|
||||
|
||||
## What We Do Not Accept
|
||||
|
||||
- **Style rules** — Atelier is principles, not style. Use a linter for style.
|
||||
- **Tooling** — linters, analyzers, or enforcement code. Atelier is markdown.
|
||||
- **Unlisted docs** — every document must be in `MANIFEST.md`. An unlisted doc is not part of the framework.
|
||||
- **Principles without derivation** — a domain principle that does not trace to a core principle is orphaned and will be rejected.
|
||||
|
||||
## How to Contribute
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Read the relevant docs first
|
||||
- `core/first-principles.md` — the eight axioms.
|
||||
- `core/conflict-resolution.md` — how conflicts are resolved.
|
||||
- The domain(s) you are contributing to.
|
||||
- `matrix/principles-matrix.md` — to see existing derivations.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Follow the document structure
|
||||
See `domains/documentation/doc-templates.md` for the canonical structure. Every first-principles doc has:
|
||||
- Manifesto
|
||||
- The Principles (P1–P10, named, defined, with "what violates it")
|
||||
- Conflict Resolution
|
||||
- What Violates These Principles (table)
|
||||
- Relationship to Core
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Update the matrix
|
||||
If you add or change a principle, update `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with the derivation. A PR with a new principle but no matrix row is incomplete.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Update the manifest
|
||||
If you add a new document, add it to `MANIFEST.md` in the correct section. An unlisted document is not part of the framework.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Add examples
|
||||
If you add a principle, add at least one good example and one bad example in `examples/`. Examples are mandatory (Documentation P3).
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Write a clear PR description
|
||||
- What principle or document you are adding/changing.
|
||||
- Why (the rationale, not just the what — Documentation P8 Why Over What).
|
||||
- Which core principle(s) it derives from.
|
||||
- What conflicts it might introduce (if any).
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Reviewers will check (see `review/peer-review-checklist.md`):
|
||||
- Does the new principle trace to a core principle?
|
||||
- Is the matrix updated?
|
||||
- Is the manifest updated?
|
||||
- Are there examples?
|
||||
- Does the structure follow the template?
|
||||
- Does it conflict with existing principles? If so, is the conflict resolvable per `core/conflict-resolution.md`?
|
||||
|
||||
## Versioning
|
||||
|
||||
- A new domain or language doc is a minor version (e.g., v0.1 → v0.2).
|
||||
- A new topic doc or example is a patch version (e.g., v0.1.0 → v0.1.1).
|
||||
- A change to `core/first-principles.md` (adding, removing, or reordering a core principle) is a major version (e.g., v0.x → v1.0).
|
||||
- See `CHANGELOG.md` for the version history.
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
By contributing, you agree that your contributions are licensed under the MIT license (see `LICENSE`).
|
||||
+3
-7
@@ -34,15 +34,11 @@
|
||||
| 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 (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) |
|
||||
| `matrix/principles-matrix.md` | Maps domain → core principles |
|
||||
| `review/agent-checklist.md` | Pre-completion agent checklist |
|
||||
| `review/anti-patterns.md` | Catalog of violations |
|
||||
@@ -1,90 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Data Versioning — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md`. Covers P2 (Data is
|
||||
> Versioned, Not Just Code) and P3 (Lineage is Traceable End-to-End).
|
||||
> Referenced by `serving.md` and `monitoring-drift.md`. Scope per
|
||||
> D-023: engineering discipline of versioning data, not dataset
|
||||
> content design.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Data Versioning (P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code)
|
||||
|
||||
- `git` versions code well and data badly. Datasets do not fit in
|
||||
git, and a dataset is not recovered from a commit hash.
|
||||
- A model trained on "the data" is a model trained on an unknown
|
||||
input — a C1 (Correctness) violation. The dataset is a build
|
||||
input; it is named, hashed, and recoverable the way any build
|
||||
input is.
|
||||
- Data versioning is the ML analogue of `domains/data/migrations.md`:
|
||||
the schema and contents of the data evolve, every evolution is a
|
||||
versioned migration, and every model points at a specific version.
|
||||
|
||||
## Dataset Hashing and Lineage (P3 Lineage Traceable End-to-End)
|
||||
|
||||
- Every dataset version has a content hash (not a filename or a
|
||||
timestamp). The hash is the identity. A model's lineage record
|
||||
names the dataset hash it was trained on; a serving prediction
|
||||
names the model digest it came from.
|
||||
- Lineage is a graph: prediction → model → training run → dataset →
|
||||
source(s). Any edge missing is an orphan (`domains/observability/logging.md`
|
||||
for the structured-log angle on lineage events).
|
||||
- The lineage record is append-only. Editing it to "fix" a broken
|
||||
trace is the same class of violation as editing an audit log.
|
||||
|
||||
## Train/Val/Test Split Versioning (P2, P4 Eval Defined Before Training)
|
||||
|
||||
- Splits are versioned with the dataset, not derived ad-hoc per run.
|
||||
A split is a deterministic function of (dataset version, split
|
||||
config, random seed). Two runs on the same pinned inputs produce
|
||||
the same splits.
|
||||
- The eval split is held out and never touched by training. A "held
|
||||
out" set that leaked into training is a P4 (Evaluation Defined
|
||||
Before Training) violation, not just a P2 violation — the eval
|
||||
gate is measuring the training set, not the model.
|
||||
- Cross `domains/data/schema-design.md` for the eval input contract:
|
||||
the schema of the eval set is part of the versioned artifact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tool Comparison (IDEATE-22, D-040)
|
||||
|
||||
| Tool | Versioning Model | Lineage | Best For | Notes |
|
||||
|------|------------------|---------|----------|-------|
|
||||
| DVC | Git-like pointers to content-addressed object store; `.dvc` files in git track data versions | Pipeline DAG in `dvc.yaml`; reproducibility via `dvc repro` | Teams already on git; file/directory datasets; ML pipelines | Treats data like code; shares git's history model. Object store is pluggable (S3, GCS, Azure, SSH) |
|
||||
| Delta Lake | Table format with transaction log (ACID) + time travel via versioned commits; schema enforcement | Time travel queries; lineage via table history + catalog | Large tabular data; lakehouse; streaming + batch on the same table | Not a pipeline tool — pairs with Spark/Trino/Flink. Brings DB guarantees to object storage |
|
||||
| LakeFS | Git-like operations (branch, commit, merge) over object storage itself | Branch model gives isolated, reproducible data branches | Data engineering teams; branch-per-experiment; CI over data | Not a table format — versions objects. Composes with Delta/Iceberg on top |
|
||||
|
||||
- Pick one primary versioning model per platform. Mixing DVC's
|
||||
pointer model with Delta's transaction-log model fragments
|
||||
operational knowledge (C4 Locality).
|
||||
- All three satisfy P2; the choice is which fits the data shape and
|
||||
the team's existing tooling. None is advocated over the others.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reproducibility Contract (P1 Reproducibility is the First Class)
|
||||
|
||||
A reproducible training run records, in one versioned place:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
run_id: 2026-08-05T09:12:00Z#run-42
|
||||
dataset: s3://ml-data/train@sha256:7f3a...e21
|
||||
splits: dvc.yaml@commit a1b2c4d
|
||||
code: git@a1b2c4d
|
||||
config: configs/train.yaml@commit a1b2c4d
|
||||
environment: ghcr.io/org/train-img@sha256:9c2d...f88
|
||||
eval_spec: configs/eval.yaml@commit a1b2c4d
|
||||
model_digest: registry/model@sha256:b5e1...aa0
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- Lose any line and the run is anecdote, not evidence.
|
||||
- The record is the lineage root: a prediction cites the
|
||||
`model_digest`, which cites the `run_id`, which cites everything
|
||||
above. This is how P3 (Lineage Traceable End-to-End) is satisfied
|
||||
in practice.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Data Versioning Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Dataset referenced by `s3://bucket/latest/` | P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code |
|
||||
| Splits regenerated with an unpinned seed per run | P2, P4 Evaluation Defined Before Training |
|
||||
| A production model with no dataset hash in its lineage | P3 Lineage Traceable End-to-End |
|
||||
| Editing a lineage record to "clean up" a broken trace | P3 Lineage Traceable End-to-End |
|
||||
| Eval split reachable from the training data path | P4 Evaluation Defined Before Training |
|
||||
| Two platforms versioning the same data with different models | C4 Locality |
|
||||
@@ -1,154 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# AI / ML — First Principles
|
||||
|
||||
> Scope per D-023: this domain covers ML **engineering discipline** —
|
||||
> data versioning, evaluation methodology, serving patterns, and drift
|
||||
> detection. It does **not** cover algorithm design, model architecture
|
||||
> selection, hyperparameter tuning, or model-family comparison. Those
|
||||
> are research choices, not engineering principles, and they have no
|
||||
> derivation in the core C-rules.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. The Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### P1. Reproducibility is the First Class
|
||||
Every training run is reproducible from pinned data + code + config +
|
||||
environment. An unreproducible run is an unreviewable run: you cannot
|
||||
decide whether a result is correct if you cannot recreate it.
|
||||
Reproducibility is the ML analogue of `domains/devops/P1
|
||||
Reproducibility` and inherits its non-negotiable status. Lose any one
|
||||
of data, code, config, or environment pinning, and the run is
|
||||
anecdote, not evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
### P2. Data is Versioned, Not Just Code
|
||||
Datasets, features, and train/val/test splits are first-class
|
||||
versioned artifacts with content hashes and lineage. `git` alone is
|
||||
insufficient — datasets do not fit in git, and a dataset is not a
|
||||
commit hash. A model trained on "the data" is a model trained on an
|
||||
unknown input, which is a correctness violation. Version data the way
|
||||
you version code: pinned, named, and recoverable.
|
||||
|
||||
### P3. Lineage is Traceable End-to-End
|
||||
Any deployed prediction traces back through model → training run →
|
||||
dataset → source. No orphan models. A model in production with no
|
||||
lineage is a correctness defect: you cannot reason about its failure
|
||||
modes, you cannot roll it back to a known-good dataset, and you cannot
|
||||
tell whether drift is in the model or in the data that built it.
|
||||
Lineage is the audit trail of ML (`domains/observability/logging.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
### P4. Evaluation is Defined Before Training
|
||||
Metrics, splits, and acceptance thresholds are declared a priori, in
|
||||
code, before the model is trained. Cherry-picking metrics post-hoc is
|
||||
a correctness violation: the evaluation is no longer measuring the
|
||||
model, it is rationalizing it. The eval spec is a contract — it is
|
||||
reviewable, it is versioned, and it is the gate the model must pass
|
||||
before it leaves the experiment. This is the ML angle on C2 Clarity:
|
||||
the intent of the model is obvious to its reader because the eval
|
||||
declared it first.
|
||||
|
||||
### P5. Models are Versioned Artifacts
|
||||
A model is a pinned, immutable, registry-tracked artifact with a
|
||||
unique identifier. Never "the latest." A serving endpoint that pulls
|
||||
"latest" is serving an unknown model — its behavior is undefined, its
|
||||
rollback is impossible, and its lineage is broken. The model registry
|
||||
is to models what a container registry is to images
|
||||
(`domains/devops/P7 Immutability`): immutable, addressed by digest,
|
||||
promoted by stage.
|
||||
|
||||
### P6. Serving is Observable
|
||||
Inference latency, throughput, input distributions, and prediction
|
||||
confidence are first-class signals. Silent serving is a bug. A model
|
||||
in production that emits no metrics is a model you cannot operate: you
|
||||
cannot see latency regressions, you cannot see input drift, you cannot
|
||||
see a failing downstream consumer. Observability is designed in, not
|
||||
bolted on (`domains/observability/metrics.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
### P7. Drift is Expected and Detected
|
||||
Data drift, concept drift, and prediction drift are monitored as a
|
||||
matter of course. A drift signal is an incident, not a curiosity. ML
|
||||
systems decay without code changes — the world changes under the
|
||||
model — so "no code changed" is not a defense against a serving
|
||||
regression. Detecting drift is the ML-specific form of C7
|
||||
Observability: you cannot fix a model you cannot see degrading.
|
||||
|
||||
### P8. Inference Inputs are Validated
|
||||
The model's input contract — schema, value ranges, types, and
|
||||
categorical domains — is enforced at the serving boundary.
|
||||
Out-of-contract inputs are rejected, not silently scored. Scoring an
|
||||
out-of-contract input is a correctness violation: the model's output
|
||||
is undefined for inputs outside its training distribution, and
|
||||
returning a number for it is lying to the caller. This is the ML angle
|
||||
on `domains/security/input-validation.md` and inherits C1's
|
||||
non-tradeable status.
|
||||
|
||||
### P9. Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't
|
||||
Training and serving flows are composable pipelines with explicit
|
||||
steps, named inputs, named outputs, and contracts between stages.
|
||||
Notebooks are for exploration, not production. A notebook in the
|
||||
serving path is a correctness defect: its state is implicit, its
|
||||
order is human-dependent, and its reproducibility is whatever the last
|
||||
operator remembered. Compose pipelines; keep notebooks in the lab.
|
||||
|
||||
### 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. A rollback
|
||||
that redeploys old code but keeps the new model has not rolled back —
|
||||
the model was the thing that regressed. The rollback path must name
|
||||
the prior model digest, the prior dataset version, and the prior eval
|
||||
that cleared it. This is the ML angle on `domains/devops/P4 Rollback
|
||||
First` and `domains/kubernetes/P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back`.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Core Principle Trace
|
||||
|
||||
Each AI/ML P-rule derives from one or more core C-rules (C1–C8). The
|
||||
matrix extension lands in P4 of the v0.3 plan; the traces below are
|
||||
authoritative.
|
||||
|
||||
| P-rule | Core | Why |
|
||||
|--------|------|-----|
|
||||
| P1 Reproducibility is the First Class | C1, C5 | Correctness of results; reversibility of runs |
|
||||
| P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code | C5, C7 | Reversibility of datasets; observability of data lineage |
|
||||
| P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End | C7, C1 | Observability of provenance; correctness of attribution |
|
||||
| P4 Evaluation is Defined Before Training | C1, C2 | Correctness of the eval gate; clarity of a-priori intent |
|
||||
| P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts | C5, C6 | Reversibility of model identity; composability of registry stages |
|
||||
| P6 Serving is Observable | C7 | Observability of inference |
|
||||
| P7 Drift is Expected and Detected | C7, C1 | Observability of degradation; correctness of detection |
|
||||
| P8 Inference Inputs are Validated | C1 | Correctness of the serving boundary (security subset) |
|
||||
| P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't | C6, C2 | Composability of stages; clarity of explicit contracts |
|
||||
| P10 Rollback Includes the Model | C5 | Reversibility at the model layer |
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. What Violates These Principles
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle Breached |
|
||||
|-----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| A training run that cannot be replayed from pinned inputs | P1 Reproducibility is the First Class |
|
||||
| A dataset referenced by a mutable path, not a hash | P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code |
|
||||
| A production model with no record of its training data | P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End |
|
||||
| Metrics chosen after seeing the results | P4 Evaluation is Defined Before Training |
|
||||
| A serving endpoint that pulls `latest` from the registry | P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts |
|
||||
| A model in production with no latency or throughput metrics | P6 Serving is Observable |
|
||||
| A serving regression dismissed as "no code changed" | P7 Drift is Expected and Detected |
|
||||
| An input with an out-of-range feature scored silently | P8 Inference Inputs are Validated |
|
||||
| A notebook in the serving or training pipeline path | P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't |
|
||||
| A rollback that restores code but keeps the regressed model | P10 Rollback Includes the Model |
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
AI/ML is the engineering-discipline layer for model-bearing systems.
|
||||
It borrows the reproducibility, immutability, rollback, and
|
||||
observability disciplines of `domains/devops/` and applies them to
|
||||
the data → model → serving lifecycle. Cross-links are one-directional
|
||||
(per D-026 extended):
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P1 Reproducibility` ← P1
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P4 Rollback First` ← P10
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← P10 (model canary)
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P7 Immutability` ← P5 (model images)
|
||||
- `domains/data/migrations.md` ← P2 (data versioning ↔ migration discipline)
|
||||
- `domains/data/schema-design.md` ← P8 (inference input contract)
|
||||
- `domains/observability/metrics.md` ← P6, P7
|
||||
- `domains/observability/logging.md` ← P3 (lineage)
|
||||
- `domains/security/input-validation.md` ← P8
|
||||
- `domains/security/secrets.md` ← P8 (serving credentials)
|
||||
- `domains/performance/backend.md` ← P6 (serving latency)
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` ← P9 (serving on k8s)
|
||||
- `domains/testing/first-principles.md` ← P4 (eval as a gate)
|
||||
- `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md` ← P10 (model rollback in a GitOps loop)
|
||||
@@ -1,94 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Model Evaluation — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md`. Covers P4
|
||||
> (Evaluation is Defined Before Training) and the eval-as-a-gate
|
||||
> discipline. Referenced by `serving.md` (promotion gate) and
|
||||
> `monitoring-drift.md` (online eval). Scope per D-023: evaluation
|
||||
> methodology, not metric math or model-family benchmarks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evaluation is a Gate, Not a Report (P4 Evaluation Defined Before Training)
|
||||
|
||||
- The eval spec — metrics, splits, thresholds, and pass/fail
|
||||
criteria — is declared in code **before** the model is trained.
|
||||
It is versioned with the data and the code; it is reviewable; it
|
||||
is the contract the model must satisfy to leave the experiment.
|
||||
- Cherry-picking metrics after seeing results is a correctness
|
||||
violation: the eval is no longer measuring the model, it is
|
||||
rationalizing it. The a-priori spec is what makes the eval
|
||||
trustworthy.
|
||||
- This is the ML angle on `domains/testing/first-principles.md` P1
|
||||
(Tests as Specification): the eval declares the model's contract,
|
||||
the model does not declare its own success.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Eval Input Contract (P8 Inference Inputs are Validated, cross `domains/data/schema-design.md`)
|
||||
|
||||
- The eval set has a schema: feature names, types, ranges, and
|
||||
categorical domains. That schema is the same schema the serving
|
||||
boundary enforces (`serving.md`, `domains/security/input-validation.md`).
|
||||
- An eval set whose schema drifted from the serving schema is
|
||||
measuring a different model than the one in production. Schema
|
||||
parity is part of the versioned eval artifact.
|
||||
- Cross `domains/data/schema-design.md`: the eval input contract is
|
||||
a schema-design problem, versioned and reviewed like any schema.
|
||||
|
||||
## Holdout Integrity (P4, P2 Data is Versioned)
|
||||
|
||||
- The held-out eval set is never touched by training, feature
|
||||
selection, or threshold tuning. A "held out" set that influenced
|
||||
any training decision is not held out — it is a third training
|
||||
set, and the eval is measuring memorization.
|
||||
- Splits are versioned with the dataset (`data-versioning.md`).
|
||||
Recreating splits ad-hoc per run breaks comparability across runs.
|
||||
- Reusing a held-out set across many model iterations leaks it
|
||||
incrementally. Rotate or re-split on a cadence; record the
|
||||
rotation in lineage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Offline vs Online Evaluation (P6 Serving is Observable)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Offline eval** runs before promotion: held-out data, pinned
|
||||
model, declared metrics, pass/fail gate. It answers "should this
|
||||
model ship?"
|
||||
- **Online eval** runs after promotion, on live traffic: shadow
|
||||
scoring, A/B, canary metrics. It answers "is this model behaving
|
||||
in production?" It is the bridge to `monitoring-drift.md`.
|
||||
- A model that passed offline and regressed online is not a
|
||||
contradiction — it is a signal that the offline distribution
|
||||
differs from the live one (a P7 drift signal). Both eval layers
|
||||
are required; neither substitutes for the other.
|
||||
|
||||
## Bias and Fairness Checks (Engineering Angle, P4)
|
||||
|
||||
- Bias/fairness checks are part of the a-priori eval spec, not an
|
||||
afterthought. They are metrics with thresholds, declared before
|
||||
training, gated the same as any metric.
|
||||
- This doc covers the **engineering** discipline: the checks are
|
||||
versioned, gated, and recorded in lineage. The choice of which
|
||||
fairness metrics and what thresholds are policy decisions, not
|
||||
engineering principles, and are out of scope here (D-023).
|
||||
|
||||
## Eval-as-a-Gate in the Pipeline (P9 Pipelines Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
- The eval is a pipeline stage with a contract: input = model
|
||||
digest + eval dataset version; output = pass/fail + metric
|
||||
report. It composes with the training stage and the promotion
|
||||
stage.
|
||||
- A promotion that bypasses the eval stage is a P4 violation,
|
||||
regardless of who approved it. The gate is in the pipeline, not
|
||||
in a human sign-off sheet.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
train -> eval(gate) -> register(promote) -> serve
|
||||
|
|
||||
+-- fail -> abort, no promote
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Evaluation Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Metrics chosen after seeing the scores | P4 Evaluation Defined Before Training |
|
||||
| Held-out set used in feature selection or threshold tuning | P4, P2 |
|
||||
| Eval schema differs from serving schema | P8 Inference Inputs are Validated |
|
||||
| Promotion by human approval, bypassing the eval stage | P4, P9 Pipelines Compose |
|
||||
| A "passing" model with no online eval in production | P6 Serving is Observable |
|
||||
| Fairness checks added after a model shipped | P4 Evaluation Defined Before Training |
|
||||
@@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Monitoring & Drift — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md`. Covers P7 (Drift
|
||||
> is Expected and Detected) and the online half of P6 (Serving is
|
||||
> Observable). Referenced by `serving.md` (online eval) and
|
||||
> `model-evaluation.md` (online layer). Scope per D-023: drift
|
||||
> detection methodology, not model retraining architecture.
|
||||
|
||||
## Drift is Expected and Detected (P7 Drift is Expected and Detected)
|
||||
|
||||
- ML systems decay without code changes. The world changes under
|
||||
the model: user behavior shifts, input pipelines change,
|
||||
upstream schemas evolve. "No code changed" is not a defense
|
||||
against a serving regression.
|
||||
- A drift signal is an incident, not a curiosity. It triggers an
|
||||
alert, an investigation, and a decision (retrain, roll back, or
|
||||
accept with a recorded justification). Silent drift is the same
|
||||
class of bug as silent serving (P6).
|
||||
- Cross `domains/observability/metrics.md` for the alerting
|
||||
primitives and `domains/observability/logging.md` for the
|
||||
structured events a drift signal emits.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Three Drift Types (IDEATE-30, D-048)
|
||||
|
||||
| Drift Type | What Changes | Detection Signal | Source of Truth |
|
||||
|------------|--------------|------------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| **Data drift** (input drift) | The distribution of inputs at serving time diverges from the distribution the model was trained on | Statistical distance between the live input distribution and the pinned training-set distribution (e.g., PSI, KL, KS test). Alert on threshold breach | Training dataset hash (`data-versioning.md`) + live input metrics |
|
||||
| **Concept drift** | The relationship between inputs and the target changes — the same input now maps to a different correct output | Ground-truth lag: compare delayed labels against predictions on the same inputs. Rising error rate against a stable input distribution signals concept, not data, drift | Delayed-label feedback stream + prediction log |
|
||||
| **Prediction drift** (output drift) | The distribution of the model's predictions shifts, with no change to inputs | Statistical distance between the live prediction distribution and a pinned baseline prediction distribution. Independent of inputs — catches model-internal regressions and upstream silent changes | Prediction log + baseline prediction snapshot |
|
||||
|
||||
- The three signals are distinct and non-substitutable. Data drift
|
||||
catches the input changing; concept drift catches the world
|
||||
changing; prediction drift catches the model's behavior changing.
|
||||
A monitoring setup with only one is blind to two classes of
|
||||
regression.
|
||||
- Evidently AI and Great Expectations are the canonical tooling:
|
||||
Evidently for drift/statistical reports, Great Expectations for
|
||||
data-quality/contract checks at the pipeline boundary. Both
|
||||
produce the metrics that feed `domains/observability/metrics.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Detection Signals in Practice
|
||||
|
||||
- **Data drift** compares live inputs to the **pinned training
|
||||
distribution** — not to "yesterday's inputs." Without a pinned
|
||||
baseline, drift is measured against a moving target and is
|
||||
meaningless. Cross `data-versioning.md` for how the baseline is
|
||||
pinned.
|
||||
- **Concept drift** requires ground truth, which is often delayed
|
||||
(days/weeks). The detection signal is the gap between
|
||||
prediction-time confidence and delayed-label error. A rising
|
||||
error against stable inputs is the signature.
|
||||
- **Prediction drift** needs no ground truth and no input
|
||||
comparison — it watches the model's own output distribution. It
|
||||
is the cheapest signal and the first to fire; it is also the
|
||||
least specific (any of the three drifts can move predictions).
|
||||
|
||||
## Alerting and Retraining Triggers (P7, P10 Rollback Includes the Model)
|
||||
|
||||
- A drift alert is an incident. It does not auto-trigger retraining
|
||||
unsupervised — auto-retraining on drift can lock in a bad
|
||||
distribution. The alert triggers a human decision: investigate,
|
||||
retrain, roll back, or accept.
|
||||
- Retraining is a new training run (`first-principles.md` P1): it
|
||||
produces a new model digest, passes the eval gate
|
||||
(`model-evaluation.md`), and is promoted through the registry
|
||||
(`serving.md`). The prior model stays rollbackable (P10).
|
||||
- Cross `domains/observability/metrics.md` for the alert-rule
|
||||
pattern: threshold + window + severity, routed to the same
|
||||
on-call path as any production incident.
|
||||
|
||||
## Online Evaluation Bridge (P6 Serving is Observable)
|
||||
|
||||
- Online eval (`model-evaluation.md`) is the live counterpart to
|
||||
drift monitoring: shadow scores and A/B canaries measure a
|
||||
candidate model against the incumbent, while drift monitoring
|
||||
measures the incumbent against its own baseline. Both feed the
|
||||
same metrics pipeline.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Monitoring Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Only one drift type monitored | P7 Drift is Expected and Detected |
|
||||
| Drift baseline is "yesterday's inputs," not pinned training data | P7, P2 Data is Versioned |
|
||||
| Drift alert that auto-retrains without a human gate | P7, P1 Reproducibility |
|
||||
| A serving regression dismissed as "no code changed" | P7 Drift is Expected and Detected |
|
||||
| Concept-drift check with no delayed-label feedback path | P7 Drift is Expected and Detected |
|
||||
| Prediction-distribution change with no alert | P6 Serving is Observable, P7 |
|
||||
@@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Serving — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md`. Covers P5 (Models
|
||||
> are Versioned Artifacts), P6 (Serving is Observable), P8 (Inference
|
||||
> Inputs are Validated), and P10 (Rollback Includes the Model).
|
||||
> Referenced by `monitoring-drift.md` (online signals) and
|
||||
> `model-evaluation.md` (promotion gate). Scope per D-023: serving
|
||||
> patterns, not model architectures.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Model is an Addressed Artifact (P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts)
|
||||
|
||||
- A serving endpoint pulls a model by digest, never by `latest`. A
|
||||
model pulled by `latest` is an unknown model — its behavior is
|
||||
undefined and its rollback is impossible.
|
||||
- The model registry is to models what a container registry is to
|
||||
images (`domains/devops/P7 Immutability`): immutable, addressed by
|
||||
digest, promoted by stage (staging → prod). Promotion is a
|
||||
registry operation, not a file copy.
|
||||
- A serving rollout names the model digest in its manifest. The
|
||||
digest is part of the deploy's lineage (`data-versioning.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Inference Inputs are Validated (P8 Inference Inputs are Validated)
|
||||
|
||||
- The model's input contract — schema, types, ranges, categorical
|
||||
domains — is enforced at the serving boundary, before the model
|
||||
sees the input. Out-of-contract inputs are rejected with a
|
||||
defined error, not silently scored.
|
||||
- Scoring an out-of-contract input is a C1 (Correctness) violation:
|
||||
the model's output is undefined outside its training
|
||||
distribution, and returning a number for it is lying to the
|
||||
caller.
|
||||
- This is the ML angle on `domains/security/input-validation.md`:
|
||||
the validation lives at the boundary, the model is downstream of
|
||||
it, and the contract is versioned with the model.
|
||||
|
||||
## Serving is Observable (P6 Serving is Observable)
|
||||
|
||||
- Every inference path emits: request latency, throughput, input
|
||||
distribution summaries, prediction confidence, and error counts.
|
||||
Silent serving is a bug.
|
||||
- Cross `domains/observability/metrics.md` for the metrics
|
||||
primitives (histograms, counters, gauges) and
|
||||
`domains/observability/tracing.md` for the request-level trace
|
||||
that ties an input to a prediction.
|
||||
- Latency SLAs are enforced via `domains/performance/backend.md`
|
||||
disciplines: budget the inference path, measure the tail (p99),
|
||||
alert on budget breach.
|
||||
|
||||
## Serving Patterns (P9 Pipelines Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
| Pattern | When | Notes |
|
||||
|---------|------|-------|
|
||||
| Inference as a service | Default; model behind an HTTP/gRPC endpoint | KServe, Seldon Core, BentoML. Scales with traffic; model is a deployable, addressable artifact |
|
||||
| Batch inference | Offline scoring of large datasets | No latency SLA; throughput-bound. Same model digest, same input contract |
|
||||
| Embedded / in-process | Latency-critical, single-tenant | Model linked into the app. Trades observability for latency — only when the SLA demands it |
|
||||
|
||||
- Canarying a model is a serving pattern, not a deployment pattern:
|
||||
shift a fraction of traffic to the new model digest, measure
|
||||
online eval (`model-evaluation.md`), abort to the prior digest on
|
||||
regression. This is `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery`
|
||||
applied at the model layer.
|
||||
- Rollback restores the prior model digest (P10 Rollback Includes
|
||||
the Model). A rollback that redeploys old code but keeps the new
|
||||
model has not rolled back. Cross `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md`
|
||||
for the GitOps reconciliation loop that drives model rollouts.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tool Landscape (KServe / Seldon Core / BentoML)
|
||||
|
||||
| Tool | Model Packaging | Deployment Surface | Notes |
|
||||
|------|-----------------|--------------------|-------|
|
||||
| KServe | InferenceService CRD; runtime predictors (v2, HuggingFace, PMML, custom) | Kubernetes-native; CRD-driven | Cross `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`. Brings the k8s reconciliation model to serving |
|
||||
| Seldon Core | SeldonDeployment CRD; graph of predictors | Kubernetes-native; CRD-driven | Emphasizes inference graphs (fan-out, ensemble) as CRD structure |
|
||||
| BentoML | Bento (model + runtime + deps packaged); Yatai registry | Kubernetes or bare container | Focuses on packaging + registry; the Bento is the versioned artifact (P5) |
|
||||
|
||||
- All three satisfy P5/P6/P8 when wired correctly; the choice is
|
||||
packaging model and deployment surface, not correctness.
|
||||
- None is advocated over the others.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Serving Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Endpoint pulls `latest` from the registry | P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts |
|
||||
| Out-of-range input scored silently | P8 Inference Inputs are Validated |
|
||||
| Serving path emits no latency or throughput metrics | P6 Serving is Observable |
|
||||
| Rollback redeploys code but keeps the regressed model | P10 Rollback Includes the Model |
|
||||
| A notebook in the serving path | P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't |
|
||||
| Canary with no abort-to-prior-digest path | P10, `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` |
|
||||
@@ -1,165 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Audit Logs — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P1
|
||||
> (Audit Logs are Append-Only), P2 (Every Significant Action is
|
||||
> Logged), P7 (Identity is Attributable), P9 (Secrets Redacted in
|
||||
> Audit), and P10 (Compliance Posture Observable). Referenced by
|
||||
> `data-retention.md` (retention applies to audit logs themselves)
|
||||
> and `evidence.md` (audit logs are evidence).
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit Logs are Append-Only (P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only)
|
||||
|
||||
- An audit record is immutable once written. The storage substrate
|
||||
enforces this; policy alone does not. Write-once, append-only
|
||||
sinks (WORM buckets, immutable log streams, hash-chained ledgers)
|
||||
are the mechanism.
|
||||
- Deletion or mutation of an audit record is itself an auditable
|
||||
incident. The tampering is the signal, not just the underlying
|
||||
event. A system that allows `DELETE FROM audit_log` is a system
|
||||
whose audit log is a draft.
|
||||
- The append-only guarantee is testable: attempt to write, then
|
||||
attempt to overwrite, then attempt to delete. If the overwrite or
|
||||
delete succeeds, the guarantee is absent and the design is a
|
||||
violation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Structured Audit Events (P2 Every Significant Action is Logged)
|
||||
|
||||
- The set of auditable actions is defined a priori, in code, before
|
||||
the action ships. The catalog is versioned and reviewed. An
|
||||
auditable action with no log line is a violation, not a gap to
|
||||
backfill later.
|
||||
- Audit events are structured (JSON / protobuf / a typed schema),
|
||||
not prose. A prose log line ("user logged in") is unqueryable and
|
||||
unaggregatable; a structured event is both. The event schema is
|
||||
the contract between the producer and the audit pipeline.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
{
|
||||
"timestamp": "2024-11-07T15:03:22Z",
|
||||
"event": "auth.login",
|
||||
"actor": { "kind": "user", "id": "u_8f3a", "session": "s_12b9" },
|
||||
"action": "succeeded",
|
||||
"target": { "kind": "service", "id": "billing-api" },
|
||||
"source": { "ip": "203.0.113.42", "region": "us-east-1" },
|
||||
"request_id": "req_91c2",
|
||||
"version": "audit-schema/v2"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- The catalog of significant actions typically includes:
|
||||
authentication (success and failure), authorization decisions
|
||||
(allow and deny), data access (read, write, delete), configuration
|
||||
changes, policy changes, retention executions, and admin
|
||||
operations. The exact set is declared per system; the discipline
|
||||
is that it is declared.
|
||||
|
||||
## Cloud Audit Log Conventions (Prior Art, Abstracted)
|
||||
|
||||
- AWS CloudTrail, Google Cloud Audit Logs, and Azure Activity Log
|
||||
share a common shape: immutable, time-ordered, queryable, with
|
||||
actor / action / target / source / result fields. Atelier's
|
||||
audit-logs doc adopts the shape, not the vendor.
|
||||
- The shape is the contract; the sink is the implementation. A
|
||||
self-hosted audit log that follows the same shape composes with
|
||||
the same tooling (SIEM, query engines, evidence exporters) as the
|
||||
cloud vendors'.
|
||||
|
||||
## Queryability (P10 Compliance Posture Observable)
|
||||
|
||||
- An audit log that cannot be queried is an audit log that cannot be
|
||||
used. Queryability is a first-class design goal: the event schema
|
||||
is typed, fields are indexed, and the common queries (who acted on
|
||||
what when, what failed, what was denied) are cheap.
|
||||
- "Who did X between T1 and T2" must be a single query, not a
|
||||
forensics project. If the query requires a custom script per
|
||||
investigation, the audit log is structured for storage, not for
|
||||
use — a C7 (Observability) violation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Identity is Attributable (P7 Identity is Attributable)
|
||||
|
||||
- Every audit event records the authenticated principal that acted —
|
||||
not a shared account, not a generic service, not "admin." The
|
||||
actor field is populated at the time of the action from the
|
||||
authenticated session, not resolved after the fact.
|
||||
- A shared account in the actor field breaks accountability: an
|
||||
event attributed to `svc-deploy` could be any of ten engineers.
|
||||
This is the compliance angle on `domains/security/authorization.md`
|
||||
and `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`: bind actions to unique
|
||||
principals, not to roles many can assume.
|
||||
- Machine-to-machine actions record the workload identity (a service
|
||||
account, a signed instance identity), not a human — but the
|
||||
identity is still unique and attributable to a deployable unit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Redaction at the Boundary (P9 Secrets Redacted in Audit)
|
||||
|
||||
- Audit logs must not leak secrets, credentials, tokens, or PII.
|
||||
Redaction is structural: applied at the logging boundary, before
|
||||
the record is written to the append-only sink — not opportunistic
|
||||
scrubbing after the fact. Once a secret is in an append-only log,
|
||||
the remediation is expensive (rotate, rewrite access scope), so
|
||||
redaction-at-source is the only sound position.
|
||||
- The redaction policy is itself auditable: which fields are
|
||||
redacted, by what rule, in which event type. A redaction rule
|
||||
that lives in someone's head is a P9 violation waiting to happen.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// before redaction (DO NOT LOG)
|
||||
{
|
||||
"event": "config.read",
|
||||
"target": { "kind": "secret", "id": "db-password" },
|
||||
"value": "p@ssw0rd-plaintext-leaked" // VIOLATION
|
||||
}
|
||||
// after structural redaction
|
||||
{
|
||||
"event": "config.read",
|
||||
"target": { "kind": "secret", "id": "db-password" },
|
||||
"value": "[REDACTED:secret]",
|
||||
"redaction": "secret-value-policy/v1"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- Never log request bodies, response bodies, headers like
|
||||
`Authorization`, or environment variables that may carry secrets.
|
||||
Log the *fact* of the action, not the *content* of the secret.
|
||||
|
||||
## Retention of Audit Logs Themselves
|
||||
|
||||
- Audit logs are subject to retention policy (cross `data-
|
||||
retention.md`), but the floor is set by the accountability need,
|
||||
not by storage economy. An audit log deleted before its retention
|
||||
period is a P1 violation dressed as a P3 action.
|
||||
- The retention rule for audit logs is itself logged (meta-audit):
|
||||
when an audit log segment ages out and is deleted, the deletion is
|
||||
recorded in a higher-tier audit log with the rule that authorized
|
||||
it. The chain is observable end to end.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Audit-Log Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Audit log on a mutable filesystem with no write-once protection | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
|
||||
| `DELETE FROM audit_log WHERE timestamp < ...` as routine cleanup | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
|
||||
| An auth-success event with no audit record | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
|
||||
| A prose log line ("user did a thing") instead of a structured event | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
|
||||
| A shared `admin` account as the actor in audit events | P7 Identity is Attributable |
|
||||
| An `Authorization: Bearer <token>` header logged in plaintext | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit |
|
||||
| A redaction rule applied inconsistently across event types | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit |
|
||||
| "Who did X?" requires a custom forensics script per investigation | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable |
|
||||
| An audit log segment deleted with no meta-audit record | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/observability/logging.md` — audit logs are structured
|
||||
logging with an append-only guarantee; the logging primitives
|
||||
(levels, structured fields, correlation IDs) compose here.
|
||||
- `domains/security/authorization.md` — the actor in an audit event
|
||||
is the principal the authorization layer authenticated.
|
||||
- `domains/security/secrets.md` — redaction at the logging boundary
|
||||
is the audit-side complement of secret management.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` — retention policy applies
|
||||
to audit logs; the audit log's own deletion is meta-audited.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — audit logs are a primary
|
||||
evidence artifact; the append-only guarantee is what makes them
|
||||
admissible.
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` — workload identity in audit events
|
||||
derives from the RBAC principal that acted.
|
||||
@@ -1,159 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Data Retention — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P3
|
||||
> (Retention is Policy, Not Storage) and the data-shape angle on P8
|
||||
> (Subject Access is Honored). Referenced by `audit-logs.md`
|
||||
> (retention applies to audit logs) and `evidence.md` (evidence has
|
||||
> a retention lifecycle). Framework-agnostic per D-024 — no
|
||||
> regulation-specific retention periods.
|
||||
|
||||
## Retention is Policy, Not Storage (P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage)
|
||||
|
||||
- Data lifetime is declared and enforced as policy, in code — not
|
||||
left to the storage layer's defaults. The policy names what data
|
||||
class is retained for how long, what action fires at end-of-life
|
||||
(delete, archive, anonymize), and what exception path exists (a
|
||||
legal hold suspends deletion).
|
||||
- Deletion at end-of-life is a feature, not a failure. A system that
|
||||
cannot delete on schedule is a system that over-retains, which is
|
||||
the symmetric violation of a system that under-retains. Both are
|
||||
P3 violations; the policy is the arbiter.
|
||||
- "We kept it because the bucket was cheap" is a violation. "We
|
||||
deleted it because the policy said to" is correct. Cost does not
|
||||
override policy; policy is the contract.
|
||||
|
||||
## Retention Policy as Code
|
||||
|
||||
- Retention rules live as code: lifecycle rules on the storage
|
||||
layer, scheduled deletion jobs, tiered storage transitions, and
|
||||
anonymization transforms. The code is versioned, reviewed, and
|
||||
auditable. A retention rule in a spreadsheet is a wishlist; the
|
||||
same rule in a reviewed, deployable lifecycle policy is a control.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// illustrative lifecycle policy (abstracted, no vendor DSL)
|
||||
// object-storage lifecycle
|
||||
{
|
||||
"rules": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "user-events-90d",
|
||||
"match": { "prefix": "events/" },
|
||||
"transitions": [
|
||||
{ "after": "30d", "to": "tier-cold" },
|
||||
{ "after": "90d", "action": "delete" }
|
||||
]
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "audit-log-7y",
|
||||
"match": { "prefix": "audit/" },
|
||||
"transitions": [
|
||||
{ "after": "365d", "to": "tier-archive" },
|
||||
{ "after": "2555d", "action": "delete" }
|
||||
],
|
||||
"legal_hold": "suspends-action"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- The retention policy is itself auditable: which rule fired when,
|
||||
against which objects, with what result. The deletion events are
|
||||
logged (`audit-logs.md`) — deletion is a significant action.
|
||||
|
||||
## Retention vs. Backup — The Distinction
|
||||
|
||||
- A **backup** is a recovery mechanism: it exists to restore data
|
||||
after loss. A **retention rule** is a deletion mechanism: it
|
||||
exists to remove data at end-of-life. Conflating them produces
|
||||
data that survives both the deletion policy and the disaster —
|
||||
which is the opposite of compliance.
|
||||
- A backup is governed by a recovery-point / recovery-time objective;
|
||||
a retention rule is governed by a lifetime. They are independent
|
||||
contracts. A backup that is also the retention store is a store
|
||||
where nothing is ever deleted, which is a P3 violation.
|
||||
- A legal hold suspends retention deletion for a defined data set
|
||||
(e.g. data under investigation). The hold is itself a policy
|
||||
action, auditable and time-bounded, not a manual override.
|
||||
|
||||
## Retention is Distinct per Data Class
|
||||
|
||||
- Different data classes have different lifetimes. The retention
|
||||
policy enumerates the classes and their rules; it does not apply
|
||||
one number to everything. Typical classes (the names are
|
||||
abstract; the periods are policy decisions, not regulation-
|
||||
specific):
|
||||
- **Audit logs** — long, often multi-year, governed by
|
||||
accountability needs (`audit-logs.md`).
|
||||
- **User-generated content** — tied to the user's account
|
||||
lifetime; deletion follows account deletion (cross P8 Subject
|
||||
Access).
|
||||
- **Telemetry / metrics** — short, governed by observability need
|
||||
(`domains/observability/metrics.md`); high-resolution data ages
|
||||
to downsampled aggregates.
|
||||
- **Evidence artifacts** — tied to the audit cycle
|
||||
(`evidence.md`); the cycle ends, the evidence ages out.
|
||||
- A single retention rule for "all data" is a C3 (Simplicity)
|
||||
violation of the wrong kind: it is simpler than the requirement
|
||||
allows.
|
||||
|
||||
## Subject Access is Honored (P8 Subject Access is Honored)
|
||||
|
||||
- Data-subject rights — access (what do we have on this subject),
|
||||
export (in a portable form), deletion (and prove it), correction
|
||||
— are operations with defined contracts and audit trails, not
|
||||
ad-hoc tickets. The system implements them as first-class
|
||||
operations; a subject-access request that requires a forensics
|
||||
team is a correctness defect.
|
||||
- Retention and subject access interact at deletion: a subject
|
||||
deletion request fires the deletion policy for that subject's
|
||||
data, the deletion is audited, and the proof of deletion is
|
||||
returned to the subject (and recorded). A subject deletion that
|
||||
skips the audit is a P8 violation dressed as a P3 success.
|
||||
- Cross `domains/data/schema-design.md`: subject access is only
|
||||
computable if the schema tags which records belong to which
|
||||
subject. A schema with no subject linkage cannot honor a subject
|
||||
request — it cannot find the data to delete.
|
||||
|
||||
## Retention Migration Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
- Retention rules change. When the policy changes (a class's
|
||||
lifetime shortens or lengthens), the change is a migration: the
|
||||
new rule applies to data ingested after the cutover, and a
|
||||
backfill applies the new rule to existing data where applicable.
|
||||
Cross `domains/data/migrations.md` for the schema-lifecycle
|
||||
discipline this mirrors.
|
||||
- A retention rule change that is not versioned, not reviewed, and
|
||||
not backfilled is a P3 violation: the policy is not actually the
|
||||
policy if the storage layer does not reflect it.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Retention Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Data kept indefinitely because "storage is cheap" | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
| A retention rule in a spreadsheet, not in code | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
| A backup bucket used as the retention store (nothing ever deletes) | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
| A single retention period applied to all data classes | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
| A subject deletion with no audit record of the deletion | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
|
||||
| A subject-access request that requires a forensics team | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
|
||||
| A schema with no subject linkage (cannot find data to delete) | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
|
||||
| A legal hold applied ad hoc, not as a policy action | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
| A retention rule change with no backfill to existing data | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/data/schema-design.md` — retention requires the schema
|
||||
to tag data class and subject linkage; subject access is only
|
||||
computable over a schema that supports it.
|
||||
- `domains/data/migrations.md` — retention rule changes are
|
||||
migrations; the discipline (version, review, backfill) mirrors
|
||||
schema migrations.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — audit logs have their own
|
||||
retention floor; deletion of an audit segment is meta-audited.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — evidence artifacts have a
|
||||
retention lifecycle tied to the audit cycle.
|
||||
- `domains/observability/metrics.md` — telemetry retention is
|
||||
governed by observability need; high-res data ages to aggregates.
|
||||
- `domains/security/secrets.md` — secrets have a retention lifecycle
|
||||
tied to rotation; a secret past its rotation date is overdue, not
|
||||
retained.
|
||||
@@ -1,175 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Evidence — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P6
|
||||
> (Evidence is Collected Continuously), P5 (Policy is a Gate, so
|
||||
> decisions are evidence), P7 (Identity Attributable, so evidence
|
||||
> has provenance), and P10 (Posture Observable, so evidence is
|
||||
> queryable). Referenced by `audit-logs.md` (logs are evidence)
|
||||
> and `data-retention.md` (evidence has a lifecycle).
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence is Collected Continuously (P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously)
|
||||
|
||||
- Evidence of compliance — logs, configs, scans, attestations,
|
||||
policy decisions, access reviews — is gathered as a byproduct of
|
||||
operation, not assembled manually at audit time. The audit-time
|
||||
scramble is the anti-pattern: it is expensive, it is incomplete,
|
||||
and it produces evidence that is reconstructed rather than
|
||||
recorded.
|
||||
- Continuous evidence collection means the audit packet is a query
|
||||
over already-collected artifacts, not a forensic reconstruction.
|
||||
The auditor asks "show me the access reviews for Q3" and the
|
||||
answer is a query against the evidence store, not a six-week
|
||||
project.
|
||||
- This is the compliance angle on `domains/observability/tracing.md`
|
||||
for distributed evidence (a trace spans the request that produced
|
||||
the evidence) and `domains/observability/metrics.md` for posture
|
||||
signals (a metric is a continuous evidence stream).
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence is a Byproduct, Not a Deliverable
|
||||
|
||||
- Evidence collected as a byproduct is trustworthy: it records what
|
||||
happened, when it happened, recorded by the system that did it.
|
||||
Evidence assembled at audit time is less trustworthy: it records
|
||||
what someone remembered to write down, when they wrote it, after
|
||||
the fact.
|
||||
- The mechanism: every significant action (`audit-logs.md`) emits
|
||||
its record to an evidence store; every policy decision
|
||||
(`policy-as-code.md`) emits its decision; every deployment emits
|
||||
its signed attestation; every access review emits its result. The
|
||||
store is append-only (`audit-logs.md` P1), queryable (P10), and
|
||||
retention-bound (`data-retention.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Provenance and Identity (P7 Identity is Attributable)
|
||||
|
||||
- Evidence has provenance: which system produced it, when, from what
|
||||
input. An evidence artifact with no provenance is anecdote, not
|
||||
evidence — it cannot be attributed to a source, so it cannot be
|
||||
trusted.
|
||||
- Provenance includes the identity of the producer (a workload
|
||||
identity, a service account) and the chain of custody (who has
|
||||
had access to the artifact since it was produced). Cross
|
||||
`domains/security/authorization.md`: the producer's identity is
|
||||
authenticated, not assumed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Signed Attestations (IDEATE-29)
|
||||
|
||||
- A signed attestation is evidence with a cryptographic signature
|
||||
binding the artifact to its producer. The signature is the
|
||||
provenance: it can be verified independently of the producer, and
|
||||
it cannot be forged without the producer's key. Cross
|
||||
`domains/security/supply-chain.md` for the supply-chain angle.
|
||||
- Cosign (Sigstore) and in-toto are the canonical patterns: a
|
||||
builder signs an artifact (container image, deployable, evidence
|
||||
bundle) at production time; a verifier checks the signature at
|
||||
consumption time. The signature is the evidence that the artifact
|
||||
came from where it claims to have come from.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Illustrative signed attestation (Cosign / Sigstore format, NOT
|
||||
a real signature — illustrative only, no live keys):**
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// Cosign attest — bind an attestation to an image digest
|
||||
// (illustrative; not a real signature)
|
||||
$ cosign attest --type spdxjson \
|
||||
--predicate sbom.spdx.json \
|
||||
my-registry/app@sha256:5a3e1c...f9b2
|
||||
|
||||
// The attestation is stored as a signature in the registry,
|
||||
// bound to the image digest. The payload is a DSSE envelope:
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"payloadType": "application/vnd.in-toto+json",
|
||||
"payload": "eyJfdHlwZSI6ImF0dGVzdGF0aW9uIn0...",
|
||||
"signatures": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"sig": "MEUCIQDx...illustrative-base64-signature...==",
|
||||
"keyid": "cosign-key-2024-q4"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// The decoded payload (an in-toto statement binding the
|
||||
// attestation to the image digest):
|
||||
{
|
||||
"_type": "https://in-toto.io/Statement/v0.1",
|
||||
"predicateType": "https://spdx.dev/Document",
|
||||
"subject": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "my-registry/app",
|
||||
"digest": { "sha256": "5a3e1c...f9b2" }
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"predicate": {
|
||||
"SPDXID": "SPDXRef-DOCUMENT",
|
||||
"creationInfo": {
|
||||
"created": "2024-11-07T15:03:22Z",
|
||||
"creators": ["Tool: atelier-build-pipeline"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Verification (independent of the producer):
|
||||
$ cosign verify-attestation --type spdxjson \
|
||||
--certificate-identity-regexp '.*atelier-build.*' \
|
||||
my-registry/app@sha256:5a3e1c...f9b2
|
||||
// Verification succeeded for: my-registry/app@sha256:5a3e1c...f9b2
|
||||
// SBOM attestation found for subject
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- The attestation is illustrative — the signatures and digests are
|
||||
not real. The shape (DSSE envelope, in-toto statement, subject +
|
||||
predicate, verify-by-identity) is what evidence-as-attestation
|
||||
looks like. A real attestation carries a real signature from a
|
||||
real key held by the builder.
|
||||
|
||||
## Audit-Ready Export
|
||||
|
||||
- The evidence store is queryable at any time, not only at audit
|
||||
time. The audit packet is a query (a date range, a data class, a
|
||||
subject) over the store; the export is a dump of the matching
|
||||
artifacts with their provenance and signatures.
|
||||
- An audit-ready export that requires six weeks of forensics is a
|
||||
P6 violation dressed as a success: the evidence was not collected
|
||||
continuously, it was reconstructed. The export should be a query
|
||||
that runs in minutes, not a project that runs for weeks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence Lifecycle
|
||||
|
||||
- Evidence has a retention lifecycle (`data-retention.md`): an
|
||||
evidence artifact is retained for the audit cycle it supports,
|
||||
then ages out. The retention rule for evidence is itself audited
|
||||
(deletion of evidence is a meta-audited action, like deletion of
|
||||
audit logs).
|
||||
- A legal hold suspends evidence deletion for a defined set — the
|
||||
same mechanism as audit-log holds.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Evidence Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Evidence assembled by hand the week before an audit | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
|
||||
| An evidence artifact with no provenance (no producer, no timestamp) | P7 Identity is Attributable |
|
||||
| An audit packet that requires six weeks of forensics to produce | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
|
||||
| An attestation with no signature (provenance asserted, not proven) | P7 Identity is Attributable |
|
||||
| Evidence store not queryable between audits | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable |
|
||||
| Evidence deleted before its retention period with no meta-audit | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
|
||||
| Policy decisions not recorded as evidence | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
|
||||
| A deployment with no signed attestation of its build provenance | P7 Identity is Attributable |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/security/supply-chain.md` — signed attestations are the
|
||||
supply-chain integrity primitive; evidence.md is the compliance
|
||||
consumer of the same artifact.
|
||||
- `domains/observability/metrics.md` — posture metrics are a
|
||||
continuous evidence stream.
|
||||
- `domains/observability/tracing.md` — distributed traces provide
|
||||
evidence that spans a request across services.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — audit logs are a primary
|
||||
evidence artifact; the append-only guarantee is what makes them
|
||||
admissible.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/policy-as-code.md` — policy decisions are
|
||||
evidence of enforcement; the policy code itself is evidence of
|
||||
the rule.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` — evidence has a retention
|
||||
lifecycle tied to the audit cycle.
|
||||
@@ -1,184 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Compliance — First Principles
|
||||
|
||||
> Framework-agnostic per D-024. These principles derive from core
|
||||
> Security (a subset of C1 Correctness), Observability, and
|
||||
> Reversibility. They apply across regulations — NIST CSF, SOC 2,
|
||||
> GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, ISO 27001 — without prescribing any
|
||||
> regulation-specific implementation. Regulation names appear here
|
||||
> only as examples of what the principles support; the principles
|
||||
> themselves are engineering rules, not legal controls.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. The Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### P1. Audit Logs are Append-Only
|
||||
Audit records are immutable once written. Deletion or mutation of an
|
||||
audit record is itself an auditable incident — the tampering is the
|
||||
signal, not just the underlying event. An audit log that can be edited
|
||||
is not an audit log; it is a draft. Append-only is enforced
|
||||
structurally (write-once storage, immutable buckets, hash-chained
|
||||
records), not by policy alone. This is the compliance angle on
|
||||
`domains/observability/logging.md`: structured logs that cannot be
|
||||
rewritten are the substrate of accountability.
|
||||
|
||||
### P2. Every Significant Action is Logged
|
||||
The set of auditable actions is defined a priori, in code, before the
|
||||
action ships — not retrofitted after an incident. Authentication
|
||||
changes, authorization decisions, data access, configuration changes,
|
||||
policy changes, and deletions are all significant. "We forgot to log
|
||||
it" is a violation, not an excuse. The auditable-action catalog is
|
||||
itself versioned and reviewed. A significant action with no log line
|
||||
is a C7 (Observability) defect and a C1 (Correctness) defect: the
|
||||
system's behavior is invisible, and accountability is impossible.
|
||||
|
||||
### P3. Retention is Policy, Not Storage
|
||||
Data lifetime is declared and enforced as policy, not left to the
|
||||
storage layer's defaults. Deletion at end-of-life is a feature, not a
|
||||
failure. Retention rules live as code (lifecycle rules, scheduled
|
||||
deletion jobs, tiered storage transitions), they are reviewed, and
|
||||
they are auditable. "We kept it because the bucket was cheap" is a
|
||||
violation; "we deleted it because the policy said to" is correct.
|
||||
Retention is distinct from backup: a backup is a recovery mechanism,
|
||||
a retention rule is a deletion mechanism. Keeping them conflated
|
||||
produces data that survives both the deletion policy and the
|
||||
disaster — which is the opposite of compliance. Cross
|
||||
`domains/data/migrations.md` for the schema-lifecycle discipline.
|
||||
|
||||
### P4. Policy is Code
|
||||
Compliance policy is expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable
|
||||
code (OPA / Rego, AWS Cedar, HashiCorp Sentinel, Kyverno) — not in
|
||||
spreadsheets, prose documents, or tribal knowledge. Policy in a
|
||||
spreadsheet is untestable, unreviewable, and undeployable; it is a
|
||||
wishlist, not a control. Policy-as-code inherits the disciplines of
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent`: declarative
|
||||
intent, version control, review before merge, plan before apply. A
|
||||
compliance rule that is not executable is a rule that cannot be
|
||||
enforced, which is a rule that does not exist.
|
||||
|
||||
### P5. Policy is Evaluated as a Gate
|
||||
Policy violations block before the action, not after the audit.
|
||||
Enforcement happens at admission time (kubernetes admission), at
|
||||
pipeline time (CI/CD gates), and at provisioning time (IaC plan
|
||||
gates) — before the non-compliant state is realized. Detecting a
|
||||
violation after it ships is detection, not enforcement. A policy that
|
||||
is "logged but not blocked" is a postcard, not a gate. This is the
|
||||
compliance angle on C5 (Reversibility): a blocked action is
|
||||
reversible by construction; a shipped violation requires remediation,
|
||||
which is more expensive than prevention.
|
||||
|
||||
### P6. Evidence is Collected Continuously
|
||||
Evidence of compliance — logs, configs, scans, attestations, policy
|
||||
decisions, access reviews — is gathered as a byproduct of operation,
|
||||
not assembled manually at audit time. The audit-time scramble is the
|
||||
anti-pattern: it is expensive, it is incomplete, and it produces
|
||||
evidence that is reconstructed rather than recorded. Continuous
|
||||
evidence collection means the audit packet is a query over
|
||||
already-collected artifacts, not a forensic reconstruction. This is
|
||||
the compliance angle on `domains/observability/tracing.md` for
|
||||
distributed evidence and `domains/observability/metrics.md` for
|
||||
posture signals.
|
||||
|
||||
### P7. Identity is Attributable
|
||||
Every logged action traces to an authenticated, non-shared principal.
|
||||
Shared accounts, generic service identities, and "admin" as an actor
|
||||
are violations: an action with no attributable human or workload is
|
||||
an action with no accountability. Identity is recorded in the audit
|
||||
record at the time of the action, not resolved after the fact. This
|
||||
is the compliance angle on `domains/security/authorization.md` and
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`: the audit subject must be the principal
|
||||
that acted, not a role that many can assume.
|
||||
|
||||
### P8. Subject Access is Honored
|
||||
Data-subject rights — access, export, deletion, correction — are
|
||||
operations with defined contracts and audit trails, not ad-hoc
|
||||
tickets. The system can answer "what do we have on this subject,"
|
||||
"export it in a portable form," and "delete it and prove the
|
||||
deletion" as first-class operations. These are not features bolted on
|
||||
at the end; they are contracts the data layer implements from the
|
||||
start. A subject-access request that requires a forensics team is a
|
||||
correctness defect: the system does not know what it holds. Cross
|
||||
`domains/data/schema-design.md` for the data shapes that make
|
||||
subject access computable.
|
||||
|
||||
### P9. Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit
|
||||
Audit logs themselves must not leak secrets, credentials, PII, or
|
||||
other sensitive data. Redaction is structural — applied at the
|
||||
logging boundary, before the record is written — not opportunistic
|
||||
scrubbing after the fact. A secret that appears in an audit log is a
|
||||
C1 (Correctness) violation (the log is now a secret store) and a
|
||||
security violation (`domains/security/secrets.md`). The redaction
|
||||
policy is itself auditable: which fields are redacted, by what rule,
|
||||
in which log stream. Once a secret is in an append-only log, the
|
||||
remediation is expensive — rotate the secret and rewrite the log's
|
||||
access scope — so redaction-at-source is the only sound position.
|
||||
|
||||
### P10. Compliance Posture is Observable
|
||||
The system reports its own compliance state: drift from policy, open
|
||||
violations, retention status, evidence freshness, policy-evaluation
|
||||
counts. Silent non-compliance is the bug. A compliance posture
|
||||
metric is a first-class signal (`domains/observability/metrics.md`),
|
||||
alertable, and dashboarded. "We didn't know we were non-compliant"
|
||||
is not a defense; it is a C7 (Observability) defect. The posture is
|
||||
queryable at any time, not only at audit time. This is the compliance
|
||||
angle on `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth`: the
|
||||
compliance state is a versioned, queryable truth, not a vibe.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Core Principle Trace
|
||||
|
||||
Each compliance P-rule derives from one or more core C-rules (C1–C8).
|
||||
The matrix extension lands in P4 of the v0.3 plan; the traces below
|
||||
are authoritative.
|
||||
|
||||
| P-rule | Core | Why |
|
||||
|--------|------|-----|
|
||||
| P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only | C1, C5 | Correctness of the record; reversibility of tamper detection |
|
||||
| P2 Every Significant Action is Logged | C7, C1 | Observability of behavior; correctness of a-priori audit scope |
|
||||
| P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage | C5, C8 | Reversibility of data lifetime; economy of storage as policy |
|
||||
| P4 Policy is Code | C6, C2 | Composability of versioned policy; clarity of executable intent |
|
||||
| P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate | C1, C5 | Correctness of pre-action enforcement; reversibility of blocked actions |
|
||||
| P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously | C7, C3 | Observability of compliance state; simplicity of audit-by-query |
|
||||
| P7 Identity is Attributable | C1, C7 | Correctness of accountability (security subset); observability of who acted |
|
||||
| P8 Subject Access is Honored | C1, C5 | Correctness of the data-subject contract; reversibility of deletion |
|
||||
| P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit | C1, C3 | Correctness of not leaking (security subset); simplicity of structural redaction |
|
||||
| P10 Compliance Posture is Observable | C7, C1 | Observability of posture; correctness of self-reported state |
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. What Violates These Principles
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle Breached |
|
||||
|-----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| An audit log stored on a mutable filesystem with no write-once protection | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
|
||||
| A `DELETE` on an audit record to "clean up a typo" | P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only |
|
||||
| An auth change with no audit log line | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
|
||||
| "We'll add logging after we ship the feature" | P2 Every Significant Action is Logged |
|
||||
| Data kept indefinitely because "the bucket is cheap" | P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage |
|
||||
| A retention rule in a spreadsheet, not in code | P4 Policy is Code |
|
||||
| A policy that logs violations but does not block the action | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
|
||||
| Evidence assembled by hand the week before an audit | P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously |
|
||||
| A shared `admin` account as the audit actor | P7 Identity is Attributable |
|
||||
| A subject-access request that requires a forensics team | P8 Subject Access is Honored |
|
||||
| A secret visible in an audit log entry | P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit |
|
||||
| No dashboard for compliance posture between audits | P10 Compliance Posture is Observable |
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
Compliance is the accountability layer that crosses
|
||||
`domains/security/` (it audits security actions),
|
||||
`domains/observability/` (audit logs are structured logging; posture
|
||||
is metrics; evidence is traces), `domains/data/` (retention and
|
||||
subject access are data-layer contracts), and
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/` (policy-as-code parallels
|
||||
declarative IaC; compliance state parallels state-as-truth). Cross-
|
||||
links are one-directional (per D-026 extended):
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/security/authorization.md` ← P7 (attributable identity)
|
||||
- `domains/security/secrets.md` ← P9 (redaction)
|
||||
- `domains/security/supply-chain.md` ← P6 (signed attestations as evidence)
|
||||
- `domains/observability/logging.md` ← P1, P2 (audit logs = structured logging)
|
||||
- `domains/observability/metrics.md` ← P10 (compliance posture metrics)
|
||||
- `domains/observability/tracing.md` ← P6 (evidence from distributed traces)
|
||||
- `domains/data/schema-design.md` ← P3, P8 (retention and subject-access shapes)
|
||||
- `domains/data/migrations.md` ← P3 (retention migration discipline)
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← P4 (policy-as-code)
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← P10 (compliance posture truth)
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` ← P7 (audit subject identity)
|
||||
- `domains/devops/ci-cd.md` ← P5 (policy as a pipeline gate)
|
||||
- `domains/devops/first-principles.md` ← P4 (policy as configuration-as-code)
|
||||
@@ -1,140 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Policy as Code — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/compliance/first-principles.md`. Covers P4
|
||||
> (Policy is Code) and P5 (Policy is Evaluated as a Gate). Referenced
|
||||
> by `audit-logs.md` (policy decisions are audited) and `evidence.md`
|
||||
> (policy decisions are evidence). Framework-agnostic per D-024.
|
||||
|
||||
## Policy is Code (P4 Policy is Code)
|
||||
|
||||
- Compliance policy is expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable
|
||||
code — not in spreadsheets, prose documents, or tribal knowledge.
|
||||
Policy in a spreadsheet is untestable, unreviewable, and
|
||||
undeployable; it is a wishlist, not a control.
|
||||
- Policy-as-code inherits the disciplines of
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent`: declarative
|
||||
intent, version control, review before merge, plan before apply.
|
||||
A compliance rule that is not executable is a rule that cannot be
|
||||
enforced, which is a rule that does not exist.
|
||||
- Policy code is tested like any other code: unit tests for the rule
|
||||
logic (given an input, the rule allows or denies as expected),
|
||||
integration tests for the gate (the rule fires at the right point
|
||||
in the pipeline), and versioning for the policy itself (a policy
|
||||
change is a reviewed, merged, deployed change).
|
||||
|
||||
## Policy is Evaluated as a Gate (P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate)
|
||||
|
||||
- Policy violations block **before** the action, not after the
|
||||
audit. Enforcement happens at:
|
||||
- **Admission time** — a kubernetes admission webhook denies a
|
||||
non-compliant resource before it is created
|
||||
(`domains/kubernetes/rbac.md`).
|
||||
- **Pipeline time** — a CI/CD gate denies a non-compliant change
|
||||
before it merges (`domains/devops/ci-cd.md`).
|
||||
- **Provisioning time** — an IaC plan gate denies a non-compliant
|
||||
resource before `apply` (`domains/infrastructure-as-code/`).
|
||||
- A policy that logs violations but does not block the action is a
|
||||
postcard, not a gate. Detection is not enforcement. A logged
|
||||
violation that the actor could ignore is a P5 violation — the
|
||||
policy exists, but the system is not compliant by construction.
|
||||
- The gate is the contract. The policy author writes the rule; the
|
||||
gate operator wires the rule into the enforcement point; the
|
||||
auditor verifies the gate fired. All three are auditable
|
||||
(`audit-logs.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Engine Comparison (IDEATE-23)
|
||||
|
||||
| Engine | Policy Language | Evaluation Gate | Ecosystem | Notes |
|
||||
|--------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------|-------|
|
||||
| **OPA / Rego** | Rego (declarative, set-based, Datalog-inspired) | CI/CD, k8s admission (Gatekeeper), HTTP API, IaC plan (Terraform Sentinel-style), service mesh | Broadest ecosystem; CNCF graduated; library of reusable bundles | General-purpose; the default choice when the gate location varies |
|
||||
| **AWS Cedar** | Cedar (declarative, authorization-focused, schema-typed) | k8s admission (via Cedar-agent), application authorization, AVP (Verified Permissions) | AWS-native; tight schema typing; separates policy from entities | Authorization-focused; strong where the policy is "who can do what on which resource" |
|
||||
| **HashiCorp Sentinel** | Sentinel (declarative, restricted, policy-focused) | Terraform / TFE plan gate, Nomad, Vault | HashiCorp ecosystem; embedded in Terraform Enterprise / HCP | IaC-plan-gate native; the enforcement point is the `plan` output |
|
||||
| **Kyverno** | Kyverno (YAML-declarative, k8s-native, no new DSL) | k8s admission (native), cluster-wide policy reports | Kubernetes-native; no separate language — policy is a CRD | k8s-cluster-gate native; the choice when the gate is admission and the team prefers YAML over a DSL |
|
||||
|
||||
- None is advocated over the others. The choice is (a) where the
|
||||
gate fires, (b) the team's tolerance for a new policy language,
|
||||
and (c) ecosystem fit. All four satisfy P4/P5 when wired
|
||||
correctly.
|
||||
- A gate is a gate regardless of engine: the rule is declarative,
|
||||
the evaluation is pre-action, and the decision is allow-or-deny.
|
||||
The engine difference is language and enforcement-point fit, not
|
||||
correctness.
|
||||
|
||||
## Policy Testing
|
||||
|
||||
- Policy code is unit-tested like any other code. A test asserts
|
||||
that a given input produces the expected decision (allow / deny /
|
||||
warn). The test is versioned with the policy; a policy change
|
||||
with no test change is a red flag.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// illustrative Rego policy + test
|
||||
// policy: deny containers running as root
|
||||
package k8s.admission
|
||||
|
||||
deny[msg] {
|
||||
input.kind == "Pod"
|
||||
c := input.spec.containers[_]
|
||||
not c.securityContext.runAsNonRoot
|
||||
msg := sprintf("container %s must set runAsNonRoot", [c.name])
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// test (Rego unit test)
|
||||
package k8s.admission
|
||||
|
||||
test_deny_root_container {
|
||||
some msg in deny with input as {
|
||||
"kind": "Pod",
|
||||
"spec": { "containers": [ { "name": "app", "securityContext": {} } ] }
|
||||
}
|
||||
msg == "container app must set runAsNonRoot"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- Integration tests assert the gate fires: a non-compliant resource
|
||||
submitted to the admission endpoint is denied; a compliant one is
|
||||
allowed. The integration test runs against the real gate, not a
|
||||
mock, because the gate wiring is half the contract.
|
||||
|
||||
## Policy Versioning
|
||||
|
||||
- Policy is versioned in git. A policy change is a reviewed, merged,
|
||||
deployed change — the same discipline as application code. A
|
||||
policy that is edited in production without review is a P4
|
||||
violation: the policy is code, but it is being treated as config.
|
||||
- A policy change can break existing workloads (a new deny rule
|
||||
blocks a previously-allowed resource). The rollout is staged:
|
||||
warn-only mode first (log violations, do not block), then enforce
|
||||
mode after the violation count is zero. This is the policy
|
||||
analogue of `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Policy-as-Code Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| A compliance rule in a spreadsheet | P4 Policy is Code |
|
||||
| A policy that logs violations but does not block the action | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
|
||||
| A policy edited in production without review | P4 Policy is Code |
|
||||
| A policy with no unit tests for the rule logic | P4 Policy is Code |
|
||||
| A gate wired with a mock instead of the real engine | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
|
||||
| A new deny rule enforced without a warn-only rollout | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
|
||||
| A policy in prose ("the team should not use root containers") | P4 Policy is Code |
|
||||
| A policy decision with no audit record | P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` — policy-as-
|
||||
code inherits declarative intent, versioning, and plan-before-
|
||||
apply from IaC.
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` — k8s admission is a primary
|
||||
enforcement gate; Kyverno and OPA Gatekeeper wire into it.
|
||||
- `domains/devops/ci-cd.md` — CI/CD is a pipeline-time enforcement
|
||||
gate; a policy step blocks a non-compliant change before merge.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — every policy decision (allow
|
||||
/ deny) is an audited significant action.
|
||||
- `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — policy decisions and the
|
||||
policy code itself are evidence of enforcement posture.
|
||||
- `domains/security/authorization.md` — Cedar's authorization-
|
||||
focused policy overlaps with authz; the split is that authz is
|
||||
the runtime decision, policy-as-code is the reviewed rule that
|
||||
drives it.
|
||||
@@ -1,176 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# ArgoCD — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md`.
|
||||
> Applies P1–P10 to ArgoCD specifically. For the ArgoCD-vs-Flux
|
||||
> decision, see the decision matrix at the end of this doc and in
|
||||
> `flux.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What ArgoCD Is (P1 Git is the Source of Truth, P3 Pull, Don't Push)
|
||||
|
||||
- ArgoCD is a pull-based GitOps controller for Kubernetes. It runs
|
||||
inside the target cluster, pulls desired state from git, and
|
||||
reconciles the cluster to match. CI never holds `kubectl` rights
|
||||
against the cluster (P3).
|
||||
- An Application is a declarative binding of "this git path" to
|
||||
"this cluster destination." The Application CRD is the unit of
|
||||
reconciliation. The cluster is a derivative of git, never the
|
||||
authority (P1).
|
||||
- ArgoCD supports Helm charts, Kustomize overlays, ksonnet, and raw
|
||||
manifests as source formats — see `domains/kubernetes/helm.md`
|
||||
and `domains/kubernetes/kustomize.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Application CRD (P2 Declarative Over Imperative, P4 Continuous Reconciliation)
|
||||
|
||||
- An Application declares `source` (repo, path, revision, chart),
|
||||
`destination` (server, namespace), and `syncPolicy`. The
|
||||
reconciler loops continuously; drift is corrected automatically,
|
||||
not on-demand (P4).
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
|
||||
kind: Application
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: payments-api
|
||||
namespace: argocd
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
source:
|
||||
repoURL: https://git.example.com/platform/payments
|
||||
targetRevision: 1.2.3
|
||||
path: manifests/prod
|
||||
destination:
|
||||
server: https://kubernetes.default.svc
|
||||
namespace: payments
|
||||
syncPolicy:
|
||||
automated:
|
||||
prune: true
|
||||
selfHeal: true
|
||||
syncOptions:
|
||||
- CreateNamespace=false
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- `automated.prune: true` deletes resources removed from git.
|
||||
`selfHeal: true` corrects hand-edited drift back to git (P8).
|
||||
Disable both for workloads that need manual approval gates.
|
||||
|
||||
## App-of-Apps (P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge, C6 Composability)
|
||||
|
||||
- The App-of-Apps pattern: one root Application points at a git
|
||||
directory of child Application manifests. The root app reconciles
|
||||
the children; the children reconcile the workloads. This is the
|
||||
ArgoCD expression of composition — a fleet of apps as a tree of
|
||||
Applications.
|
||||
- Use App-of-Apps for cluster bootstrapping (one repo, many
|
||||
clusters, many apps). Do not use it as a substitute for a package
|
||||
manager; if you are templating hundreds of near-identical
|
||||
Applications, use a generator (ApplicationSet) instead.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sync Waves and Hooks (P4 Continuous Reconciliation, P7 Reversibility)
|
||||
|
||||
- Sync waves order resources within a sync: `PreSync` → `Sync` →
|
||||
`PostSync`. Use waves to run a job before a Deployment, or a
|
||||
migration before the app that depends on it.
|
||||
- Sync hooks (`PreSync`, `Sync`, `PostSync`, `SyncFail`) are
|
||||
Resources annotated to execute at a wave boundary. A `SyncFail`
|
||||
hook runs on sync failure — the abort path (P7).
|
||||
- Wave ordering is a correctness mechanism, not a performance one.
|
||||
Mis-ordered waves (e.g., app starts before its migration job)
|
||||
are a correctness bug.
|
||||
|
||||
## Health and Status (P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced)
|
||||
|
||||
- ArgoCD assesses every resource's health (`Healthy`, `Progressing`,
|
||||
`Degraded`, `Missing`, `Suspended`) and surfaces the aggregate as
|
||||
Application status. Sync status (`Synced`, `OutOfSync`) reports
|
||||
drift against git.
|
||||
- Health checks are pluggable via Lua scripts for custom CRDs. An
|
||||
Operator-managed CRD without a health check reads as `Progressing`
|
||||
forever — write one (see `operators.md`).
|
||||
- Out-of-sync or degraded status must emit a notification (Slack,
|
||||
PagerDuty, webhook). Silent drift is the bug (P9). Wire status to
|
||||
`domains/observability/metrics.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Diff and Drift (P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand, P4)
|
||||
|
||||
- `argocd app diff` shows the diff between git and live cluster.
|
||||
A non-empty diff on a synced app is hand-edit drift — the
|
||||
recovery is `selfHeal`, not a manual `kubectl apply` (P8).
|
||||
- Drift detection runs continuously (P4). The gap between "git
|
||||
changed" and "cluster matches git" is observable, not assumed.
|
||||
|
||||
## RBAC and SSO (P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation)
|
||||
|
||||
- ArgoCD's own RBAC governs who can view, sync, and admin
|
||||
Applications. Bind to SSO (OIDC, SAML) for human identity; bind
|
||||
the controller's service account to a Role scoped to the
|
||||
namespaces it reconciles.
|
||||
- The controller's credentials must not be `cluster-admin` (P10).
|
||||
Use namespace-scoped Roles via `ApplicationSet` namespaces or
|
||||
cluster-wide AppProject restrictions. See
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` and `domains/security/authorization.md`.
|
||||
- AppProjects bound the blast radius of what an Application can
|
||||
deploy (allowed repos, destinations, roles). One AppProject per
|
||||
team or environment; the default project is for nothing in
|
||||
production.
|
||||
|
||||
## Multi-Cluster (P4 Locality, P10)
|
||||
|
||||
- ArgoCD registers external clusters by secret. The controller
|
||||
pulls from git and pushes to the registered cluster's API server.
|
||||
The "pull, don't push" boundary (P3) is between the target
|
||||
cluster's reconciler and CI — the controller-to-apiserver hop is
|
||||
internal to the platform.
|
||||
- Scope each registered cluster's credentials to the namespaces
|
||||
ArgoCD manages there. Do not register a cluster with cluster-admin
|
||||
and call it done (P10).
|
||||
|
||||
## Sync Windows (P5 Reversibility, P7)
|
||||
|
||||
- Sync windows restrict when automated sync runs (e.g., no syncs
|
||||
during business hours, or syncs only in a maintenance window).
|
||||
They are a reversibility mechanism: a bad commit lands in git,
|
||||
but the sync window holds it until review.
|
||||
- Sync windows do not replace health monitoring (P9). A degraded
|
||||
app inside a window is still an incident.
|
||||
|
||||
## Secrets (P10, cross-link security/secrets)
|
||||
|
||||
- Do not store raw Secrets in the GitOps repo. Use a sealed-secret
|
||||
controller (Bitnami Sealed Secrets, SOPS, External Secrets
|
||||
Operator) so the git store holds encrypted material only. See
|
||||
`domains/security/secrets.md` for the general secret-hygiene
|
||||
principles.
|
||||
|
||||
## ArgoCD vs Flux — Decision Matrix (IDEATE-21, D-039)
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | ArgoCD | Flux |
|
||||
|------|--------|------|
|
||||
| Architecture | Monolithic controller + Application CRD | Composable GitOps Toolkit controllers (source, kustomize, helm, notification) |
|
||||
| Reconciliation unit | Application (one CRD per app) | Kustomization / HelmRelease (one per deploy unit) |
|
||||
| UI | Web UI + CLI (full dashboard, tree view, diff viewer) | CLI-first; UI via Weave GitOps or FluxUI (add-on) |
|
||||
| Sync model | Periodic poll or webhook; sync waves + hooks | Poll + webhook; runs continuously, no explicit sync waves |
|
||||
| Multi-cluster | One ArgoCD manages many clusters (hub-and-spoke) | One Flux per cluster (per-cluster autonomy) |
|
||||
| Templating in repo | Helm, Kustomize, ksonnet, raw manifests, Jsonnet | Helm, Kustomize, raw manifests |
|
||||
| RBAC | Built-in RBAC + SSO + AppProjects | Kubernetes RBAC (no built-in RBAC layer) |
|
||||
| Progressive delivery | Argo Rollouts (sister project, tight integration) | Flagger (sister project, tight integration) |
|
||||
| Best for | Teams wanting a UI, multi-cluster from one pane, App-of-Apps bootstrapping | Teams wanting composable controllers, per-cluster autonomy, minimal footprint |
|
||||
| Watch out for | Monolithic controller scaling, UI as ops crutch, AppProject sprawl | No native UI, steeper learning curve, manual multi-cluster orchestration |
|
||||
|
||||
- Use ArgoCD when you want a UI, central multi-cluster management,
|
||||
and sync-wave ordering. Use Flux when you want composable
|
||||
controllers, per-cluster autonomy, and a minimal footprint.
|
||||
- Both are CNCF graduated and both implement the OpenGitOps
|
||||
principles. The choice is architectural fit, not correctness. See
|
||||
`flux.md` for the Flux-side perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates ArgoCD Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| CI pipeline with `kubectl` rights pushing to the cluster | P3 Pull, Don't Push |
|
||||
| `argocd app set` used as the steady state instead of git | P1 Git is the Source of Truth |
|
||||
| `selfHeal: false` on a prod app with no manual gate | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand |
|
||||
| Controller ServiceAccount bound to `cluster-admin` | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation |
|
||||
| Sync failure with no notification wired | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| AppProject with no destination restrictions in prod | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation |
|
||||
| Raw Secret in the GitOps repo | P10, `domains/security/secrets.md` |
|
||||
| Manual `kubectl edit` on an ArgoCD-managed resource | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand |
|
||||
@@ -1,131 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# GitOps + Operators — First Principles
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. The Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### P1. Git is the Source of Truth
|
||||
Desired state lives in a versioned, immutable git store. The
|
||||
cluster is a derivative of git, never the authority. If a state
|
||||
exists only in the cluster and not in git, it is drift, not truth.
|
||||
The commit history is the audit trail and the rollback path.
|
||||
|
||||
### P2. Declarative Over Imperative
|
||||
Express the desired cluster state, not the commands to reach it.
|
||||
A manifest says what should exist; the reconciler makes it so.
|
||||
Imperative `kubectl` is for inspection and incident response, not
|
||||
for the steady state. This is the GitOps expression of
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/P1 Declarative Desired State` and
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P3. Pull, Don't Push
|
||||
Agents running inside the target pull desired state from git; the
|
||||
target never accepts outside push credentials. No CI pipeline holds
|
||||
`kubectl` rights against the production cluster. The cluster reaches
|
||||
out to git, not the other way around. This is the security primitive
|
||||
of GitOps: the blast radius of a compromised CI is bounded by what CI
|
||||
can push, and a pull model gives CI nothing to push.
|
||||
|
||||
### P4. Continuous Reconciliation
|
||||
The reconciliation loop is the primitive. Drift is detected and
|
||||
corrected automatically, not on-demand. A manual `apply` is an
|
||||
exception, not the workflow. The loop runs continuously; the gap
|
||||
between "git changed" and "cluster matches git" is measured in
|
||||
seconds, not tickets.
|
||||
|
||||
### P5. State is Immutable and Versioned
|
||||
Every change to desired state is a commit. History is the audit
|
||||
trail and the rollback path. A revert is a rollback; a force-push is
|
||||
history deletion. The git store is treated like
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` — lose it or
|
||||
tamper with it, and you lose the ability to reason about the system.
|
||||
|
||||
### P6. Operators Encode Domain Knowledge
|
||||
Operational expertise lives as CRDs plus controllers, not as
|
||||
runbooks that humans must remember. An operator is a control loop
|
||||
that encodes how to reconcile a specific domain (a database, a
|
||||
message queue, a certificate). The operator is the deepest
|
||||
expression of `domains/kubernetes/P1 Declarative Desired State` —
|
||||
the domain knowledge is the desired state.
|
||||
|
||||
### P7. Progressive Delivery is Reversible by Construction
|
||||
Canary and blue-green are staged, metric-gated, and one-command
|
||||
abortable. Promotion without a rollback path is a violation. A
|
||||
rollout that cannot be aborted is a deploy, not a progressive
|
||||
delivery. This is the GitOps extension of
|
||||
`domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` and
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P8. Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand
|
||||
Manual `kubectl apply` or `kubectl edit` on a GitOps-managed
|
||||
resource is an incident. The reconciler will overwrite the hand
|
||||
edit on the next loop; the hand edit was never truth. Drift back to
|
||||
git is the recovery, not the failure. This is the GitOps angle on
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/P9 Drift is Recoverable`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P9. Failure is Observable and Surfaced
|
||||
Sync failures, health degradation, and rollout-stall events emit
|
||||
status and notifications. Silent drift is the bug. A GitOps
|
||||
controller that fails to sync without surfacing the failure has
|
||||
violated the contract — you cannot fix what you cannot see
|
||||
(`domains/observability/metrics.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
### P10. Least Privilege Reconciliation
|
||||
The controller's credentials are scoped to the namespaces and
|
||||
resources it reconciles. No `cluster-admin` GitOps robots. One
|
||||
credential set per boundary; the reconciler sees only what it
|
||||
reconciles. This is the GitOps angle on
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity` and
|
||||
`domains/security/authorization.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Core Principle Trace
|
||||
|
||||
Each GitOps + Operators P-rule derives from one or more core
|
||||
C-rules (C1–C8). The matrix extension lands in P4 of the v0.3
|
||||
plan; the traces below are authoritative.
|
||||
|
||||
| P-rule | Core | Why |
|
||||
|--------|------|-----|
|
||||
| P1 Git is the Source of Truth | C1, C5 | Correctness of state; reversibility via history |
|
||||
| P2 Declarative Over Imperative | C2, C3 | Clarity of intent; simplicity of mental model |
|
||||
| P3 Pull, Don't Push | C1, C4 | Correctness via security; locality of credentials |
|
||||
| P4 Continuous Reconciliation | C7, C1 | Observability of drift; correctness of convergence |
|
||||
| P5 State is Immutable and Versioned | C5 | Reversibility via version history |
|
||||
| P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge | C6, C2 | Composability of expertise; clarity of operational intent |
|
||||
| P7 Progressive Delivery is Reversible | C5, C1 | Reversibility of promotion; correctness of abort |
|
||||
| P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand | C1, C7 | Correctness of single source; observability of drift |
|
||||
| P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced | C7 | Observability of reconciliation |
|
||||
| P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation | C1, C8 | Correctness via security; economy of trust |
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. What Violates These Principles
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle Breached |
|
||||
|-----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| CI pipeline pushes manifests to the cluster | P3 Pull, Don't Push |
|
||||
| A resource exists in the cluster but not in git | P1 Git is the Source of Truth |
|
||||
| `kubectl edit` on a GitOps-managed resource | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand |
|
||||
| Reconciler with `cluster-admin` ClusterRoleBinding | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation |
|
||||
| Sync failure with no status or notification | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| Canary with no abort/rollback path | P7 Progressive Delivery is Reversible |
|
||||
| Operator runbook that exists only in a wiki | P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge |
|
||||
| Reconciler that applies on a cron, not continuously | P4 Continuous Reconciliation |
|
||||
| Force-push rewrites GitOps repo history | P5 State is Immutable and Versioned |
|
||||
| Imperative deploy script as the steady state | P2 Declarative Over Imperative |
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
GitOps + Operators is the deployment-automation layer above
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/` and `domains/infrastructure-as-code/`. It
|
||||
borrows their declarative-reconciliation model and adds the
|
||||
git-as-source-of-truth and pull-based credential boundaries. Cross
|
||||
links are one-directional (per D-026 extended):
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/P1 Declarative Desired State` ← P2
|
||||
- `domains/kubernetes/P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back` ← P7
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← P2
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← P1, P5
|
||||
- `domains/infrastructure-as-code/P9 Drift is Recoverable` ← P4, P8
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P4 Rollback First` ← P5, P7
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← P7
|
||||
- `domains/devops/P6 Configuration as Code` ← P1, P2
|
||||
- `domains/security/secrets.md` ← P3, P10 (reconciliation credentials)
|
||||
- `domains/security/supply-chain.md` ← P5 (signed, immutable provenance)
|
||||
- `domains/observability/metrics.md` ← P4, P9 (reconciliation + rollout metrics)
|
||||
@@ -1,159 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Flux — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md`.
|
||||
> Applies P1–P10 to Flux specifically. For the ArgoCD-vs-Flux
|
||||
> decision, see the decision matrix at the end of this doc and in
|
||||
> `argocd.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Flux Is (P1 Git is the Source of Truth, P3 Pull, Don't Push)
|
||||
|
||||
- Flux is a set of composable controllers — the GitOps Toolkit —
|
||||
that run inside the target cluster, pull desired state from git
|
||||
or OCI registries, and reconcile the cluster to match. CI never
|
||||
holds `kubectl` rights against the cluster (P3).
|
||||
- The composable-controller architecture is a C6 (Composability)
|
||||
exemplar: each controller does one thing (source, kustomize, helm,
|
||||
notification) and the controllers compose into a full GitOps
|
||||
system.
|
||||
- Flux supports Helm releases, Kustomize overlays, and raw
|
||||
manifests — see `domains/kubernetes/helm.md` and
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/kustomize.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## GitOps Toolkit Controllers (P6 Composability, P4 Continuous Reconciliation)
|
||||
|
||||
- **source-controller** — pulls git, Helm, OCI, and bucket sources;
|
||||
emits artifacts (tarballs) with a digest. The source is the
|
||||
pinned input to reconciliation (P5 versioning by digest).
|
||||
- **kustomize-controller** — reconciles Kustomization CRDs against
|
||||
the artifacts from source-controller. Runs continuously (P4).
|
||||
- **helm-controller** — reconciles HelmRelease CRDs against Helm
|
||||
charts from source-controller.
|
||||
- **notification-controller** — emits events and notifications for
|
||||
sync, health, and source-readiness events (P9).
|
||||
- **image-automation-controller** (optional) — updates git with new
|
||||
image tags when a policy matches, closing the "latest image"
|
||||
loop declaratively.
|
||||
|
||||
## Kustomization CRD (P2 Declarative Over Imperative, P4)
|
||||
|
||||
- A Kustomization binds "this source" to "this target namespace"
|
||||
with a reconciliation interval. The reconciler loops
|
||||
continuously; drift is corrected automatically (P4).
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: kustomize.toolkit.fluxcd.io/v1
|
||||
kind: Kustomization
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: payments-api
|
||||
namespace: flux-system
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
sourceRef:
|
||||
kind: GitRepository
|
||||
name: platform
|
||||
namespace: flux-system
|
||||
path: ./manifests/prod
|
||||
targetNamespace: payments
|
||||
interval: 1m
|
||||
prune: true
|
||||
wait: true
|
||||
healthChecks:
|
||||
- apiVersion: apps/v1
|
||||
kind: Deployment
|
||||
name: payments-api
|
||||
namespace: payments
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- `prune: true` deletes resources removed from git. `wait: true`
|
||||
waits for health checks before declaring the Kustomization ready.
|
||||
Disable prune for workloads that need manual removal gates.
|
||||
|
||||
## HelmRelease CRD (P6 Composability, cross-link helm.md)
|
||||
|
||||
- A HelmRelease binds a Helm chart (from a HelmRepository or OCI
|
||||
source) to target values and a target namespace. helm-controller
|
||||
renders and applies it. See `domains/kubernetes/helm.md` for the
|
||||
chart model.
|
||||
- Pin the chart version in the HelmRepository or the HelmRelease.
|
||||
Never float `latest` — unversioned charts drift (P5).
|
||||
|
||||
## OCI Sources (P5 State is Immutable and Versioned)
|
||||
|
||||
- source-controller can pull from OCI registries (Helm charts as
|
||||
OCI artifacts, or generic OCI repositories). The digest is the
|
||||
version — immutable by construction (P5).
|
||||
- OCI sources close the supply-chain loop: the manifest is signed
|
||||
and immutable in the registry, and Flux pulls it by digest. Cross-
|
||||
link `domains/security/supply-chain.md` for signed-provenance
|
||||
principles.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reconciliation and Drift (P4 Continuous Reconciliation, P8)
|
||||
|
||||
- Flux reconciles on `interval` (default 1m) and on webhook event.
|
||||
Drift between git and cluster is detected each interval and
|
||||
corrected (with `prune` + `selfHeal` semantics).
|
||||
- Hand-edited drift on a Flux-managed resource is overwritten on the
|
||||
next loop — the hand edit was never truth (P8). The recovery is
|
||||
to fix git, not to `kubectl apply`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Notifications and Events (P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced)
|
||||
|
||||
- notification-controller emits events for source readiness, sync
|
||||
success/failure, and health transitions. Wire them to Slack,
|
||||
PagerDuty, or a webhook. Silent drift is the bug (P9).
|
||||
- Events flow to `domains/observability/metrics.md` via the
|
||||
notification controller's provider model — sync and health as
|
||||
first-class signals.
|
||||
|
||||
## RBAC and Multi-Cluster (P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation, P4)
|
||||
|
||||
- Flux's controllers run with a ServiceAccount in `flux-system`.
|
||||
Scope that account to the namespaces Flux reconciles. Do not bind
|
||||
it to `cluster-admin` (P10). See `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` and
|
||||
`domains/security/authorization.md`.
|
||||
- Flux is per-cluster by design (one Flux install per cluster). For
|
||||
multi-cluster, use one repo with per-cluster paths, or a fleet
|
||||
tool that bootstraps Flux per cluster. Per-cluster autonomy is a
|
||||
feature, not a limitation — it bounds the blast radius of a
|
||||
compromised controller (P4 locality, P10).
|
||||
|
||||
## Secrets (P10, cross-link security/secrets)
|
||||
|
||||
- Do not store raw Secrets in the GitOps repo. Use the
|
||||
SOPS-compatible decryption in kustomize-controller, or External
|
||||
Secrets Operator, so the git store holds encrypted material only.
|
||||
See `domains/security/secrets.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## ArgoCD vs Flux — Decision Matrix (IDEATE-21, D-039)
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | ArgoCD | Flux |
|
||||
|------|--------|------|
|
||||
| Architecture | Monolithic controller + Application CRD | Composable GitOps Toolkit controllers (source, kustomize, helm, notification) |
|
||||
| Reconciliation unit | Application (one CRD per app) | Kustomization / HelmRelease (one per deploy unit) |
|
||||
| UI | Web UI + CLI (full dashboard, tree view, diff viewer) | CLI-first; UI via Weave GitOps or FluxUI (add-on) |
|
||||
| Sync model | Periodic poll or webhook; sync waves + hooks | Poll + webhook; runs continuously, no explicit sync waves |
|
||||
| Multi-cluster | One ArgoCD manages many clusters (hub-and-spoke) | One Flux per cluster (per-cluster autonomy) |
|
||||
| Templating in repo | Helm, Kustomize, ksonnet, raw manifests, Jsonnet | Helm, Kustomize, raw manifests |
|
||||
| RBAC | Built-in RBAC + SSO + AppProjects | Kubernetes RBAC (no built-in RBAC layer) |
|
||||
| Progressive delivery | Argo Rollouts (sister project, tight integration) | Flagger (sister project, tight integration) |
|
||||
| Best for | Teams wanting a UI, multi-cluster from one pane, App-of-Apps bootstrapping | Teams wanting composable controllers, per-cluster autonomy, minimal footprint |
|
||||
| Watch out for | Monolithic controller scaling, UI as ops crutch, AppProject sprawl | No native UI, steeper learning curve, manual multi-cluster orchestration |
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Flux when you want composable controllers, per-cluster
|
||||
autonomy, and a minimal footprint. Use ArgoCD when you want a UI,
|
||||
central multi-cluster management, and sync-wave ordering.
|
||||
- Both are CNCF graduated and both implement the OpenGitOps
|
||||
principles. The choice is architectural fit, not correctness. See
|
||||
`argocd.md` for the ArgoCD-side perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Flux Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| CI pipeline with `kubectl` rights pushing to the cluster | P3 Pull, Don't Push |
|
||||
| HelmRelease with no pinned chart version | P5 State is Immutable and Versioned |
|
||||
| Flux ServiceAccount bound to `cluster-admin` | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation |
|
||||
| Kustomization with no `healthChecks` on a prod app | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| No notification provider wired for sync failures | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| Raw Secret in the GitOps repo | P10, `domains/security/secrets.md` |
|
||||
| Manual `kubectl edit` on a Flux-managed resource | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand |
|
||||
| `interval: 24h` on a prod Kustomization (drift window too wide) | P4 Continuous Reconciliation |
|
||||
@@ -1,140 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Operators — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md`.
|
||||
> Applies P6 (Operators Encode Domain Knowledge) primarily, with
|
||||
> P1, P4, P8, P9, P10. Cross-links `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md`
|
||||
> and `domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` for the underlying controller
|
||||
> model, and `domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md` for the
|
||||
> module-vs-operator boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
## What an Operator Is (P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge)
|
||||
|
||||
- An Operator is a Kubernetes controller that encodes human
|
||||
operational knowledge as CRDs plus a control loop. The operator
|
||||
reconciles a domain-specific resource (a database, a message
|
||||
queue, a certificate, a ML model) to a desired state.
|
||||
- The operator is the deepest expression of
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/P1 Declarative Desired State`: the domain
|
||||
knowledge itself is the desired state. A runbook that lives only
|
||||
in a wiki is operational knowledge that has not been encoded —
|
||||
the operator is the encoding (P6).
|
||||
- An operator runs inside the cluster, observes its CRDs, and acts.
|
||||
It is a pull-based reconciler by construction — see
|
||||
`domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md` P3.
|
||||
|
||||
## CRDs and Controllers (P2 Declarative Over Imperative, P4 Continuous Reconciliation)
|
||||
|
||||
- A CustomResourceDefinition (CRD) defines the schema of the
|
||||
domain resource. The controller watches instances of that CRD
|
||||
and reconciles current → desired (P4).
|
||||
- The CRD is the public contract of the operator. Version it
|
||||
(`v1alpha1` → `v1beta1` → `v1`) and preserve backward
|
||||
compatibility — see `domains/api/versioning.md` for the general
|
||||
API-evolution principles. A CRD is an API surface, not an
|
||||
internal type.
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: postgres.example.com/v1
|
||||
kind: PostgresCluster
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: payments-db
|
||||
namespace: payments
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
replicas: 3
|
||||
version: "16"
|
||||
storage:
|
||||
size: 100Gi
|
||||
storageClass: fast-ssd
|
||||
backup:
|
||||
schedule: "0 2 * * *"
|
||||
retention: 7d
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- The controller reconciles this spec: creates StatefulSets, PVCs,
|
||||
Services, backup CronJobs. The user declares intent; the operator
|
||||
makes it so (P2, P6).
|
||||
|
||||
## The Control Loop (P4 Continuous Reconciliation, P8)
|
||||
|
||||
- The loop watches CRD instances, compares current vs desired, and
|
||||
acts to converge. Drift (a hand-deleted pod, a failed backup) is
|
||||
detected and corrected each loop (P4).
|
||||
- An operator-managed resource should not be hand-edited (P8). The
|
||||
operator owns the subordinate resources (StatefulSets, PVCs); a
|
||||
manual `kubectl edit` on a subordinate is drift the operator will
|
||||
overwrite.
|
||||
|
||||
## Operator SDK and OLM (P6 Composability, C6)
|
||||
|
||||
- The Operator SDK scaffolds a controller from a CRD (Go, Ansible,
|
||||
Helm). Use it to avoid re-implementing the controller boilerplate.
|
||||
- Operator Lifecycle Manager (OLM) installs, updates, and manages
|
||||
operators as first-class cluster components. OLM is the package
|
||||
manager for operators — the operator analogue of
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/helm.md` for workloads.
|
||||
- An operator published via OLM is a versioned, catalog-tracked
|
||||
artifact. Pin the operator version; do not float `latest` (P5
|
||||
applies to operators as much as to manifests).
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Write an Operator vs a Helm Chart (P6, C6 Composability)
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | Helm chart | Operator |
|
||||
|------|-----------|----------|
|
||||
| Day-2 operations | None — chart installs, you operate | Encoded — operator reconciles lifecycle (backup, resize, failover, upgrade) |
|
||||
| State | Static manifests | Live control loop watching CRDs |
|
||||
| Day-1 install | Strong fit — package and install | Overkill if install is all you need |
|
||||
| Day-2 reconcile | None — drift is manual | Continuous — drift corrected each loop |
|
||||
| Domain knowledge | Lives in runbooks + on-call | Lives in the controller code |
|
||||
| Best for | Off-the-shelf apps, stateless services, one-shot deploys | Stateful apps, complex lifecycles, day-2 automation (backup, scale, failover, version upgrades) |
|
||||
| Watch out for | Templating complexity, no day-2 reconcile | Controller complexity, multi-team maintenance burden, scope creep |
|
||||
|
||||
- Write an operator when the day-2 operations (backup, failover,
|
||||
resize, version upgrade) are non-trivial and repeated. Write a
|
||||
Helm chart when install is all you need and day-2 is run by a
|
||||
human or a separate tool.
|
||||
- Do not write an operator to wrap a Helm chart and call it day-2
|
||||
automation — that is a Helm chart with extra steps. See
|
||||
`domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md` for the
|
||||
module-vs-copy boundary (the operator-vs-chart boundary is its
|
||||
analogue).
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope and Responsibility Boundaries (P10 Least Privilege, C6)
|
||||
|
||||
- An operator owns one domain. An operator that manages databases
|
||||
and message queues and certificates is doing three jobs — split
|
||||
it. Scope creep is the most common operator failure mode (P6
|
||||
violation: the encoded knowledge is no longer coherent).
|
||||
- The operator's ServiceAccount must be scoped to the resources it
|
||||
manages (P10). A database operator that needs `cluster-admin` to
|
||||
create a StatefulSet has the wrong RBAC — see
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/rbac.md` and `domains/security/authorization.md`.
|
||||
- One operator per CRD family; one ServiceAccount per operator; one
|
||||
namespace per operator (or a shared `operators` namespace with
|
||||
strict RoleBindings). Default namespace is for nothing in
|
||||
production.
|
||||
|
||||
## Failure and Observability (P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced)
|
||||
|
||||
- An operator must surface its reconcile status on the CRD
|
||||
(`status.conditions`, `status.observedGeneration`). A CRD with no
|
||||
status is an operator that fails silently (P9).
|
||||
- Wire operator events to notifications and metrics. A failed
|
||||
backup, a stuck failover, a version-upgrade stall must emit a
|
||||
signal — see `domains/observability/metrics.md`.
|
||||
- An operator that reconciles but does not report health is a
|
||||
black box. The GitOps controller (ArgoCD/Flux) will read it as
|
||||
`Progressing` forever — write the health check (see `argocd.md`
|
||||
"Health and Status").
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Operator Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Operator that manages databases + queues + certs | P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge (scope creep) |
|
||||
| Operator ServiceAccount bound to `cluster-admin` | P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation |
|
||||
| CRD with no `status.conditions` | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| Operator with no health check wired to GitOps | P9, `argocd.md` Health and Status |
|
||||
| Unversioned CRD (`v1` shipped without alpha/beta) | P5, `domains/api/versioning.md` |
|
||||
| Manual `kubectl edit` on an operator-managed subordinate | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand |
|
||||
| Operator that wraps a Helm chart and adds no day-2 logic | P6 (no knowledge encoded) |
|
||||
| Operator runbook that exists only in a wiki | P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge |
|
||||
@@ -1,177 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Progressive Delivery — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md`.
|
||||
> Applies P7 (Progressive Delivery is Reversible by Construction)
|
||||
> primarily, with P4, P9. Cross-links `domains/devops/first-principles.md`
|
||||
> P4 Rollback First and P5 Progressive Delivery, and
|
||||
> `domains/observability/metrics.md` for the analysis signals.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Progressive Delivery Is (P7 Reversible by Construction)
|
||||
|
||||
- Progressive delivery shifts traffic in stages (canary, blue-green)
|
||||
gated by analysis (metrics, counters, error rates). Each stage is
|
||||
metric-checked; a failed gate aborts the rollout and reverts to
|
||||
the prior stable version. Promotion without a rollback path is a
|
||||
violation (P7).
|
||||
- Progressive delivery is the GitOps extension of
|
||||
`domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` and
|
||||
`domains/kubernetes/P10 Roll Forward, Roll Back`. The k8s rolling
|
||||
update is the floor; progressive delivery adds metric-gated
|
||||
promotion and one-command abort.
|
||||
- Two sister projects dominate: **Argo Rollouts** (Argo ecosystem)
|
||||
and **Flagger** (Flux ecosystem). Both implement the same pattern
|
||||
— a Rollout CRD replaces a Deployment, an analysis drives the
|
||||
gates, an abort reverts traffic.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Rollout CRD (P2 Declarative Over Imperative, P7)
|
||||
|
||||
- A Rollout (Argo Rollouts) or Canary/Flag (Flagger) is a CRD that
|
||||
replaces the Deployment as the reconciled resource. It declares
|
||||
the strategy (canary, blue-green), the traffic split, and the
|
||||
analysis gates. The controller reconciles traffic and pods to
|
||||
match.
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
|
||||
kind: Rollout
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: payments-api
|
||||
namespace: payments
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
replicas: 10
|
||||
selector:
|
||||
matchLabels:
|
||||
app: payments-api
|
||||
template:
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
labels:
|
||||
app: payments-api
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
containers:
|
||||
- name: api
|
||||
image: registry.example.com/payments-api:1.2.3
|
||||
strategy:
|
||||
canary:
|
||||
trafficRouting:
|
||||
istio:
|
||||
virtualService:
|
||||
name: payments-vs
|
||||
routes: [primary]
|
||||
steps:
|
||||
- setWeight: 5
|
||||
- pause: { duration: 2m }
|
||||
- analysis:
|
||||
templates:
|
||||
- templateName: success-rate
|
||||
- setWeight: 25
|
||||
- pause: { duration: 5m }
|
||||
- analysis:
|
||||
templates:
|
||||
- templateName: success-rate
|
||||
- setWeight: 50
|
||||
- pause: { duration: 5m }
|
||||
- setWeight: 100
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- Each `setWeight` shifts traffic; each `pause` holds for
|
||||
observation; each `analysis` runs a metric gate. A failed
|
||||
analysis aborts the rollout and reverts traffic to the stable
|
||||
ReplicaSet (P7).
|
||||
|
||||
## Canary vs Blue-Green (P7, C3 Simplicity)
|
||||
|
||||
| Strategy | Mechanism | Cost | Best for |
|
||||
|----------|-----------|------|----------|
|
||||
| Canary | Shift a small % of traffic to the new version; increase on gate success | Low (few new pods) | Most production rollouts; metric-gated, gradual |
|
||||
| Blue-Green | Run two full environments; switch traffic all-at-once | High (2× capacity) | Schema-breaking changes, instant rollback, low-frequency deploys |
|
||||
|
||||
- Canary is the default — it is reversible by construction (P7)
|
||||
and economical (C8). Blue-green is for changes that cannot be
|
||||
partial (a breaking schema migration, a full cutover).
|
||||
- A canary with no analysis gate is a slow blue-green — it is not
|
||||
progressive delivery. The gate is what makes it progressive (P7).
|
||||
|
||||
## Analysis Templates (P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced, P7)
|
||||
|
||||
- An AnalysisTemplate declares the metric query, the success
|
||||
threshold, and the count of samples. The rollout controller runs
|
||||
the analysis at each gate; a failed analysis aborts the rollout.
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
apiVersion: argoproj.io/v1alpha1
|
||||
kind: AnalysisTemplate
|
||||
metadata:
|
||||
name: success-rate
|
||||
namespace: payments
|
||||
spec:
|
||||
metrics:
|
||||
- name: success-rate
|
||||
interval: 1m
|
||||
successCondition: result[0] >= 0.99
|
||||
failureLimit: 2
|
||||
provider:
|
||||
prometheus:
|
||||
address: http://prometheus.observability:9090
|
||||
query: |
|
||||
sum(rate(http_requests_total{job="payments-api",code!~"5.."}[2m]))
|
||||
/
|
||||
sum(rate(http_requests_total{job="payments-api"}[2m]))
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- `successCondition` is the gate; `failureLimit` is the tolerance
|
||||
for transient blips. A single failed sample aborts immediately if
|
||||
`failureLimit: 0`; tolerate noise with `failureLimit: 2`.
|
||||
- The metric is the abort signal — see `domains/observability/metrics.md`
|
||||
for the SLI/SLO discipline that makes the gate meaningful. A gate
|
||||
on an undefined SLO is a gate on noise.
|
||||
|
||||
## Argo Rollouts vs Flagger (P6 Composability, P7)
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | Argo Rollouts | Flagger |
|
||||
|------|---------------|---------|
|
||||
| Ecosystem | Argo (ArgoCD sister project) | Flux (Flux sister project) |
|
||||
| CRD | `Rollout` (replaces `Deployment`) | `Canary` / `Flag` (wraps a `Deployment`) |
|
||||
| Traffic providers | Istio, NGINX, ALB, SMI, Traefik, Ambassador | Istio, NGINX, Linkerd, SMI, App Mesh, Gloo, Contour |
|
||||
| Analysis sources | Prometheus, Datadog, Wavefront, NewRelic, CloudWatch, Graphite, Kayenta | Prometheus, Datadog, CloudWatch, Stackdriver, Elasticsearch, Graphite |
|
||||
| Integration | Tight with ArgoCD (UI shows rollout) | Tight with Flux (events via notification-controller) |
|
||||
| Learning curve | Rollout CRD replaces Deployment (migration cost) | Wraps existing Deployment (lower migration cost) |
|
||||
| Best for | ArgoCD shops wanting rollout in the Argo UI | Flux shops wanting progressive delivery with minimal migration |
|
||||
|
||||
- Both implement the same pattern. The choice follows your GitOps
|
||||
controller — Argo Rollouts with ArgoCD, Flagger with Flux. Mixing
|
||||
is possible but not idiomatic.
|
||||
|
||||
## Abort and Rollback (P7 Reversible by Construction, P5)
|
||||
|
||||
- An abort reverts traffic to the stable ReplicaSet immediately. A
|
||||
rollout without a tested abort is a prototype (P7).
|
||||
- The abort must be one-command (or one-gate-failure). A
|
||||
progressive delivery that requires manual rollback steps has
|
||||
lost the "reversible by construction" property — it is a deploy
|
||||
with extra steps.
|
||||
- Test the abort path in staging. An abort that has never been
|
||||
exercised will fail when you need it most — see
|
||||
`domains/devops/first-principles.md` P4 Rollback First.
|
||||
|
||||
## Observability (P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced)
|
||||
|
||||
- Progressive delivery is only as good as its metrics. A rollout
|
||||
gated on a metric that is not tracked is ungated — the gate is
|
||||
theater (P9).
|
||||
- Wire rollout status (phase, weight, analysis result) to
|
||||
notifications and dashboards. A stalled rollout with no signal is
|
||||
silent drift (P9). See `domains/observability/metrics.md`.
|
||||
- Cross-link `domains/kubernetes/workloads.md` for the underlying
|
||||
Deployment/ReplicaSet model that progressive delivery replaces.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Progressive Delivery Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Canary with no analysis gate | P7 Progressive Delivery is Reversible by Construction |
|
||||
| Rollout with no tested abort path | P7, `domains/devops/P4 Rollback First` |
|
||||
| Analysis gate on an undefined SLO | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| Blue-green with no 2× capacity budget | C8 Economy (blue-green is a cost decision) |
|
||||
| Rollout stalled with no notification | P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced |
|
||||
| Manual `kubectl` traffic shift on a Rollout-managed service | P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand |
|
||||
| `failureLimit: 0` on a noisy metric (constant false aborts) | P4 Continuous Reconciliation (gate noise tolerance) |
|
||||
@@ -1,173 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Internationalization (i18n) — First Principles
|
||||
|
||||
> Grounded in Unicode ICU + CLDR, W3C i18n WG, BCP 47 / RFC 5646,
|
||||
> ICU MessageFormat / FormatJS / i18next / Mozilla Fluent, the
|
||||
> JavaScript `Intl` API, and WCAG 2.1 AA. The developer's language is
|
||||
> one locale among many, not the neutral form.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. The Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### P1. Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default
|
||||
The developer's own language is one locale among many — it is not the
|
||||
"neutral" or "unlocalized" form of the product. Strings are extracted
|
||||
from day one, addressed by key, and routed through a locale resource
|
||||
layer even when only one locale is populated. Treating the source
|
||||
language as the default produces hidden concatenations, hardcoded
|
||||
grammar assumptions, and a translation debt that compounds until the
|
||||
first second locale arrives — at which point the fix is a rewrite, not
|
||||
a patch. The source locale is `en-US` (or whatever the team writes in);
|
||||
it is not `null`. This is the i18n angle on `domains/uiux/copywriting.md`:
|
||||
copy lives in resources, not in code.
|
||||
|
||||
### P2. Locale Identifiers are Standardized
|
||||
Use BCP 47 language tags (`en-US`, `ar-EG`, `zh-Hans-CN`, `pt-BR`).
|
||||
No ad-hoc locale codes, no two-letter-only hacks, no invented keys.
|
||||
The tag carries language, script (when needed), and region (when
|
||||
needed); it is the contract between the resource layer, the
|
||||
formatting layer, and the runtime. A locale identifier that is not
|
||||
BCP 47 is a key that cannot be resolved by any standard tool, which
|
||||
is a correctness violation. Cross `domains/data/schema-design.md`:
|
||||
locale identifiers are a data shape with a defined vocabulary.
|
||||
|
||||
### P3. Resources are External, Not Inline
|
||||
User-facing strings live in locale resource files (`.po`, JSON,
|
||||
Fluent `.ftl`, ICU Resource Bundle), never concatenated inline in
|
||||
code. Inline strings are invisible to the translation pipeline,
|
||||
unversionable as a unit, and untestable for completeness. String
|
||||
concatenation in code (`"Welcome, " + name + "!"`) is the cardinal
|
||||
violation: it bakes in source-language grammar and breaks for every
|
||||
locale with different word order. Resources are the boundary; code
|
||||
addresses strings by key, the resource layer resolves the key to the
|
||||
locale. This is the i18n angle on C4 Locality: strings and their
|
||||
locale-specific consequences live together in the resource, not
|
||||
scattered across code.
|
||||
|
||||
### P4. Plural and Gender are Parameterized
|
||||
Plural forms, gender, and select are expressed with ICU MessageFormat
|
||||
(or an equivalent parameterized formatter), never with `if (n == 1)`
|
||||
branching in code. Plural rules are locale-specific — English has
|
||||
one/other, Arabic has six categories, Russian has three — and a
|
||||
hand-rolled branch encodes exactly one locale's rules while pretending
|
||||
to be universal. The formatter is the contract; the resource carries
|
||||
the variants; the code passes the count and lets the formatter choose.
|
||||
A `if (n == 1)` plural is a C1 (Correctness) violation masquerading as
|
||||
a shortcut.
|
||||
|
||||
### P5. Formatting is Locale-Aware
|
||||
Dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, and relative time are
|
||||
formatted via ICU / CLDR / the JavaScript `Intl` API — never
|
||||
hand-rolled. A hand-rolled date formatter encodes one locale's
|
||||
conventions and silently produces wrong output for every other locale
|
||||
(mm/dd/yyyy vs dd/mm/yyyy is the canonical failure). CLDR is the
|
||||
source of truth for locale data; `Intl` is the runtime that exposes
|
||||
it. Formatting correctness is observable: a misformatted date is a
|
||||
wrong answer in the user's locale, even if it is "right" in the
|
||||
developer's. Cross `domains/api/error-responses.md` for localized
|
||||
error messages at API boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
### P6. Text Direction is a Layout Primitive
|
||||
RTL and bidi are first-class layout concerns, not a CSS afterthought.
|
||||
Logical CSS properties (`margin-inline-start`, `padding-block-end`,
|
||||
`inset-inline-end`) over physical (`margin-left`, `padding-top`). The
|
||||
`dir` attribute is set on the document and on subtrees; the bidi
|
||||
algorithm (UAX #9) handles inline reordering. A layout that assumes
|
||||
LTR is a layout that is wrong for `ar`, `he`, `fa`, `ur`, and any
|
||||
RTL-mixed context. Text direction is not a skin — it is a structural
|
||||
property of the layout, and fixing it late is a rewrite. This is the
|
||||
i18n angle on `domains/uiux/accessibility.md`: RTL support is an
|
||||
accessibility concern for non-Latin-script users.
|
||||
|
||||
### P7. Layout Accommodates Expansion
|
||||
Translated text expands and contracts — German is ~30% longer than
|
||||
English, Japanese often shorter, RTL mirroring shifts every visual
|
||||
anchor. Layouts are flexible: no fixed pixel widths for text, no
|
||||
truncation without an ellipsis-and-title strategy, no
|
||||
`white-space: nowrap` on translatable strings. A layout that breaks
|
||||
on a 30% expansion is a layout that is wrong for most of the world's
|
||||
locales. Designing for the worst-case expansion up front is cheaper
|
||||
than reworking every screen when the first long-form locale ships.
|
||||
|
||||
### P8. Pseudo-Locales Test Early
|
||||
Test with pseudo-locales (accented, lengthened, RTL-mirrored, brack-
|
||||
enclosed) before real translations arrive. A pseudo-locale run
|
||||
surfaces hardcoded strings, layout overflow, broken concatenation,
|
||||
and LTR assumptions while the fix is still cheap — the translator
|
||||
hasn't been paid yet, and the string freeze hasn't happened. Finding
|
||||
these bugs after real translation is a C5 (Reversibility) violation:
|
||||
the cost of undoing is now a re-translation. Cross
|
||||
`domains/testing/fixtures.md` and `domains/testing/pyramid.md` for
|
||||
where pseudo-locales sit in the testing pyramid.
|
||||
|
||||
### P9. Images and Icons are Cultural
|
||||
Icons, colors, gestures, and imagery are locale-sensitive. A
|
||||
mailbox icon means "email" in the US and "mail" in Japan — but a
|
||||
green checkmark means "correct" in the West and "incorrect" in some
|
||||
East Asian contexts. A thumbs-up is positive in much of the world
|
||||
and an insult in parts of the Middle East. Avoid locale-bound symbols
|
||||
as universal; parameterize imagery per locale where the symbol is not
|
||||
globally neutral. Icons are not a universal language; they are a
|
||||
locale with a picture. This is a C2 (Clarity) concern: an icon whose
|
||||
meaning changes by locale is unclear to the reader it was not drawn
|
||||
for.
|
||||
|
||||
### P10. Translation is Reversible and Versioned
|
||||
Resource files are versioned alongside code; a bad translation is a
|
||||
rollback, not a hot-patch. Every locale resource has a history
|
||||
(what shipped when), a provenance (which translator / which service),
|
||||
and a rollback path. A translation that breaks the UI is reverted to
|
||||
the prior resource version, the same way a code regression is
|
||||
reverted to the prior commit. Translations without version history
|
||||
are anecdote, not artifact — you cannot tell what changed, when, or
|
||||
why. This is the i18n angle on C5 Reversibility applied to the
|
||||
resource layer.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Core Principle Trace
|
||||
|
||||
Each i18n P-rule derives from one or more core C-rules (C1–C8). The
|
||||
matrix extension lands in P4 of the v0.3 plan; the traces below are
|
||||
authoritative.
|
||||
|
||||
| P-rule | Core | Why |
|
||||
|--------|------|-----|
|
||||
| P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default | C2, C1 | Clarity of locale intent; correctness of treating source as one-of-many |
|
||||
| P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized | C2, C6 | Clarity of a standard vocabulary; composability with standard tools |
|
||||
| P3 Resources are External, Not Inline | C4, C6 | Locality of strings and their locale consequences; composability of the resource layer |
|
||||
| P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized | C1, C6 | Correctness of locale-specific plural rules; composability of the formatter contract |
|
||||
| P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware | C1, C7 | Correctness of formatted output; observability of format correctness |
|
||||
| P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive | C1, C4 | Correctness of layout for RTL; locality of direction with the text it governs |
|
||||
| P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion | C8, C3 | Economy of rework; simplicity of flexible layouts over per-locale overrides |
|
||||
| P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early | C7, C5 | Observability of i18n defects early; reversibility of fixing before translation |
|
||||
| P9 Images and Icons are Cultural | C1, C2 | Correctness of locale-appropriate symbols; clarity of meaning across locales |
|
||||
| P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned | C5 | Reversibility of the resource layer |
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. What Violates These Principles
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle Breached |
|
||||
|-----------|-------------------|
|
||||
| A user-facing string hardcoded in source | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| `"Welcome, " + name + "!"` string concatenation | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| `if (n == 1) { return "item"; } else { return "items"; }` | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
|
||||
| A locale code like `en_us` or `english` instead of `en-US` | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
|
||||
| A hand-rolled date formatter (`getMonth() + 1 + "/" + getDay()`) | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
|
||||
| `margin-left: 10px` on a translatable layout | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| A fixed-width text container that overflows on German | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion |
|
||||
| First i18n test runs against real translations, not pseudo-locales | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early |
|
||||
| A thumbs-up icon shipped as universally positive | P9 Images and Icons are Cultural |
|
||||
| Resource files with no git history or no rollback path | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned |
|
||||
| The source language treated as the "unlocalized" default | P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default |
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
i18n is the locale-awareness layer that `domains/uiux/` consumes and
|
||||
that `domains/api/` surfaces at boundaries. It borrows the testing
|
||||
discipline of `domains/testing/` and the data-shape discipline of
|
||||
`domains/data/`. Cross-links are one-directional (per D-026 extended):
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/copywriting.md` ← P1, P3 (strings live in resources)
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/accessibility.md` ← P6 (RTL is an a11y concern for non-Latin users)
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/components.md` ← P6, P7 (layout primitives that survive direction and expansion)
|
||||
- `domains/api/error-responses.md` ← P5 (localized error messages)
|
||||
- `domains/data/schema-design.md` ← P2, P3 (locale data shapes)
|
||||
- `domains/testing/fixtures.md` ← P8 (pseudo-locale fixtures)
|
||||
- `domains/testing/pyramid.md` ← P8 (pseudo-locale tier mapping)
|
||||
- `domains/testing/first-principles.md` ← P8 (testing discipline for locale)
|
||||
@@ -1,141 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Formatting — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P2 (Locale
|
||||
> Identifiers Standardized), P4 (Plural/Gender Parameterized), and P5
|
||||
> (Formatting is Locale-Aware). Referenced by `locale-resources.md`
|
||||
> (the formatter resolves the messages) and `testing-i18n.md` (the
|
||||
> formatted output is what snapshots assert).
|
||||
|
||||
## Formatting is Locale-Aware (P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware)
|
||||
|
||||
- Dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, and relative time are
|
||||
formatted via ICU / CLDR / the JavaScript `Intl` API — never
|
||||
hand-rolled. CLDR is the source of truth for locale data; `Intl`
|
||||
is the runtime that exposes it.
|
||||
- A hand-rolled formatter encodes one locale's conventions and
|
||||
silently produces wrong output for every other locale. The
|
||||
canonical failure is date format: `mm/dd/yyyy` (US) vs
|
||||
`dd/mm/yyyy` (most of the world) vs `yyyy-mm-dd` (ISO, sortable).
|
||||
Picking one and calling it done is a correctness violation in
|
||||
every locale it is wrong for.
|
||||
|
||||
## BCP 47 Tags Drive Formatting (P2 Locale Identifiers Standardized)
|
||||
|
||||
- Every formatter takes a BCP 47 locale tag. The tag is the contract
|
||||
between the resource layer and the formatting layer: the same tag
|
||||
that selects the resource selects the formatter.
|
||||
- A locale tag that is not BCP 47 cannot be resolved by `Intl`, ICU,
|
||||
or CLDR — the formatter returns the runtime default, which is the
|
||||
developer's locale, not the user's. This is why P2 is a
|
||||
prerequisite of P5: you cannot format for a locale you cannot name.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Intl Surface (ICU/CLDR in the Browser and Node)
|
||||
|
||||
| API | Formats | Notes |
|
||||
|-----|---------|-------|
|
||||
| `Intl.DateTimeFormat` | Dates, times, date+time, time zones | Calendar (`buddhist`, `hebrew`, `islamic`), numbering system (`arab`, `hanidec`) via locale tag extensions |
|
||||
| `Intl.NumberFormat` | Numbers, currencies, units, percent | Notation (`compact`, `scientific`), grouping, sign display |
|
||||
| `Intl.RelativeTimeFormat` | "3 days ago", "in 2 months" | Locale-specific phrasing; numeric vs auto |
|
||||
| `Intl.PluralRules` | Plural category for a count | `one`, `few`, `many`, `other`, `zero`, `two` per CLDR — the engine ICU MessageFormat uses |
|
||||
| `Intl.ListFormat` | "a, b, and c" | Conjunction / disjunction / unit lists, locale-specific separators |
|
||||
| `Intl.Collator` | Locale-aware string sorting | Strength (`base`, `accent`, `case`); numeric collation |
|
||||
|
||||
- All of these are built on ICU/CLDR; they are the runtime baseline.
|
||||
Use them. A `moment.js`-style hand-rolled format string
|
||||
(`"MM/DD/YYYY"`) is a relic of the pre-`Intl` era and a P5
|
||||
violation in any locale-aware code path.
|
||||
|
||||
## Dates and Times
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// Correct — Intl, locale-aware
|
||||
new Intl.DateTimeFormat("ar-EG", {
|
||||
dateStyle: "full",
|
||||
timeStyle: "short",
|
||||
}).format(new Date());
|
||||
// "الأربعاء، ٧ نوفمبر ٢٠٢٤، ٣:١٥ م"
|
||||
|
||||
// Wrong — hand-rolled, source-locale only
|
||||
const d = new Date();
|
||||
const s = (d.getMonth() + 1) + "/" + d.getDate() + "/" + d.getFullYear();
|
||||
// "11/7/2024" — meaningless in most locales
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- Time zones are not locales. A locale tells you *how to format* a
|
||||
timestamp; a time zone tells you *what instant* it refers to. Do
|
||||
not derive one from the other (`ar-EG` is not a time zone).
|
||||
Format with the user's locale; render in the user's time zone;
|
||||
store in UTC.
|
||||
|
||||
## Numbers, Currencies, Units
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
new Intl.NumberFormat("de-DE", { style: "currency", currency: "EUR" })
|
||||
.format(1234.56); // "1.234,56 €"
|
||||
|
||||
new Intl.NumberFormat("ar-EG", { style: "currency", currency: "EGP" })
|
||||
.format(1234.56); // "١٬٢٣٤٫٥٦ ج.م."
|
||||
|
||||
new Intl.NumberFormat("en-US", { style: "unit", unit: "kilometer-per-hour" })
|
||||
.format(100); // "100 km/h"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- The currency code (`EUR`, `EGP`, `USD`) is ISO 4217; the locale
|
||||
determines the symbol, grouping, and placement. A hand-rolled
|
||||
`"$" + amount` is wrong for `de-DE` (symbol, grouping, placement
|
||||
all differ).
|
||||
|
||||
## Plural Rules (P4 Plural/Gender Parameterized)
|
||||
|
||||
- `Intl.PluralRules` returns the CLDR plural category for a count in
|
||||
a given locale. ICU MessageFormat uses this category to select the
|
||||
variant from the resource (`locale-resources.md`).
|
||||
- Never branch on the raw count in code. The count goes to the
|
||||
formatter; the formatter consults `PluralRules` for the locale;
|
||||
the resource carries the variant for that category.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// ICU MessageFormat (FormatJS)
|
||||
new Intl.MessageFormat(
|
||||
"{count, plural, one {# item} other {# items}}",
|
||||
"en-US"
|
||||
).format({ count: 1 }); // "1 item"
|
||||
|
||||
// ar-EG — six categories; the code is identical, only the
|
||||
// resource differs.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Gender and Select
|
||||
|
||||
- ICU MessageFormat also supports `{gender, select, male {...} female {...} other {...}}`
|
||||
for gendered agreement and `{case, select, ...}` for general
|
||||
disjunction. These live in the resource, not in code branches.
|
||||
- A `switch (gender)` in code that picks a string is the same
|
||||
violation as `if (n == 1)`: it encodes one locale's grammar in
|
||||
code and breaks for every locale with different agreement rules.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Formatting Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| `getMonth() + 1 + "/" + getDay()` hand-rolled date | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
|
||||
| `"$" + amount` hand-rolled currency | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
|
||||
| `if (n === 1) "item" else "items"` plural branch | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
|
||||
| `moment("MM/DD/YYYY")` format string in locale-aware code | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
|
||||
| Deriving time zone from locale tag | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
|
||||
| A non-BCP-47 tag passed to `Intl` (silently falls back) | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
|
||||
| `switch (gender)` selecting strings in code | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
|
||||
| Storing timestamps in local time, not UTC | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/api/error-responses.md` — API error messages are
|
||||
formatted for the requesting locale; the error code is stable, the
|
||||
message is locale-formatted.
|
||||
- `domains/data/schema-design.md` — locale identifiers, currency
|
||||
codes, and time zones are data contracts; treat them as schema
|
||||
(`en-US`, `EUR`, `UTC`), not free text.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — the resource layer carries
|
||||
the parameterized messages this formatter resolves.
|
||||
- `domains/testing/fixtures.md` — formatted output per locale is the
|
||||
fixture; snapshot tests assert against it.
|
||||
@@ -1,138 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Locale Resources — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P1 (Source
|
||||
> Language is a Locale), P2 (Locale Identifiers Standardized), P3
|
||||
> (Resources External, Not Inline), P4 (Plural/Gender Parameterized),
|
||||
> and P10 (Translation Reversible and Versioned). Referenced by
|
||||
> `formatting.md` (strings the formatter resolves) and
|
||||
> `rtl-bidi.md` (the `dir` the resource layer carries).
|
||||
|
||||
## Resources are the Boundary (P3 Resources are External, Not Inline)
|
||||
|
||||
- User-facing strings live in locale resource files, addressed by
|
||||
key. Code references a key; the resource layer resolves the key to
|
||||
the active locale. The source language is itself a locale
|
||||
(`en-US`), not a fallback baked into code.
|
||||
- String concatenation in code (`"Welcome, " + name + "!"`) is the
|
||||
cardinal violation: it bakes in source-language word order and
|
||||
breaks for every locale with different grammar. Replace every
|
||||
concatenation with a parameterized message:
|
||||
`t("welcome", { name })`.
|
||||
- The resource is the single place a string lives. Editing a string
|
||||
in code instead of the resource is a locality violation (C4): the
|
||||
string and its locale consequences now live apart.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resource File Formats
|
||||
|
||||
| Format | Shape | When | Notes |
|
||||
|--------|-------|------|-------|
|
||||
| `.po` / `.pot` | gettext; msgid → msgstr, plural headers | Server-side, GNU ecosystem, PHP/Python/C | Mature tooling (`xgettext`, `msgmerge`); supports plural categories via header |
|
||||
| JSON (flat or namespaced) | `{ "key": "value" }` per locale | JS/web, i18next, FormatJS | Simple, machine-readable, but no native plural support — wrap with ICU MessageFormat |
|
||||
| Fluent `.ftl` | Mozilla FTL; asymmetric, resolver-driven | Browser-grade l10n, asymmetric translations | One message can resolve differently per locale without code changes; supports attributes, selectors |
|
||||
| ICU Resource Bundle | ICU binary/text resources | ICU-native, JVM, C++ | Tightest integration with ICU formatting/CLDR; steeper tooling |
|
||||
|
||||
- None is advocated over the others. The choice is ecosystem fit,
|
||||
not correctness. All four satisfy P3/P4 when used as the boundary.
|
||||
- A custom format (a hand-rolled `.csv` of strings) is a violation:
|
||||
it is unsupported by standard tooling, has no plural grammar, and
|
||||
cannot compose with `formatting.md`'s ICU layer.
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Naming and Namespaces (P2 Locale Identifiers Standardized)
|
||||
|
||||
- Locale identifiers are BCP 47 tags (`en-US`, `ar-EG`, `zh-Hans-CN`).
|
||||
No ad-hoc codes. The resource file is named for its locale:
|
||||
`en-US.json`, `ar-EG.po`, `ftl/ar-EG/main.ftl`.
|
||||
- Message keys are stable, semantic, and structured — not prose.
|
||||
`checkout.cart.item_count` not `"You have 3 items in your cart"`.
|
||||
A key that is the source string (`t("You have items")`) breaks the
|
||||
moment the source copy is edited; the key must outlive the copy.
|
||||
- Namespaces segment by surface (`checkout.*`, `errors.*`, `onboarding.*`)
|
||||
so that a locale can be loaded incrementally and so that key
|
||||
collisions across surfaces are impossible. A flat namespace with
|
||||
thousands of keys is a C2 (Clarity) violation waiting to happen.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fallback Chains
|
||||
|
||||
- The fallback chain is explicit: requested locale → language-only
|
||||
(`en` from `en-GB`) → default locale → key itself (last resort).
|
||||
The default locale is declared once, not re-derived in every call
|
||||
site.
|
||||
- A missing key in the requested locale falling back silently to the
|
||||
source locale is a P3 violation: the user is silently shown the
|
||||
developer's locale, which is not the locale they asked for. Missing
|
||||
keys must be observable (see `testing-i18n.md`).
|
||||
- Fallback is a property of the resource layer, not of individual
|
||||
components. A component that re-implements fallback is duplicating
|
||||
a contract (C6 Composability violation).
|
||||
|
||||
## Plural and Gender in Resources (P4 Plural/Gender Parameterized)
|
||||
|
||||
- Plural variants live in the resource, selected by the formatter,
|
||||
parameterized by the count. The code passes the count; the resource
|
||||
carries the variants; the formatter picks the right one per the
|
||||
locale's CLDR plural rules.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// JSON + ICU MessageFormat (FormatJS / i18next)
|
||||
{
|
||||
"cart.item_count": "{count, plural, one {# item} other {# items}}"
|
||||
}
|
||||
// ar-EG.json — six plural categories per CLDR
|
||||
{
|
||||
"cart.item_count": "{count, plural, zero {لا عناصر} one {عنصر واحد} two {عنصران} few {# عناصر} many {# عنصرًا} other {# عنصر}}"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- `if (n == 1)` branching in code is a violation regardless of
|
||||
language. Arabic has six plural categories; Russian has three;
|
||||
English has two. A two-branch `if` encodes exactly one locale's
|
||||
rules and is wrong for every other.
|
||||
|
||||
## Extraction Tooling (P1, P3)
|
||||
|
||||
- Strings are extracted mechanically (e.g. `xgettext`, `i18next-
|
||||
parser`, FormatJS babel plugin), not by hand-tagging. Mechanical
|
||||
extraction produces a `.pot` template that translators work from;
|
||||
the template is regenerated on every build.
|
||||
- A string that cannot be extracted (built at runtime from
|
||||
fragments) is a P3 violation: it is invisible to the pipeline. If
|
||||
the extractor cannot see it, neither can the translator.
|
||||
- The extracted template is versioned (`P10`): the diff between
|
||||
templates is the change in translatable surface. A template that
|
||||
is not committed is a contract that is not reviewable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Versioning and Rollback (P10 Translation Reversible and Versioned)
|
||||
|
||||
- Resource files are committed to git alongside code. A bad
|
||||
translation is a `git revert` of the resource, not a hot-patch over
|
||||
the translator's work. Every locale resource has history,
|
||||
provenance (which translator / which service produced which
|
||||
commit), and a rollback path.
|
||||
- A locale resource that is generated by a translation service and
|
||||
committed without review is a P10 violation: the resource is
|
||||
versioned but the provenance is opaque. Review the diff the same
|
||||
way you review a code diff.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Locale-Resource Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| `t("You have " + n + " items")` concatenation | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| A custom `.csv` string store instead of a standard format | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| Locale file named `english.json` not `en-US.json` | P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized |
|
||||
| `if (n == 1) { t("item") } else { t("items") }` in code | P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized |
|
||||
| A key equal to the source string (`t("Welcome back")`) | P2 / P10 — keys must outlive copy |
|
||||
| Silent fallback to the source locale with no signal | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| A runtime-built string the extractor cannot see | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| Resource files committed by a bot with no human review | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/copywriting.md` — copy lives in resources; UI
|
||||
microcopy is the source content the resource layer carries.
|
||||
- `domains/api/error-responses.md` — API error messages are locale-
|
||||
resource keys resolved at the boundary, not inline strings.
|
||||
- `domains/data/schema-design.md` — locale identifiers and resource
|
||||
shapes are a data contract; treat them as schema.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/formatting.md` — the formatter resolves the
|
||||
parameterized message this layer produces.
|
||||
@@ -1,117 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# RTL and Bidi — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P6 (Text
|
||||
> Direction is a Layout Primitive) and P7 (Layout Accommodates
|
||||
> Expansion). Referenced by `testing-i18n.md` (RTL coverage is an
|
||||
> e2e tier). Grounded in W3C i18n bidi authoring, UAX #9, and
|
||||
> `domains/uiux/accessibility.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Text Direction is a Layout Primitive (P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive)
|
||||
|
||||
- RTL and bidi are first-class layout concerns, not a CSS
|
||||
afterthought. The layout is designed for both directions from the
|
||||
first commit, not retrofitted when an RTL locale ships.
|
||||
- Logical CSS properties over physical properties, always. The
|
||||
browser resolves logical → physical from the `dir` attribute; the
|
||||
code never has to.
|
||||
|
||||
| Physical (LTR-only) | Logical (dir-aware) | Resolves to in RTL |
|
||||
|---------------------|---------------------|--------------------|
|
||||
| `margin-left` | `margin-inline-start` | `margin-right` |
|
||||
| `margin-right` | `margin-inline-end` | `margin-left` |
|
||||
| `padding-left` | `padding-inline-start` | `padding-right` |
|
||||
| `left: 0` | `inset-inline-start: 0` | `right: 0` |
|
||||
| `text-align: left` | `text-align: start` | `text-align: right` |
|
||||
| `float: left` | use flexbox/grid + `inline-start` where supported | mirrored |
|
||||
|
||||
- The `dir` attribute is set on the document root (`<html dir="rtl">`)
|
||||
and on subtrees whose direction differs from the document
|
||||
(`<span dir="ltr">` for an embedded Latin run). `dir` is the
|
||||
contract the bidi algorithm (UAX #9) reads; do not fake direction
|
||||
with `text-align` alone.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Bidi Algorithm (UAX #9)
|
||||
|
||||
- The Unicode bidi algorithm resolves inline reordering of mixed-
|
||||
direction runs. The browser applies it; the author's job is to
|
||||
mark direction correctly, not to reorder by hand.
|
||||
- A string like `"The price is 15 USD"` in an RTL context renders
|
||||
with the Latin run `"15 USD"` in LTR within the RTL line — the
|
||||
algorithm handles it *if* the container's `dir` is set. Without
|
||||
`dir`, numbers and Latin fragments drift to the wrong edge.
|
||||
- `dir="auto"` on a container infers direction from the first strong
|
||||
directional character of its content — useful for user-generated
|
||||
content whose direction is unknown. `dir="auto"` is not a
|
||||
replacement for `dir="rtl"` on a known-RTL document.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mirroring (Icons, Controls, Diagrams)
|
||||
|
||||
- Direction-aware icons mirror in RTL: a "back" arrow pointing left
|
||||
in LTR points right in RTL. A "refresh" circular arrow does not
|
||||
mirror. The rule: icons that imply direction mirror; icons that
|
||||
imply time or rotation do not.
|
||||
- Use `[dir="rtl"]` selectors or logical icon variants — never
|
||||
`transform: scaleX(-1)` as a one-off hack scattered across
|
||||
components. Centralize the mirroring rule (a token, a component
|
||||
prop) so it is auditable.
|
||||
- Numbers do not mirror. `"15 USD"` in an RTL line is still
|
||||
`"15 USD"` left-to-right inside the bidi run; mirroring it to
|
||||
`"DSU 51"` is a correctness violation.
|
||||
- Diagrams and flowcharts: a left-to-right process flow in LTR is a
|
||||
right-to-left flow in RTL. Decide per diagram whether the flow
|
||||
mirrors (most do) or is direction-neutral (some scientific
|
||||
schematics).
|
||||
|
||||
## Layout Accommodates Expansion (P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion)
|
||||
|
||||
- Translated text expands. German is ~30% longer than English;
|
||||
Japanese is often shorter but taller; RTL mirroring shifts every
|
||||
visual anchor. Layouts are flexible:
|
||||
- No fixed pixel widths on translatable text containers.
|
||||
- No `white-space: nowrap` on translatable strings.
|
||||
- No `text-overflow: ellipsis` without a `title` carrying the full
|
||||
string.
|
||||
- Buttons sized to fit their longest locale variant, not the
|
||||
source.
|
||||
- A layout that breaks at +30% width is a layout that is wrong for
|
||||
most of the world's locales. Designing for the worst case up front
|
||||
is cheaper than reworking every screen when the first long-form
|
||||
locale ships.
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Pitfalls
|
||||
|
||||
| Pitfall | Why it breaks | Fix |
|
||||
|---------|---------------|-----|
|
||||
| `margin-left` everywhere | In RTL the start is the right; `margin-left` leaves the right side unstyled | `margin-inline-start` |
|
||||
| `text-align: left` for "default" alignment | In RTL the default is right; `left` pins content to the wrong edge | `text-align: start` |
|
||||
| Icons hardcoded to LTR orientation | "Back" arrow points the wrong way in RTL | Mirror direction-implying icons via `[dir="rtl"]` |
|
||||
| Numbers mirrored with the layout | Numbers are LTR inside RTL; mirroring produces garbage | Leave number runs LTR; the bidi algorithm handles embedding |
|
||||
| Fixed `width: 120px` on a button | German button label overflows and truncates | `min-width` + `max-width` + flex; let content size |
|
||||
| `position: absolute; left: 0` | Pins to the physical left in both directions | `inset-inline-start: 0` |
|
||||
| Fake direction with `text-align` only | The bidi algorithm reads `dir`, not `text-align`; mixed runs reorder wrong | Set `dir` on the container |
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates RTL/Bidi Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| A layout with no `dir` attribute, assuming LTR | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| `margin-left` / `left: 0` / `text-align: left` throughout | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| A "back" arrow that points left in the RTL build | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| Numbers mirrored to read right-to-left | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| `width: 100px` on a text container that overflows in German | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion |
|
||||
| `white-space: nowrap` on a translated label | P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion |
|
||||
| `dir` faked with `text-align` and no `dir` attribute | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| No RTL build until the first RTL locale ships | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/accessibility.md` — RTL support is an accessibility
|
||||
concern for non-Latin-script users; WCAG 2.1 AA requires that
|
||||
direction be set correctly.
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/components.md` — components are built with logical
|
||||
properties so they survive direction and expansion without per-
|
||||
locale overrides.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/testing-i18n.md` — RTL coverage is an e2e-tier
|
||||
test; pseudo-locale mirroring surfaces direction bugs early.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — the `dir` is part of the
|
||||
locale's metadata, carried alongside the resource bundle.
|
||||
@@ -1,142 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Testing i18n — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/i18n/first-principles.md`. Covers P8
|
||||
> (Pseudo-Locales Test Early) and the testing-discipline angle on
|
||||
> P3 (Resources External), P5 (Formatting Locale-Aware), P6 (Text
|
||||
> Direction), and P10 (Translation Versioned). Referenced by
|
||||
> `locale-resources.md` (missing-key detection) and `rtl-bidi.md`
|
||||
> (RTL coverage tier).
|
||||
|
||||
## Pseudo-Locales Test Early (P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early)
|
||||
|
||||
- A pseudo-locale is a synthetic locale that transforms the source
|
||||
strings to surface i18n defects before real translations arrive.
|
||||
Three transforms cover the three defect classes:
|
||||
|
||||
| Pseudo-locale | Transform | Surfaces |
|
||||
|---------------|-----------|----------|
|
||||
| `en-XA` (accented) | `Wêlcômê tô thê çhêckôût` | Strings not extracted (raw source appears), encoding bugs |
|
||||
| `en-XB` (lengthened / "long") | `Wᴇʟᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋᴏᴜᴛ──────` (~30% longer, bracketed) | Layout overflow, fixed widths, truncation |
|
||||
| `en-XC` (RTL-mirrored) | Source rendered with `dir="rtl"` and a Latin-in-RTL run | LTR-only layout assumptions, physical CSS properties |
|
||||
|
||||
- Pseudo-locale tests are cheap: they run against source strings, no
|
||||
translator involved, no string freeze required. A failing pseudo-
|
||||
locale run is a bug found at the cheapest possible point in the
|
||||
pipeline. Finding the same bug after real translation is a C5
|
||||
(Reversibility) violation: the fix now costs a re-translation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pseudo-Locale → Testing Pyramid Mapping (IDEATE-28)
|
||||
|
||||
- The testing pyramid (`domains/testing/pyramid.md`) has three tiers;
|
||||
i18n tests map to each tier with a distinct signal. The mapping is
|
||||
deliberate: each tier catches a different class of defect, and
|
||||
skipping a tier leaves a blind spot.
|
||||
|
||||
| Pyramid Tier | i18n Test | Defect Caught | Tooling Shape |
|
||||
|--------------|-----------|---------------|---------------|
|
||||
| **Unit** | Missing-key detection | A key referenced in code but absent from the resource bundle; a key present in the source locale but missing from a target locale | Static scan over the resource bundle + code AST; runs per file, no runtime |
|
||||
| **Integration** | Snapshot per locale | Formatted output for a fixture input differs across locales in a way that breaks the contract (wrong plural, wrong date, overflow) | Render a known fixture through the formatter per locale; snapshot-diff against the recorded baseline |
|
||||
| **e2e** | RTL coverage | The app renders and is navigable in `dir="rtl"`; no layout overflow, no off-screen controls, no LTR-pinned anchors | Browser-driven run against the `en-XC` pseudo-locale (or a real RTL locale); assert on layout, not just text |
|
||||
|
||||
- Unit is the broad base (fast, runs on every commit), e2e is the
|
||||
narrow top (slow, runs on PR merge). Integration sits between.
|
||||
This mirrors `domains/testing/pyramid.md` exactly — i18n is not a
|
||||
special case; it is a domain that uses the same tiers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Unit Tier — Missing-Key Detection (P3 Resources External)
|
||||
|
||||
- A static scan compares the set of keys referenced in code against
|
||||
the keys present in each locale bundle. A key in code but not in
|
||||
`en-US` is a P3 violation (the string is not in the resource
|
||||
layer). A key in `en-US` but not in `ar-EG` is a coverage gap —
|
||||
the missing-key scan flags it before the locale ships.
|
||||
- Missing keys fail the build, not the runtime. A missing key that
|
||||
surfaces only when a user switches locale is a defect found in
|
||||
production, which is the most expensive place to find it.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// tool output (illustrative)
|
||||
// missing-key scan
|
||||
[FAIL] ar-EG: key "checkout.cart.item_count" referenced in code,
|
||||
absent from ar-EG.json
|
||||
[FAIL] en-US: key "checkout.cart.total" referenced in Checkout.tsx:42,
|
||||
absent from en-US.json (not extracted)
|
||||
[PASS] en-US, ar-EG, de-DE, zh-Hans-CN: all other keys present
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration Tier — Snapshot per Locale (P5 Formatting Locale-Aware)
|
||||
|
||||
- For a fixed fixture input, render the formatted output per locale
|
||||
and snapshot it. A change in the snapshot is either an intended
|
||||
change (new CLDR data, new copy) or a regression.
|
||||
- The snapshot is per locale, not per format string. The same
|
||||
fixture (`{ count: 1, currency: "EUR", date: 2024-11-07 }`)
|
||||
produces different snapshots for `en-US`, `de-DE`, `ar-EG` — and
|
||||
that difference is the assertion. A locale whose snapshot matches
|
||||
the source locale's is a red flag: the formatter is not actually
|
||||
locale-aware.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
// snapshot — checkout.cart (fixture: count=1, currency=EUR, date=2024-11-07)
|
||||
// en-US
|
||||
"1 item · €1,234.56 · 11/7/2024"
|
||||
// de-DE
|
||||
"1 Artikel · 1.234,56 € · 07.11.2024"
|
||||
// ar-EG
|
||||
"عنصر واحد · ١٬٢٣٤٫٥٦ € · ٧/١١/٢٠٢٤"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- Snapshots are reviewed, not rubber-stamped. A snapshot diff that
|
||||
changes the plural form for `ar-EG` is either a CLDR update (verify)
|
||||
or a regression (revert).
|
||||
|
||||
## e2e Tier — RTL Coverage (P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive)
|
||||
|
||||
- A browser-driven run against `en-XC` (or a real RTL locale like
|
||||
`ar-EG`) asserts that the app is navigable in RTL: no overflow, no
|
||||
off-screen controls, no LTR-pinned anchors. The assertion is on
|
||||
layout, not on text — text correctness is the integration tier's
|
||||
job.
|
||||
- RTL e2e is the narrow top of the i18n pyramid: it is slow, it
|
||||
requires a browser, and it catches the defects the lower tiers
|
||||
cannot (the interaction of `dir` with the real layout engine). It
|
||||
runs on PR merge, not on every commit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Snapshot Discipline (P10 Translation Reversible and Versioned)
|
||||
|
||||
- Snapshots are versioned in git. A snapshot that changes because of
|
||||
a real translation update is a committed diff, reviewed like a
|
||||
code change. A snapshot that changes because of a regression is a
|
||||
`git revert`.
|
||||
- A snapshot that is regenerated and committed without review is a
|
||||
P10 violation: the snapshot is versioned but the provenance is
|
||||
opaque. The same discipline applies to snapshots as to resources
|
||||
(`locale-resources.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates i18n Testing Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| First i18n test runs against real translations, not pseudo-locales | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early |
|
||||
| No missing-key scan — gaps surface only at runtime in production | P3 Resources are External, Not Inline |
|
||||
| Snapshot per locale that matches the source locale's snapshot | P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware |
|
||||
| No RTL e2e — "we'll test RTL when we ship an RTL locale" | P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive |
|
||||
| Snapshots regenerated and committed without review | P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned |
|
||||
| i18n tests only at e2e (no unit/integration tier) | pyramid inversion — `domains/testing/pyramid.md` |
|
||||
| Pseudo-locale run skipped because "it's not a real locale" | P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early |
|
||||
|
||||
## Relationship to Other Domains
|
||||
|
||||
- `domains/testing/pyramid.md` — the pseudo-locale → pyramid mapping
|
||||
mirrors this domain's unit / integration / e2e tiers exactly.
|
||||
- `domains/testing/fixtures.md` — locale fixtures (a fixed input
|
||||
rendered per locale) are the fixture shape for the integration
|
||||
tier.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — missing-key detection is the
|
||||
unit-tier scan over the resource bundle this doc defines.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/formatting.md` — the integration-tier snapshot
|
||||
asserts against the formatter's output.
|
||||
- `domains/i18n/rtl-bidi.md` — the e2e tier exercises the layout
|
||||
rules this doc establishes.
|
||||
- `domains/uiux/accessibility.md` — RTL coverage is an a11y
|
||||
concern; an untested RTL build is an untested a11y surface.
|
||||
@@ -1,55 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Infrastructure as Code — First Principles
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. The Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### P1. Declarative Intent
|
||||
Describe the desired state, not the steps to reach it. The tool
|
||||
reconciles current → desired. Imperative scripts describe how;
|
||||
declarative config describes what.
|
||||
|
||||
### P2. Idempotence
|
||||
Applying the same configuration twice yields the same result. A
|
||||
second `apply` with no changes is a no-op, not an error. Idempotence
|
||||
is what makes `plan` trustworthy.
|
||||
|
||||
### P3. State is Truth
|
||||
The state file is the authoritative record of what the tool believes
|
||||
exists. Drift between state and reality is a bug to be reconciled,
|
||||
not tolerated. Lose state, lose the ability to reason about
|
||||
infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
### P4. Plan Before Apply
|
||||
Preview every change before mutating real infrastructure. `plan` is
|
||||
the contract review; `apply` is the signature. No `apply` without a
|
||||
read `plan`. The plan is the rollback rehearsal.
|
||||
|
||||
### P5. Version Everything
|
||||
Configuration, state, providers, and modules are all versioned and
|
||||
reproducible. A commit pins a complete, rebuildable world. Pin
|
||||
providers; pin module sources; never `latest`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P6. Modules Compose
|
||||
Encapsulate repeatable patterns as versioned modules. Compose
|
||||
modules; do not copy them. A module is the unit of reuse, review,
|
||||
and versioning — the IaC expression of composition.
|
||||
|
||||
### P7. Least Privilege Providers
|
||||
Provider credentials are scoped to the minimum needed for the
|
||||
declared resources. No account-wide admin keys in CI. One credential
|
||||
per environment, per boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
### P8. Remote State with Locking
|
||||
State is stored remotely with locking. Local state is for a single
|
||||
developer on a throwaway sandbox. Concurrent `apply` without a lock
|
||||
is data corruption waiting to happen.
|
||||
|
||||
### P9. Drift is Recoverable
|
||||
`plan` detects drift; `apply` reconciles it. Manual mutation of
|
||||
managed infrastructure is an incident, not a shortcut. Drift is
|
||||
expected; unreconciled drift is the bug.
|
||||
|
||||
### P10. Secrets Never in Code
|
||||
Secrets come from providers, external secret stores, or environment
|
||||
variables — never hardcoded in HCL, never committed to the repo,
|
||||
never written to state in plaintext. State is a secret-bearing
|
||||
artifact; treat it accordingly.
|
||||
@@ -1,65 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Modules — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md`. P6 (Modules Compose) lives here. Referenced by `terraform.md` and `opentofu.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Modules (P6 Modules Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
- 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)
|
||||
|
||||
- The conventional layout: `main.tf` (resources), `variables.tf` (inputs), `outputs.tf` (outputs), `versions.tf` (provider/version pins). A `README.md` is required for any published module.
|
||||
- Inputs are typed and validated: `variable "name" { type = string, description = "...", validation { ... } }`. The description is the contract.
|
||||
- Outputs are the module's interface to consumers. Mark sensitive outputs `sensitive = true`. Document non-obvious outputs in the description.
|
||||
- A module does not declare a provider configuration unless it owns the provider. Most modules declare only `required_providers` (the constraint) and let the consumer configure the provider.
|
||||
|
||||
## Versioning (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
- Modules are versioned. The registry expects SemVer tags (`v1.0.0`). A consumer pins to a version or a range (`~> 1.0`).
|
||||
- A breaking change bumps the major. An additive change bumps the minor. A fix bumps the patch. No silent breaking changes within a minor.
|
||||
- Tag the module repo; the tag IS the version. Never `source = "git::...?ref=main"` in prod — unversioned modules drift.
|
||||
|
||||
## Source Patterns (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
| Source | When | Risk |
|
||||
|--------|------|------|
|
||||
| Registry (`<ns>/<name>/<provider>`) | Public, versioned, signed | Verify the publisher; pin the version |
|
||||
| Git (`git::https://...?ref=v1.0.0`) | Private modules across repos | Pin to a tag, not a branch |
|
||||
| Local (`./modules/networking`) | Monorepo, single repo | Re-reviewed on every change; no independent version |
|
||||
| Inline (no module) | Trivial one-off | Becomes a copy-paste anti-pattern at scale |
|
||||
|
||||
- Local modules in a monorepo are fine — they trade independent versioning for co-evolution. The boundary is the review unit: if the module and the consumer always change together, local is correct.
|
||||
- Cross-repo modules must be versioned via git tags; unversioned cross-repo modules are the worst case (drift without a version to pin).
|
||||
|
||||
## The Module-vs-Copy Boundary (P6 Modules Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
- If a block is used more than once, it is a module. If it is used once and will never be reused, inline is acceptable.
|
||||
- If two copies differ in one attribute, that is a module with a variable, not two copies. The variable is the difference; the shared body is the module.
|
||||
- If you find yourself copy-pasting a block and editing it, stop. The edit is a variable. The copy is a module call.
|
||||
- A module that has grown to do many jobs should be split. A module with 20 variables is two modules.
|
||||
|
||||
## Composition (P6 Modules Compose, C6 Composability)
|
||||
|
||||
- Compose by calling modules from a root configuration: `module "vpc" { source = "...", version = "..." }`. The root is the assembly; the modules are the parts.
|
||||
- Outputs of one module feed inputs of another: `module "app" { vpc_id = module.vpc.vpc_id }`. This is the composition edge.
|
||||
- Avoid hidden coupling: a module should not reach into another module's state. If two modules must share state, promote the shared concern to the root or a parent module.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reviewing Modules (P4 Plan Before Apply)
|
||||
|
||||
- A module is reviewed once, at its version. Consumers trust the version pin. A module change requires a new version and a review of the diff.
|
||||
- When a module changes, every consumer that bumps the version gets the change. Treat a module version bump as a real change: review the module diff, run the consumer's `plan`.
|
||||
- A module with a breaking change must not auto-bump in consumers. Pin consumers to the old major until they explicitly migrate.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Module Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Copy-pasted block with a one-line difference | P6 Modules Compose |
|
||||
| `source = "git::...?ref=main"` in prod | P5 Version Everything |
|
||||
| Module with 20 variables | P6 Modules Compose (split it) |
|
||||
| Silent breaking change within a minor | P5 Version Everything |
|
||||
| Module reaching into another module's state | C6 Composability, P1 Declarative Intent |
|
||||
| Unpublished module with no README | C2 Clarity |
|
||||
@@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# OpenTofu — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md`. OpenTofu is the open-source fork of Terraform; this doc covers fork-specific governance, license, and migration. The shared HCL/state/module model is documented in `terraform.md`. See also `state.md` and `modules.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fork Lineage (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenTofu is a 2023 fork of Terraform, created when HashiCorp switched Terraform from MPL-2.0 to the Business Source License (BUSL), which is not open source.
|
||||
- OpenTofu is stewarded by the Linux Foundation under a genuinely open-source license. The fork's reason for existing is license neutrality.
|
||||
- Both tools implement the same HCL configuration language, the same provider protocol, and the same state model. Configuration written for one runs on the other at the fork point; divergence accrues slowly over time.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Choose OpenTofu (P7 Least Privilege Providers, supply-chain)
|
||||
|
||||
- **License neutrality matters:** if your organization cannot accept BUSL's "competitive use" ambiguity, OpenTofu removes it.
|
||||
- **Supply-chain provenance:** Linux Foundation stewardship means no single vendor can relicense the tool out from under you.
|
||||
- **Community governance:** features and fixes are accepted on merit, not vendor strategy.
|
||||
- **When NOT to switch:** if you depend on HCP Terraform (HashiCorp's managed platform), BUSL-licensed providers, or provider features that have diverged since the fork, stay on Terraform. The decision is supply-chain, not syntax.
|
||||
|
||||
## CLI Parity (P1 Declarative Intent)
|
||||
|
||||
- `tofu init`, `tofu plan`, `tofu apply`, `tofu destroy` mirror `terraform init/plan/apply/destroy`.
|
||||
- The lock file (`.terraform.lock.hcl` → `.tofu.lock.hcl`) is committed; it makes `init` reproducible.
|
||||
- Workspaces, state backends, and module sources behave as in Terraform — see `terraform.md` and `state.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Registry Parity (P6 Modules Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenTofu can consume the Terraform Registry and the OpenTofu Registry. Module version pinning works identically.
|
||||
- Some providers have BUSL licenses that OpenTofu cannot ship; verify a provider's license before adopting it. An MPL or Apache provider is portable; a BUSL provider is not.
|
||||
- See `modules.md` for module structure, which is unchanged from Terraform.
|
||||
|
||||
## Migration from Terraform (P5 Version Everything, P9 Drift is Recoverable)
|
||||
|
||||
- `terraform state pull > state.json` → `tofu state push state.json` carries state across. Validate with `tofu plan` after the push — the plan should be empty.
|
||||
- Rename the binary in CI: replace `terraform` with `tofu` in scripts. The lock file may need regeneration.
|
||||
- Migrate one workspace at a time. Do not big-bang a migration; rehearse on a non-prod workspace first (P4 Plan Before Apply applies to the migration itself).
|
||||
- Pin the OpenTofu version in CI. A migration is a versioned, reviewed change, not a quiet swap.
|
||||
|
||||
## Governance and Community (cross-link `domains/security/supply-chain.md`)
|
||||
|
||||
- OpenTofu's governance model — impartial, community-driven, layered, modular, backwards-compatible — is itself a supply-chain principle. A tool you cannot trust to remain open is a tool you cannot build on.
|
||||
- This is the OpenTofu angle on `security/supply-chain.md`: license is a supply-chain property, not a legal footnote.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates OpenTofu Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Assuming OpenTofu == latest Terraform (unverified parity) | P5 Version Everything |
|
||||
| Migrating prod state without a non-prod rehearsal | P4 Plan Before Apply |
|
||||
| Adopting a BUSL-licensed provider into OpenTofu CI | P7 Least Privilege Providers, supply-chain |
|
||||
| Quiet swap of `terraform` for `tofu` without a versioned change | P5 Version Everything |
|
||||
| Losing state during migration | P3 State is Truth |
|
||||
@@ -1,77 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# State — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md`. State is the cross-cutting IaC concern: P3 (State is Truth) and P8 (Remote State with Locking) live here. Referenced by `terraform.md` and `opentofu.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why State Matters (P3 State is Truth)
|
||||
|
||||
- The state file is the tool's memory. It records every resource it has claimed, every attribute it has set, and every dependency it has inferred.
|
||||
- Without state, `plan` cannot compute a diff — it would have nothing to diff against. Lose state, lose the ability to reason about infrastructure safely.
|
||||
- State can contain plaintext secrets (any sensitive resource attribute). Treat state as a secret-bearing artifact: encrypt at rest, restrict access, never commit it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Remote State is Mandatory (P8 Remote State with Locking)
|
||||
|
||||
- Local state (`terraform.tfstate` on disk) is acceptable only for a single developer on a throwaway sandbox. Any shared or production environment uses a remote backend.
|
||||
- A remote backend provides: durability (state survives workstation loss), shared access (team members and CI read the same state), and locking (concurrent `apply` is serialized).
|
||||
- No locking = data corruption. Two `apply` runs against the same unlocked state race; the loser's changes are silently overwritten.
|
||||
|
||||
## Backend Comparison (P8, C4 Locality)
|
||||
|
||||
| Backend | Locking | Encryption | Best for | Notes |
|
||||
|---------|---------|------------|----------|-------|
|
||||
| S3 + DynamoDB | DynamoDB | SSE-KMS | AWS-hosted | The canonical AWS backend; DynamoDB provides the lock |
|
||||
| GCS | Built-in | CMEK | GCP-hosted | Native locking via GCS object versioning |
|
||||
| Azure Blob | Lease | Customer key | Azure-hosted | Lease-based locking |
|
||||
| HTTP (remote) | Server-side | Server-side | Self-hosted / on-prem | Requires a backend server (e.g., `terraform-backend`) |
|
||||
| Local | None | None | Single-dev sandbox | Never for shared or prod |
|
||||
| Consul | KV lock | — | Consul shops | Locking via Consul sessions |
|
||||
| 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 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)
|
||||
|
||||
- One state per environment. Never share a single state file across dev, staging, and prod. A `plan` against a shared state crosses environment boundaries — a prod change could appear in a dev plan.
|
||||
- Isolation patterns: separate workspaces, separate state keys in the same backend, or separate backends entirely. Stricter isolation = safer (separate backends for prod vs non-prod).
|
||||
- Name state keys by environment and stack: `env:/prod/Networking`, not `prod` or `state`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Locking Discipline (P8 Remote State with Locking)
|
||||
|
||||
- `terraform force-unlock` is for a stuck lock after a crashed run, not for impatience. Verify the run is actually dead before forcing.
|
||||
- A forced unlock without verifying the other run is dead causes the corruption the lock prevents.
|
||||
- In CI, set a lock timeout so a wedged job fails rather than hanging.
|
||||
|
||||
## Sensitive Values in State (P10 Secrets Never in Code)
|
||||
|
||||
- Any `sensitive = true` attribute is hidden from plan output but stored in state in plaintext (unless the provider encrypts it).
|
||||
- Backends with at-rest encryption (S3 SSE-KMS, GCS CMEK) protect state at rest. Access to the state file itself is the boundary.
|
||||
- Never log, print, or commit state. Never pipe `terraform show` to a public channel.
|
||||
|
||||
## State Commands (P3 State is Truth)
|
||||
|
||||
- `terraform state list` — enumerate resources in state. First step of any state investigation.
|
||||
- `terraform state show <addr>` — inspect one resource's recorded attributes.
|
||||
- `terraform state mv` — rename a resource's address without destroying and recreating it. Use when refactoring module structure.
|
||||
- `terraform state rm` — stop managing a resource without destroying it. Use when handing a resource to another configuration.
|
||||
- `terraform state pull` / `push` — export and import state. Used in migrations (see `opentofu.md`).
|
||||
- `terraform import` — bring an existing resource under management by recording its state. The resource must already exist; `import` does not create.
|
||||
- All `state` subcommands except `list` and `show` mutate state. Treat them as changes: review the intent, run in CI where possible, and commit the resulting config change that justifies the state move.
|
||||
|
||||
## Drift and Reconciliation (P9 Drift is Recoverable)
|
||||
|
||||
- `terraform plan` reports drift: resources that exist in state but were changed out-of-band, or resources in state that no longer exist in the provider.
|
||||
- `terraform apply` reconciles drift by bringing reality back to the declared state.
|
||||
- Manual changes to managed resources are the cause of drift. Treat a drift report as an incident: find who made the manual change and why, then close the access path or the gap that allowed it.
|
||||
- `terraform plan -refresh=false` skips drift detection. Use only when you know state is current and you want a fast plan; never use it to hide drift.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates State Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Committed `terraform.tfstate` | P3 State is Truth, P10 Secrets |
|
||||
| Local state in prod | P8 Remote State with Locking |
|
||||
| `force-unlock` without verifying the dead run | P8 Remote State with Locking |
|
||||
| Shared state across environments | P4 Plan Before Apply, C4 Locality |
|
||||
| Unnamed state keys (`env:/prod`) | C4 Locality |
|
||||
| Manual change to a managed resource | P9 Drift is Recoverable |
|
||||
| `state rm` to "fix" a stuck resource | P3 State is Truth |
|
||||
@@ -1,58 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Terraform — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md`. Applies P1–P10 to Terraform specifically. See also `opentofu.md` (the open-source fork), `state.md`, and `modules.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## HCL Structure (P1 Declarative Intent)
|
||||
|
||||
- Resources are declared, not scripted. A resource block states what should exist; Terraform reconciles it.
|
||||
- `resource "aws_s3_bucket" "logs" { ... }` — the type and name are the identity; the body is the desired state.
|
||||
- Data sources read existing state without claiming ownership: `data "aws_caller_identity" "current" {}`.
|
||||
- Variables are the input contract; outputs are the interface to consumers. Both are typed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Providers (P5 Version Everything, P7 Least Privilege)
|
||||
|
||||
- Pin the provider version: `required_providers { aws = { source = "hashicorp/aws", version = "~> 5.0" } }`.
|
||||
- A provider block configures credentials and region. Credentials come from environment, files, or a secrets manager — never inline.
|
||||
- One credential set per environment. Do not reuse a prod credential in a dev workspace.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Core Workflow (P4 Plan Before Apply)
|
||||
|
||||
- `terraform init` — resolve providers and modules. Reproducible from the lock file (`.terraform.lock.hcl`), which is committed.
|
||||
- `terraform plan` — preview the diff. Read it. Every line. The plan is the contract review.
|
||||
- `terraform apply` — execute the plan. Requires a reviewed plan in CI; in interactive use, requires typing `yes`.
|
||||
- `terraform destroy` — tear down. Treat `destroy` as a first-class operation with its own plan review; prod destroys are a change event, not a keystroke.
|
||||
|
||||
## Workspaces (P4 Locality of Environments)
|
||||
|
||||
- Workspaces separate state for the same configuration across environments (dev, staging, prod).
|
||||
- Do not use workspaces to separate unrelated stacks — use separate configurations. A workspace is an environment axis, not a project axis.
|
||||
- State is isolated per workspace (see `state.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## State Backends (P3 State is Truth, P8 Remote State with Locking)
|
||||
|
||||
- Remote state is mandatory for any shared or production environment. See `state.md` for backend selection and locking.
|
||||
- Never commit `terraform.tfstate` to the repo. It is a secret-bearing artifact and a source of drift.
|
||||
- `terraform state` subcommands inspect and manipulate state directly — use sparingly, only for recovery.
|
||||
|
||||
## Registry and Modules (P6 Modules Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
- The Terraform Registry hosts versioned, signed modules. Reference modules by version: `source = "terraform-aws-modules/vpc/aws"`, `version = "5.x"`.
|
||||
- Compose modules rather than copy-pasting blocks. A module is reviewed once and reused many times.
|
||||
- See `modules.md` for module structure, versioning, and the module-vs-copy boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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`). This is the IaC angle on `domains/security/secrets.md` — secret hygiene is non-tradeable.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Terraform Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Unpinned provider (`source` without `version`) | P5 Version Everything |
|
||||
| `terraform apply` without a read `plan` | P4 Plan Before Apply |
|
||||
| Local state in a shared environment | P8 Remote State with Locking |
|
||||
| Hardcoded secret in HCL | P10 Secrets Never in Code |
|
||||
| Copy-pasted resource blocks instead of a module | P6 Modules Compose |
|
||||
| Manual change to a managed resource | P9 Drift is Recoverable |
|
||||
| Admin credentials in CI | P7 Least Privilege Providers |
|
||||
@@ -1,67 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Kubernetes — First Principles
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. The Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### P1. Declarative Desired State
|
||||
You declare the desired state; controllers reconcile current →
|
||||
desired. Imperative `kubectl` is for inspection and incident
|
||||
response, not for the steady state. The cluster's job is to make
|
||||
reality match the manifest.
|
||||
|
||||
### P2. Pods are Mortal
|
||||
A pod is born, runs, and dies. Never assume its identity, its IP,
|
||||
or its lifetime. Use controllers (Deployment, StatefulSet,
|
||||
DaemonSet), not bare pods. A bare pod has no recovery, no
|
||||
scaling, no rollback.
|
||||
|
||||
### P3. Labels Select
|
||||
Labels and selectors are the join mechanism of the platform —
|
||||
workloads to services, policies to workloads, workloads to nodes.
|
||||
Label by intent (`app`, `tier`, `env`), not by infrastructure
|
||||
(`node-3`, `ip-10.0.0.5`). Selectors compose; ad-hoc naming does
|
||||
not.
|
||||
|
||||
### P4. Requests and Limits are Contracts
|
||||
Resource requests drive scheduling; limits drive quality of
|
||||
service. A workload with no requests is `BestEffort` — first
|
||||
evicted under pressure. A workload with no limits is unbounded.
|
||||
Specifying requests is not optional in production.
|
||||
|
||||
### P5. Probes Drive Health
|
||||
Liveness, readiness, and startup probes are how the platform
|
||||
sees your workload. Without a readiness probe, traffic routes to
|
||||
a pod that is not ready. Without a liveness probe, a wedged
|
||||
container runs forever. The platform cannot heal what it cannot
|
||||
see.
|
||||
|
||||
### P6. Namespaces Bound Blast Radius
|
||||
Namespaces are the unit of quota, RBAC, network policy, and
|
||||
cleanup. A namespace is the boundary of "this thing and all its
|
||||
parts." Default namespace is for nothing in production; every
|
||||
workload gets a named namespace sized to its blast radius.
|
||||
|
||||
### P7. RBAC by Intent, Not Identity
|
||||
Bind roles to service accounts by the workload's purpose, not to
|
||||
user identities. Least privilege: the role grants the minimum
|
||||
the workload needs. `cluster-admin` is a smell, not a shortcut.
|
||||
Cross-link `domains/security/authorization.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P8. Storage is Explicit
|
||||
Storage is ephemeral by default. Persistence requires a
|
||||
PVC, a StorageClass, and a reclaim policy decision. `emptyDir`
|
||||
for state that must survive is a bug. The choice of
|
||||
reclaim policy (`Retain`, `Delete`) is a data-safety decision,
|
||||
not a default.
|
||||
|
||||
### P9. Config and Secrets are Separate
|
||||
ConfigMaps are non-sensitive configuration; Secrets are
|
||||
sensitive configuration. Both are injected at runtime, never
|
||||
baked into the image. A configuration change should not require
|
||||
a rebuild; a secret rotation should not require a redeploy of the
|
||||
image. Cross-link `domains/security/secrets.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### P10. Roll Forward, Roll Back
|
||||
Every Deployment has a rolling update strategy and a rollout
|
||||
history. A deploy is reversible: `kubectl rollout undo`. A deploy
|
||||
without a tested rollback is a prototype. Canary and blue-green
|
||||
are the k8s expression of `domains/devops/P5 Progressive Delivery`.
|
||||
@@ -1,68 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Helm — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md`. Applies P1, P3, P6. For the Helm-vs-Kustomize decision, see the decision matrix at the end of this doc and in `kustomize.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Helm Is (P6 Modules Compose)
|
||||
|
||||
- Helm is a package manager for Kubernetes. A chart is a versioned package of templated manifests. `helm install` renders the templates against `values.yaml` and applies the result.
|
||||
- A chart encapsulates a reusable deployment (an application, a database, a full stack). It is the k8s analogue of an IaC module — see `domains/infrastructure-as-code/modules.md`.
|
||||
- Charts live in registries (Helm registry via OCI, or the classic chart repos) and are versioned per SemVer.
|
||||
|
||||
## Chart Structure (P1 Declarative Desired State, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
|
||||
- `Chart.yaml` — metadata (name, version, appVersion, dependencies).
|
||||
- `values.yaml` — default inputs; the chart's public interface.
|
||||
- `templates/` — Go-templated manifests. `templates/_helpers.tpl` holds reusable template partials.
|
||||
- `values.schema.json` — optional schema for values, giving type checking on inputs. Use it for published charts.
|
||||
- A chart should have one logical purpose. A chart that deploys an app and a database and an ingress and an observability stack has too many jobs — split it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Values (P5 Version Everything, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
|
||||
- `values.yaml` holds defaults. Override per release: `helm install --set key=value` or `helm install -f my-values.yaml`.
|
||||
- Pin values files in git per environment. A release is reproducible from the chart version + the values file.
|
||||
- Sensitive values do not belong in `values.yaml`. Inject via Secrets (see `rbac.md` P9 and `domains/security/secrets.md`). Some charts accept `existingSecret` to reference a pre-created Secret.
|
||||
|
||||
## Release Management (P5 Version Everything, P10 Roll Forward Roll Back)
|
||||
|
||||
- A release is a named instantiation of a chart. `helm upgrade` applies a new chart version or new values. `helm rollback` reverts to the previous release revision.
|
||||
- `helm history <release>` lists revisions; `helm rollback <release> <revision>` is the rollback. The rollback must be tested like any deploy (P10).
|
||||
- Pin the chart version: `helm install --version 1.2.3`. Never `--version latest` in production — unversioned charts drift (same anti-pattern as unpinned IaC modules).
|
||||
|
||||
## Templating Discipline (P1 Declarative Desired State, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
|
||||
- Templates render to valid manifests. The chart author's job is that the rendered output is correct k8s, not that the template is clever.
|
||||
- Keep `templates/` readable. Heavy logic belongs in `_helpers.tpl` or in a values structure that the template merely projects.
|
||||
- `helm template` renders to stdout without applying — use it to review what a release will create before installing it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Registries (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
- OCI registries are the modern chart distribution (same registry as container images, charts as OCI artifacts). Classic chart repos are legacy.
|
||||
- Pull from a pinned registry reference: `oci://registry/chart:1.2.3`. The digest + tag is the version.
|
||||
|
||||
## Helm vs Kustomize — Decision Matrix (IDEATE-10)
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | Helm | Kustomize |
|
||||
|------|------|----------|
|
||||
| Mechanism | Templating (Go templates) | Overlays (base + patches) |
|
||||
| Reuse unit | Chart (versioned package) | Base directory (kustomization.yaml) |
|
||||
| Distribution | Registry (OCI, chart repo) | Git (base dir in a repo) |
|
||||
| Values | `values.yaml` + overrides | `kustomization.yaml` + patches |
|
||||
| Release mgmt | `helm` tracks releases, history, rollback | None native — apply with `kubectl apply -k` |
|
||||
| Learning curve | Template language to learn | YAML patching, no DSL |
|
||||
| Blast radius | One chart, many resources, templated | One base, many overlays, patched |
|
||||
| Best for | Off-the-shelf apps, packaged stacks, multi-env via values | Internal apps, patching upstream manifests, env-specific deltas |
|
||||
| Watch out for | Template complexity, `latest` chart drift, secrets in values | No release tracking, manual rollback, patch sprawl |
|
||||
|
||||
- Use Helm when you distribute a reusable app or consume third-party charts. Use Kustomize when you patch existing manifests or keep env deltas in one repo.
|
||||
- Mixing both is fine and common: Helm for the packaged parts, Kustomize for the last-mile per-env patching. Do not fight the tool that fits the job.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Helm Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| `helm install --version latest` in prod | P5 Version Everything |
|
||||
| Secrets in `values.yaml` | P9 Config and Secrets are Separate, security |
|
||||
| Chart with 15 subcharts doing unrelated things | P6 Modules Compose (split it) |
|
||||
| No `values.schema.json` on a published chart | C2 Clarity |
|
||||
| `helm upgrade` without reviewing `helm template` output | P1 Declarative Desired State, P4 Plan Before Apply |
|
||||
| Untested `helm rollback` | P10 Roll Forward Roll Back |
|
||||
@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Kustomize — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md`. Applies P1, P3, P6. For the Helm-vs-Kustomize decision, see the decision matrix at the end of this doc and in `helm.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Kustomize Is (P1 Declarative Desired State)
|
||||
|
||||
- Kustomize customizes manifests without templating. A base directory holds the canonical manifests; overlays hold the deltas. The result is plain YAML applied with `kubectl apply -k`.
|
||||
- No DSL, no template language, no rendering step hidden from `kubectl`. The patch is a YAML file; the result is inspectable.
|
||||
- Kustomize is built into `kubectl` (`kubectl apply -k`, `kubectl diff -k`). No separate runtime is required to apply.
|
||||
|
||||
## Base and Overlays (P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius, C4 Locality)
|
||||
|
||||
- A `kustomization.yaml` in a base directory lists the resources (Deployment, Service, etc.) the application needs. It is the canonical manifest.
|
||||
- An overlay is a directory with its own `kustomization.yaml` that references the base (`resources: - ../../base`) and applies patches or additional resources.
|
||||
- Typical structure: `base/`, `overlays/dev/`, `overlays/staging/`, `overlays/prod/`. The overlay is the environment axis; the base is the shared truth.
|
||||
|
||||
## Patches (P1 Declarative Desired State, C2 Clarity)
|
||||
|
||||
- Strategic merge patches — a YAML document that overrides matching fields. Simple for single-resource changes.
|
||||
- JSON patches (RFC 6902) — precise operations (`add`, `replace`, `remove`) on a path. Use when a strategic merge is ambiguous (e.g., list operations).
|
||||
- `patches` field (modern) takes a list of patch files with targets, replacing the older `patchesStrategicMerge` and `patchesJson6902`. Prefer it.
|
||||
- A patch is a delta. It is reviewed as "what changes from base," which is exactly the diff a reviewer wants to see.
|
||||
|
||||
## Generators and Transformers (P3 Labels Select)
|
||||
|
||||
- `configMapGenerator` and `secretGenerator` create ConfigMaps and Secrets from files or literals, with content hashes in the names. A change to the source file changes the hash, which changes the name, which rolls the workload. This is the kustomize pattern for "config change = redeploy."
|
||||
- `namePrefix`, `nameSuffix`, and `namespace` transformers rewrite names across the base. Use for namespace isolation (P6) or to run the same base multiple times in one cluster without collisions.
|
||||
- `commonLabels` and `commonAnnotations` stamp labels onto everything in the base — the kustomize-native way to enforce the labelling discipline of P3.
|
||||
|
||||
## No Release Tracking (P10 Roll Forward Roll Back)
|
||||
|
||||
- Kustomize has no release object, no history, no built-in rollback. `kubectl apply -k` is a one-shot apply; the previous state is in git, not in a Helm-style release record.
|
||||
- Rollback is `git revert` + `kubectl apply -k`. The git history IS the release history. This is fine — and arguably cleaner — but it means rollback is a git operation, not a `helm rollback` command.
|
||||
- Use a GitOps tool (ArgoCD, Flux) on top of Kustomize for automated reconciliation and rollback tracking. The tool watches the git ref; rollback is a git revert.
|
||||
|
||||
## Helm vs Kustomize — Decision Matrix (IDEATE-10)
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | Kustomize | Helm |
|
||||
|------|----------|------|
|
||||
| Mechanism | Overlays (base + patches) | Templating (Go templates) |
|
||||
| Reuse unit | Base directory (kustomization.yaml) | Chart (versioned package) |
|
||||
| Distribution | Git (base dir in a repo) | Registry (OCI, chart repo) |
|
||||
| Values | `kustomization.yaml` + patches | `values.yaml` + overrides |
|
||||
| Release mgmt | None native — `kubectl apply -k` | `helm` tracks releases, history, rollback |
|
||||
| Learning curve | YAML patching, no DSL | Template language to learn |
|
||||
| Blast radius | One base, many overlays, patched | One chart, many resources, templated |
|
||||
| Best for | Internal apps, patching upstream manifests, env-specific deltas | Off-the-shelf apps, packaged stacks, multi-env via values |
|
||||
| Watch out for | No release tracking, manual rollback, patch sprawl | Template complexity, `latest` chart drift, secrets in values |
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Duplicated base instead of an overlay | P6 Modules Compose (use an overlay) |
|
||||
| Patch that overrides most of the base | C3 Simplicity (the base is wrong — fix the base) |
|
||||
| No `commonLabels` on a multi-team base | P3 Labels Select |
|
||||
| No git-based rollback strategy | P10 Roll Forward Roll Back |
|
||||
| Hand-edited rendered output instead of `apply -k` | P1 Declarative Desired State |
|
||||
| Patch sprawl (10 overlays each patching 15 fields) | C3 Simplicity (refactor the base) |
|
||||
@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Networking — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md`. Covers Service, Ingress, Gateway API, EndpointSlices, NetworkPolicy, and DNS. Applies P1, P3, P6.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Service (P3 Labels Select)
|
||||
|
||||
- A Service routes traffic to pods selected by a label selector. The selector is the join between the network abstraction and the workloads.
|
||||
- Service types: `ClusterIP` (in-cluster only, default), `NodePort` (exposed on every node's IP at a fixed port), `LoadBalancer` (cloud-managed LB points to the Service). Default to `ClusterIP`; expose only what must be exposed.
|
||||
- A Service fronts a Deployment (or other controller), never a bare pod. The controller keeps pods available; the Service routes to whichever are ready (per the readiness probe — see `workloads.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## EndpointSlices (P3 Labels Select, P5 Probes Drive Health)
|
||||
|
||||
- An EndpointSlice lists the pod IPs currently backing a Service. Only pods passing their readiness probe appear.
|
||||
- The Service routes by EndpointSlice, not by selector directly. A pod with the right labels but a failed readiness probe is not in the Service.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ingress and Gateway API (P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius)
|
||||
|
||||
- Ingress routes HTTP/HTTPS traffic from outside the cluster to Services. It is L7 routing by host and path.
|
||||
- Gateway API is the successor to Ingress: more expressive (TCP, UDP, TLS passthrough), role-oriented (GatewayClass → Gateway → Route), and cross-platform. Prefer Gateway API for new L7 needs.
|
||||
- Both Ingress and Gateway API are implemented by a controller (nginx-ingress, Traefik, Istio, Envoy Gateway). Pick one; mixing ingress controllers in a cluster is operational debt.
|
||||
|
||||
## NetworkPolicy (P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius, P7 RBAC by Intent)
|
||||
|
||||
- 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)
|
||||
|
||||
- Every Service gets a DNS record: `<service>.<namespace>.svc.cluster.local`. Pods get `pod-ip-address.<namespace>.pod.cluster.local` (with dots replaced).
|
||||
- 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 (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.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Networking Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| `LoadBalancer` on an internal-only Service | P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius |
|
||||
| No default-deny NetworkPolicy | P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius, P7 RBAC by Intent |
|
||||
| Hardcoded pod IP in config | P3 Labels Select (use DNS) |
|
||||
| Service pointing at a bare pod | P3 Labels Select (point at a controller) |
|
||||
| Multiple ingress controllers in one cluster | C3 Simplicity (operational debt) |
|
||||
| No readiness probe on a Service-backed workload | P5 Probes Drive Health (empty EndpointSlices) |
|
||||
@@ -1,45 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# RBAC and Pod Security — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md`. P7 (RBAC by Intent, Not Identity) lives here. Cross-link `domains/security/authorization.md` for the general authorization principles and `domains/security/secrets.md` for secret handling.
|
||||
|
||||
## RBAC Objects (P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Role** — permissions within a namespace (verb on resource). **ClusterRole** — permissions cluster-wide or usable across namespaces.
|
||||
- **RoleBinding** — binds a Role to a subject (ServiceAccount, User, Group) within a namespace. **ClusterRoleBinding** — binds a ClusterRole cluster-wide.
|
||||
- Prefer Role + RoleBinding per namespace over ClusterRole + ClusterRoleBinding. Cluster-level is the broad axe; namespace-level is the scalpel.
|
||||
|
||||
## Bind to Service Accounts, Not Users (P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity)
|
||||
|
||||
- A workload authenticates as a ServiceAccount. Bind the Role to the ServiceAccount, scoped to the workload's namespace.
|
||||
- The Role encodes the workload's intent: "this workload reads ConfigMaps in this namespace." Not "this user is an admin."
|
||||
- One ServiceAccount per workload (or workload family). Do not reuse the `default` ServiceAccount for production workloads; it is a shared identity.
|
||||
|
||||
## Least Privilege (P7 RBAC by Intent, C1 Correctness via security)
|
||||
|
||||
- Grant the minimum verbs on the minimum resources. `get, list, watch` on `pods` is fine for a monitoring sidecar; `*` on `*` is not.
|
||||
- `cluster-admin` is a smell. If a workload "needs" `cluster-admin`, the workload is either doing something it should not, or it is a cluster operator that should be reviewed as such.
|
||||
- Audit `ClusterRoleBindings` regularly. They are the broadest grant in the system and the easiest to leave behind.
|
||||
|
||||
## Pod Security Standards and Admission (P7 RBAC by Intent, security)
|
||||
|
||||
- Pod Security Standards (PSS) define three profiles: `privileged` (unrestricted), `baseline` (some restrictions), `restricted` (hardened).
|
||||
- Pod Security Admission (built-in) enforces a PSS profile per namespace via labels: `pod-security.kubernetes.io/enforce: restricted`. It replaces the deprecated PodSecurityPolicy.
|
||||
- Map namespaces to profiles: `restricted` for prod workloads, `baseline` for most, `privileged` only for system add-ons (CNI, CSI, node agents) that need it. A workload in `privileged` is a security event, not a default.
|
||||
|
||||
## Service Accounts and Token Automation (P9 Config and Secrets are Separate)
|
||||
|
||||
- ServiceAccount tokens are auto-mounted into pods unless `automountServiceAccountToken: false`. For workloads that do not call the API, disable auto-mount.
|
||||
- Long-lived ServiceAccount tokens are deprecated. Use projected tokens (bound to the pod, time-limited) via `TokenRequest`.
|
||||
- A workload that does not need API access should not have a token. A workload that needs API access should have a Role scoped to its intent.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates RBAC Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| `cluster-admin` bound to a workload | P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity |
|
||||
| Reused `default` ServiceAccount for prod | P7 RBAC by Intent, Not Identity |
|
||||
| `automountServiceAccountToken: true` on a non-API workload | P9 Config and Secrets are Separate |
|
||||
| `privileged` PSS on an application namespace | P7 RBAC by Intent, security |
|
||||
| ClusterRoleBinding where a RoleBinding would suffice | P6 Namespaces Bound Blast Radius, P7 |
|
||||
| Long-lived static token instead of projected | P9 Config and Secrets are Separate |
|
||||
| Leftover ClusterRoleBindings after a workload is removed | P7 RBAC by Intent (audit) |
|
||||
@@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Storage — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md`. P8 (Storage is Explicit) lives here. Covers Volumes, PV/PVC, StorageClass, CSI, snapshots, and reclaim policies. Cross-link `domains/data/` for the data-model angle.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ephemeral by Default (P8 Storage is Explicit)
|
||||
|
||||
- A container's filesystem is ephemeral. When the pod dies, the filesystem dies with it. This is the design, not a flaw.
|
||||
- `emptyDir` is an ephemeral volume scoped to the pod's lifetime (survives container restarts within the pod, dies with the pod). It is scratch space, never durable storage.
|
||||
- Any data that must survive a pod restart requires a PersistentVolumeClaim (PVC). The choice of "must survive" is the data-safety decision at the heart of P8.
|
||||
|
||||
## PersistentVolume and PersistentVolumeClaim (P8 Storage is Explicit)
|
||||
|
||||
- A PersistentVolume (PV) is a piece of storage in the cluster. A PersistentVolumeClaim (PVC) is a request for that storage by a workload.
|
||||
- The PV is the resource; the PVC is the consumer. A workload mounts the PVC, not the PV directly.
|
||||
- For StatefulSets, use `volumeClaimTemplates` so each replica gets its own PVC with a stable name (`data-<statefulset>-0`). Do not share one PVC across replicas of a stateful workload.
|
||||
|
||||
## StorageClass and Dynamic Provisioning (P8 Storage is Explicit, P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
- A StorageClass describes the "flavour" of storage (e.g., `fast-ssd`, `cold-hdd`, `encrypted`). A PVC names a StorageClass or gets the cluster default.
|
||||
- Dynamic provisioning creates the PV on demand when the PVC is created, via the CSI driver. Manual PV creation is for specific cases (a pre-existing disk, a static NFS export).
|
||||
- Mark a default StorageClass only if the default is safe for all workloads. A fast-but-expensive default can cause cost surprises; a slow default can cause performance surprises.
|
||||
|
||||
## CSI (P5 Version Everything)
|
||||
|
||||
- The Container Storage Interface (CSI) is the standard driver interface. Each storage backend ships a CSI driver. Pin the CSI driver version in the cluster; treat it as infrastructure.
|
||||
- CSI enables features beyond mount/unmount: snapshots, cloning, volume expansion, and topology-aware provisioning. Not all drivers implement all features; verify before relying.
|
||||
|
||||
## Volume Snapshots (P5 Reversibility, P8 Storage is Explicit)
|
||||
|
||||
- A VolumeSnapshot is a point-in-time copy of a PVC, taken by the CSI driver. Restore creates a new PVC from the snapshot.
|
||||
- Snapshots are not backups. They are local to the storage backend and may share blocks with the source. An off-cluster backup is still required for disaster recovery.
|
||||
- Snapshot scheduling is a workload concern (use a CronJob or a tool like Velero), not a k8s-native feature.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reclaim Policies (P8 Storage is Explicit, P5 Reversibility)
|
||||
|
||||
| Policy | On PVC delete | When |
|
||||
|--------|---------------|------|
|
||||
| `Retain` | PV and its data persist; PV must be manually reclaimed | Production, data-safety default |
|
||||
| `Delete` | PV and the underlying storage are deleted | Ephemeral, dev, scratch |
|
||||
| `Recycle` (deprecated) | PV scrubbed and made available again | Do not use — use dynamic provisioning |
|
||||
|
||||
- The reclaim policy is a data-safety decision. `Delete` on a production PVC is a footgun: deleting the PVC destroys the data. Default to `Retain` for prod, `Delete` for dev.
|
||||
- For StatefulSet PVCs, the reclaim policy on the StorageClass governs what happens when the PVC is deleted (which happens when the StatefulSet is scaled down or deleted, depending on the policy).
|
||||
|
||||
## Ephemeral Volumes (P8 Storage is Explicit)
|
||||
|
||||
- `configMap`, `secret`, `downwardAPI` volumes are read-only (by default) projections injected at pod start. They are configuration, not storage.
|
||||
- `emptyDir` with `medium: Memory` is a tmpfs — fast, ephemeral, memory-charged. Use for scratch that must be fast and never persist.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Violates Storage Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| `emptyDir` for data that must survive pod restart | P8 Storage is Explicit |
|
||||
| Shared PVC across StatefulSet replicas | P8 Storage is Explicit (use `volumeClaimTemplates`) |
|
||||
| `Delete` reclaim policy on production storage | P8 Storage is Explicit, P5 Reversibility |
|
||||
| Snapshot treated as a backup | P5 Reversibility (snapshots are local, not DR) |
|
||||
| No default StorageClass decision (accidental default) | P8 Storage is Explicit |
|
||||
| Manual PV creation when dynamic provisioning exists | C3 Simplicity |
|
||||
@@ -1,54 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Workloads — Derived Rules
|
||||
|
||||
> Derives from `domains/kubernetes/first-principles.md`. Covers Pod, ReplicaSet, Deployment, StatefulSet, DaemonSet, Job, and CronJob. Applies P1–P10.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Pod (P2 Pods are Mortal)
|
||||
|
||||
- A pod is the smallest deployable unit: one or more containers sharing network and storage namespaces.
|
||||
- Never deploy a bare pod. A bare pod has no controller to restart, scale, or replace it. Use a controller.
|
||||
- Pods are replaceable by design. Do not store state in a pod's filesystem (`emptyDir` is scratch, not storage — see `storage.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Controllers (P1 Declarative Desired State)
|
||||
|
||||
| Controller | When | Identity | Ordering |
|
||||
|------------|------|----------|----------|
|
||||
| Deployment | Stateless workloads | None (pods interchangeable) | No ordering |
|
||||
| StatefulSet | Stateful workloads (databases, queues) | Stable name (`pod-0`, `pod-1`) + stable PVC | Ordered, sequential |
|
||||
| DaemonSet | One pod per node (logging, monitoring, CNI) | Per-node | — |
|
||||
| Job | Run to completion (batch) | — | — |
|
||||
| CronJob | Scheduled batch | — | — |
|
||||
|
||||
- A Deployment manages a ReplicaSet, which manages pods. You interact with the Deployment; the ReplicaSet is an implementation detail except during rollouts.
|
||||
- StatefulSet gives stable network identity and stable persistent storage per replica. Use it when the workload needs a stable name or per-replica data (databases, distributed systems). Do not use StatefulSet for stateless workloads — the ordering is overhead.
|
||||
|
||||
## Probes (P5 Probes Drive Health)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Readiness probe** — is the pod ready to serve traffic? Failing readiness removes the pod from the Service's endpoints but does not restart it. Use for "warm-up" and transient unavailability.
|
||||
- **Liveness probe** — is the pod alive? Failing liveness restarts the container. Use for "wedged but running." Do not use liveness to check dependencies (it will cascade-restart on a dependency blip).
|
||||
- **Startup probe** — has the pod finished starting? Disables liveness/readiness until it succeeds. Use for slow-starting workloads so liveness does not kill them before they are ready.
|
||||
- Probes must check the workload's own health, not the health of its dependencies. A readiness probe that fails on a downstream outage causes the Service to drain all pods simultaneously.
|
||||
|
||||
## Lifecycle and Disruption (P2 Pods are Mortal, P10 Roll Forward Roll Back)
|
||||
|
||||
- `kubectl rollout status` watches a Deployment's rollout to completion. `kubectl rollout undo` reverts to the previous ReplicaSet.
|
||||
- PodDisruptionBudgets (PDBs) protect voluntary disruptions (node drain, cluster autoscaler). An involuntary disruption (node failure) ignores the PDB. Set a PDB on every workload that must keep a minimum available.
|
||||
- Rolling update strategy: `maxUnavailable` and `maxSurge` control the speed of rollout. Slow rollouts (low `maxSurge`) are safer; fast rollouts (high `maxUnavailable`) risk availability.
|
||||
|
||||
## Resource Contracts (P4 Requests and Limits are Contracts)
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
| Violation | Principle |
|
||||
|-----------|-----------|
|
||||
| Bare pod (no controller) | P2 Pods are Mortal |
|
||||
| StatefulSet for a stateless workload | P1 Declarative Desired State (overhead) |
|
||||
| No probes | P5 Probes Drive Health |
|
||||
| Liveness probe checks a dependency | P5 Probes Drive Health |
|
||||
| No PDB on a critical workload | P10 Roll Forward Roll Back |
|
||||
| No resource requests in prod | P4 Requests and Limits are Contracts |
|
||||
| `emptyDir` for data that must persist | P8 Storage is Explicit |
|
||||
@@ -1,107 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Bad Example: God Object
|
||||
|
||||
> A component that violates Atelier principles. Each violation is cited.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Code
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// UserManager.ts — 1,200 lines
|
||||
class UserManager {
|
||||
private users: User[] = [];
|
||||
private cache: Map<string, User> = new Map();
|
||||
private db: Database;
|
||||
private emailService: EmailService;
|
||||
private logger: Logger;
|
||||
private auditLog: AuditLog;
|
||||
|
||||
constructor(db: Database, email: EmailService, logger: Logger, audit: AuditLog) {
|
||||
this.db = db;
|
||||
this.emailService = email;
|
||||
this.logger = logger;
|
||||
this.auditLog = audit;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// CRUD
|
||||
async createUser(data: UserData): Promise<User> { /* 80 lines */ }
|
||||
async getUser(id: string): Promise<User> { /* 40 lines */ }
|
||||
async updateUser(id: string, data: Partial<UserData>): Promise<User> { /* 60 lines */ }
|
||||
async deleteUser(id: string): Promise<void> { /* 50 lines */ }
|
||||
async listUsers(page: number): Promise<User[]> { /* 40 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Email
|
||||
async sendWelcomeEmail(user: User): Promise<void> { /* 50 lines */ }
|
||||
async sendPasswordReset(user: User): Promise<void> { /* 50 lines */ }
|
||||
async sendDeletionNotice(user: User): Promise<void> { /* 40 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Auth
|
||||
async authenticate(email: string, password: string): Promise<boolean> { /* 70 lines */ }
|
||||
async authorize(userId: string, action: string): Promise<boolean> { /* 60 lines */ }
|
||||
async hashPassword(password: string): Promise<string> { /* 20 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Cache
|
||||
private cacheGet(id: string): User | null { /* 20 lines */ }
|
||||
private cacheSet(user: User): void { /* 20 lines */ }
|
||||
private cacheInvalidate(id: string): void { /* 20 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Audit
|
||||
private logAudit(action: string, userId: string): void { /* 30 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Validation
|
||||
private validateEmail(email: string): boolean { /* 20 lines */ }
|
||||
private validatePassword(password: string): boolean { /* 20 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// Serialization
|
||||
toJSON(user: User): Record<string, unknown> { /* 30 lines */ }
|
||||
fromJSON(data: Record<string, unknown>): User { /* 30 lines */ }
|
||||
|
||||
// ... 200 more lines of helper methods
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Violations
|
||||
|
||||
### C3 Simplicity (Core)
|
||||
- A 1,200-line class doing 8 different things (CRUD, email, auth, cache, audit, validation, serialization).
|
||||
- The class cannot be understood in one read. Complexity is the liability.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Split into `UserRepository` (CRUD), `UserEmailService` (email), `UserAuthService` (auth), `UserCache` (cache), `UserAuditLogger` (audit), `UserValidator` (validation), `UserSerializer` (serialization).
|
||||
|
||||
### C6 Composability (Core)
|
||||
- The class takes 4 dependencies and does 8 jobs. It is not composable; it is monolithic.
|
||||
- You cannot reuse the email logic without the DB, the cache, the audit log.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Each responsibility is its own class. Compose them: `UserEmailService` takes only `EmailService`.
|
||||
|
||||
### components.md §1 Single Responsibility (UI/UX, applies to code)
|
||||
- The class name is `UserManager`. "Manager" is a smell — it manages what? Everything.
|
||||
- If the name is "Manager," it has no single responsibility.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Name by responsibility: `UserRepository`, `UserAuthService`. Names that cannot be "And"-ed.
|
||||
|
||||
### C4 Locality (Core)
|
||||
- Cache logic is in the same class as email logic. A change to cache touches the email methods' neighbor.
|
||||
- Related logic (cache get/set/invalidate) is grouped, but unrelated logic (email) is adjacent.
|
||||
- **Fix:** `UserCache` is its own class. Cache changes are local to cache.
|
||||
|
||||
### C2 Clarity (Core)
|
||||
- A reader cannot answer "what does `UserManager` do?" in one sentence.
|
||||
- The class has 20+ methods. The reader must scan all of them to find the one they need.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Smaller classes with clear names. The name is the documentation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Security P2 Least Privilege (Security)
|
||||
- The class has `db`, `emailService`, `logger`, `auditLog` — all available to all methods.
|
||||
- `sendWelcomeEmail` has access to `db.delete`. Least privilege is violated.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Each service has only the dependencies it needs. `UserEmailService` has `EmailService`, not `Database`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Testing P2 Independence (Testing)
|
||||
- To test `sendWelcomeEmail`, you must construct `UserManager` with a real/mock DB, email, logger, audit.
|
||||
- The test setup is 4 mocks for one method. Independence is violated.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Test `UserEmailService` with one mock (`EmailService`).
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Reveals
|
||||
|
||||
The "God Object" is the cardinal sin of OOP. It violates C3 (Simplicity), C6 (Composability), C4 (Locality), and C2 (Clarity) simultaneously. Every other principle suffers downstream:
|
||||
|
||||
- Testing is hard (T2 Independence).
|
||||
- Security is loose (S2 Least Privilege).
|
||||
- Evolution is brittle (a change to email risks cache).
|
||||
- Review is exhausting (a 1,200-line diff).
|
||||
|
||||
The fix is always the same: **decompose by responsibility**. The class name is the test: if it is "Manager," "Handler," or "Helper," it has no single responsibility.
|
||||
@@ -1,71 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Bad Example: Leaky Abstraction
|
||||
|
||||
> An abstraction that leaks its implementation details, violating Atelier principles. Each violation is cited.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Code
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// UserRepository — "abstracts" the database
|
||||
class UserRepository {
|
||||
async findAll(): Promise<UserRow[]> {
|
||||
// Leaks: returns the raw DB row type, not a domain User
|
||||
return db.query('SELECT id, email, password_hash, created_at, deleted_at FROM users');
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
async findByEmail(email: string): Promise<UserRow | null> {
|
||||
// Leaks: the caller must know to filter deleted_at
|
||||
const rows = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE email = $1', [email]);
|
||||
return rows[0] || null;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
async save(user: UserRow): Promise<void> {
|
||||
// Leaks: the caller must know the column names and the SQL
|
||||
await db.query(
|
||||
'UPDATE users SET email = $1, password_hash = $2, updated_at = now() WHERE id = $3',
|
||||
[user.email, user.password_hash, user.id]
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Usage — the leak is visible
|
||||
const repo = new UserRepository();
|
||||
const user = await repo.findByEmail('jane@example.com');
|
||||
if (user && !user.deleted_at) { // caller must know about soft delete
|
||||
user.password_hash = await hash(newPassword); // caller must know the column
|
||||
await repo.save(user); // caller must know it's an UPDATE
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Violations
|
||||
|
||||
### C6 Composability (Core)
|
||||
- The abstraction is supposed to hide the database. It does not.
|
||||
- The caller must know: the row type (`UserRow`), the soft-delete column (`deleted_at`), the password column (`password_hash`), the SQL operation (`UPDATE`).
|
||||
- The abstraction is a thin wrapper. It composes nothing; it leaks everything.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Return a domain `User` (no `password_hash`, no `deleted_at`). Hide soft delete (the repo filters it). Hide persistence (the caller calls `save`, not `UPDATE`).
|
||||
|
||||
### C2 Clarity (Core)
|
||||
- The caller's code is unclear: `if (user && !user.deleted_at)` — what is `deleted_at`? Why does the caller check it?
|
||||
- The abstraction was supposed to clarify. It muddied.
|
||||
- **Fix:** `repo.findByEmail()` returns `User | null` (already filtered). The caller does not know soft delete exists.
|
||||
|
||||
### API P2 Clarity (API, by analogy)
|
||||
- The repo's API exposes the DB schema in its return types. `UserRow` is a DB concept, not a domain concept.
|
||||
- The public contract (return type) leaks the private implementation (the table).
|
||||
- **Fix:** The return type is `User`, a domain type. `UserRow` is internal.
|
||||
|
||||
### Data P8 Lifecycle Awareness (Data)
|
||||
- The soft-delete lifecycle (`deleted_at`) is the repo's concern. The caller should not manage it.
|
||||
- By exposing `deleted_at`, the repo forces every caller to remember the filter. A forgotten filter is a soft-delete leak.
|
||||
- **Fix:** The repo filters `deleted_at IS NULL` in every query. The caller never sees `deleted_at`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Security P9 Secret Hygiene (Security)
|
||||
- `password_hash` is in the returned `UserRow`. The caller now has access to the password hash.
|
||||
- A caller that logs `user` logs the hash. A caller that serializes `user` serializes the hash.
|
||||
- **Fix:** `User` does not include `password_hash`. Only `UserRepository` and `AuthService` (internal) see it.
|
||||
|
||||
### C4 Locality (Core)
|
||||
- The SQL is in the repo, but the column knowledge (`password_hash`, `deleted_at`) is in the caller.
|
||||
- A column rename touches the repo AND every caller. Locality is violated.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Column names are local to the repo. The caller knows only the domain `User`.
|
||||
|
||||
### C5 Reversibility (Core)
|
||||
- Changing the database (e.g., from SQL to NoSQL, or renaming a column) requires touching every caller.
|
||||
- The abstraction was supposed to make the change local. It does not.
|
||||
- **Fix:** The repo's interface (`findByEmail`, `save`) is stable. The implementation changes; the callers do not.
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Reveals
|
||||
|
||||
The leaky abstraction is the false promise of encapsulation. The class is named `UserRepository` (suggesting it abstracts persistence), but it returns raw DB rows, exposes lifecycle columns, and leaks secret fields. The abstraction exists in name only.
|
||||
|
||||
The cost:
|
||||
- Every caller must know the DB schema (C6 violated).
|
||||
- A schema change touches every caller (C5 violated, C4 violated).
|
||||
- Secret fields leak to callers (Security P9 violated).
|
||||
- The lifecycle is the caller's burden (Data P8 violated).
|
||||
|
||||
The fix is always the same: **the abstraction's public type is the domain type, not the implementation type**. `UserRepository.findByEmail()` returns `User | null`, where `User` has `id`, `email`, `name` — and nothing else. `password_hash`, `deleted_at`, `UserRow` are internal. The caller knows nothing about the database.
|
||||
@@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Bad Example: Silent Error
|
||||
|
||||
> An error-handling pattern that violates Atelier principles. Each violation is cited.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Code
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
async function getUser(id: string): Promise<User | null> {
|
||||
try {
|
||||
const user = await db.query('SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = $1', [id]);
|
||||
return user;
|
||||
} catch (e) {
|
||||
return null;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
async function processOrder(orderId: string): Promise<void> {
|
||||
const order = await getOrder(orderId);
|
||||
if (!order) {
|
||||
return; // silently do nothing
|
||||
}
|
||||
// ... process
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Usage in a route
|
||||
router.get('/users/:id', async (req, res) => {
|
||||
const user = await getUser(req.params.id);
|
||||
if (!user) {
|
||||
res.status(404).json({ error: 'Not found' });
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
res.json({ data: user });
|
||||
}
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Violations
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors P2 Fail Loudly (Errors)
|
||||
- `catch (e) { return null }` swallows the error. The caller cannot distinguish "user not found" from "database down."
|
||||
- A database outage returns 404s. The operator never knows. Silent failure.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Catch and re-throw with context, or return a typed error (`Result<User, Error>`). Never `null` for "an error happened."
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors P3 Fail Specifically (Errors)
|
||||
- `return null` is the least specific response. It could mean: not found, db error, network error, permission error.
|
||||
- The caller's `if (!user)` cannot distinguish these. The 404 is a lie if the real cause was a 500.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Return `Result` or throw. The error type/code carries the specificity.
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors P1 Errors are Data (Errors)
|
||||
- `null` is not data. It is the absence of data. Conflating "error" with "absence" loses information.
|
||||
- The error (a database failure) was data; it was thrown away and replaced with `null`.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Errors are values. Return the error value, not a sentinel absence.
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors P4 Preserve Context (Errors)
|
||||
- The catch block discards `e`. The stack trace, the error message, the cause — all gone.
|
||||
- The log has no record. The operator cannot debug.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Log the error with context. Wrap and re-throw: `throw new Error('getUser failed', { cause: e })`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors P9 Errors are Logged (Errors)
|
||||
- The error is not logged. The handling (return null) is the entire response. The log is missing.
|
||||
- An error that is not logged is an error that cannot be investigated.
|
||||
- **Fix:** `logger.error({ err: e, userId: id })` before returning/rethrowing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors P10 Errors Don't Lie (Errors)
|
||||
- `return null` claims "no user" when the truth may be "database down." The function lies.
|
||||
- The 404 response claims "not found" when the truth may be "internal error." The API lies.
|
||||
- **Fix:** The response status must match the actual condition. 500 for server errors, 404 for not found.
|
||||
|
||||
### Observability P2 Correlation, P3 Context (Observability)
|
||||
- No `request_id`. No correlation across services.
|
||||
- No context in the (missing) log. "What was the user doing?" is unanswerable.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Propagate `request_id`. Log with path, method, user_id.
|
||||
|
||||
### Security P8 Fail Securely (Security)
|
||||
- The silent failure is fail-open in disguise. If `getUser` fails due to an authz check throwing, the catch returns `null`.
|
||||
- The caller treats `null` as "not found" and may proceed, or may 404. Either way, the security failure is hidden.
|
||||
- **Fix:** Distinguish "not found" (404) from "authz error" (403) from "db error" (500). Never collapse them into `null`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Reveals
|
||||
|
||||
The silent error is the most common and most damaging anti-pattern. It violates Errors P2 (Fail Loudly), P3 (Fail Specifically), P1 (Errors are Data), P4 (Preserve Context), P9 (Errors are Logged), P10 (Errors Don't Lie) — six of ten error principles in one catch block.
|
||||
|
||||
The downstream effects:
|
||||
- Operators cannot debug (no log, no context).
|
||||
- Users see wrong errors (404 for a 500).
|
||||
- Security failures hide (authz error becomes "not found").
|
||||
- The system appears healthy when it is not (no metrics, no logs).
|
||||
|
||||
The fix is always the same: **never swallow an error**. Log it, wrap it, rethrow it, or return it as a typed value. Never `return null` for "something went wrong."
|
||||
@@ -1,74 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -1,79 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Good Example: API Endpoint
|
||||
|
||||
> A REST endpoint that follows Atelier's API principles. Each aspect cites the principle it satisfies.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Endpoint
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// POST /v1/orders — create an order
|
||||
router.post('/v1/orders', auth, validate(CreateOrderSchema), async (req, res) => {
|
||||
const { userId, items } = req.body;
|
||||
|
||||
const order = await orderService.create({ userId, items });
|
||||
|
||||
res.status(201).location(`/v1/orders/${order.id}`).json({
|
||||
data: order,
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Good
|
||||
|
||||
### Resource Naming (API P2 Clarity, P3 Predictability)
|
||||
- `/v1/orders` — noun, plural, lowercase, hyphenated.
|
||||
- Versioned (`/v1`) — P5 Versioning.
|
||||
- No verb in the URL; the HTTP method is the verb.
|
||||
|
||||
### Method Semantics (API P1 Contract Fidelity, P6 Idempotency)
|
||||
- POST for creation. 201 on success (not 200). `Location` header for the new resource.
|
||||
- Idempotency key supported via middleware (omitted for brevity) — P6.
|
||||
|
||||
### Authentication (API P8 Security, Security P1 Zero Trust)
|
||||
- `auth` middleware runs on every endpoint by default. No opt-in auth.
|
||||
- The endpoint does not re-implement auth; it relies on the boundary check.
|
||||
|
||||
### Input Validation (API P8, Security P4 Input Validation)
|
||||
- `validate(CreateOrderSchema)` — schema-based validation at the boundary.
|
||||
- The schema (zod, joi, etc.) defines types, ranges, required fields.
|
||||
- Unknown fields rejected (`additionalProperties: false` in the schema).
|
||||
|
||||
### Response Shape (API P2 Clarity)
|
||||
- `{ data: order }` — wrapped, not a bare object. Allows adding pagination/metadata without breaking.
|
||||
- The shape is consistent across all endpoints in the API.
|
||||
|
||||
### Error Handling (API P9 Error Transparency, Errors P1 Errors are Data)
|
||||
- Errors thrown in `orderService.create` are caught by centralized middleware.
|
||||
- Errors are structured: `{ error: { code, message, request_id } }`.
|
||||
- 404 → `ORDER_NOT_FOUND`, 409 → `DUPLICATE_ORDER`, 422 → `VALIDATION_FAILED`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Observability (Observability P2 Correlation, P3 Sufficient Context)
|
||||
- `request_id` propagated via middleware. Every log in the request includes it.
|
||||
- Significant events logged: "order created", "order creation failed".
|
||||
|
||||
### Economy (Core C8, Performance P4 Resource Bounds)
|
||||
- The order creation is bounded in time (the service has a timeout).
|
||||
- No unbounded query; no loading all products into memory.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Schema (for completeness)
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
const CreateOrderSchema = z.object({
|
||||
userId: z.string().uuid(),
|
||||
items: z.array(z.object({
|
||||
productId: z.string().uuid(),
|
||||
quantity: z.number().int().positive().max(100),
|
||||
})).min(1).max(50),
|
||||
}).strict(); // additionalProperties: false
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- `userId` is a UUID (Data P7 Type Fidelity).
|
||||
- `quantity` is bounded (Performance P4).
|
||||
- `items` is bounded (1–50) (Performance P4, Security P10 Surface Minimization).
|
||||
- `.strict()` rejects unknown fields (Security P4).
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Does NOT Do (And Why That's Good)
|
||||
|
||||
- Does not return 200 on error — the status code is the first signal (API P9).
|
||||
- Does not log the request body — may contain PII (Observability P6, Security P9).
|
||||
- Does not construct SQL by string interpolation — uses a service layer (Security P5 Output Safety).
|
||||
- Does not skip auth for "internal" callers — Zero Trust (Security P1).
|
||||
@@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Good Example: Database Schema
|
||||
|
||||
> A SQL schema that follows Atelier's Data principles. Each aspect cites the principle it satisfies.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Schema
|
||||
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
-- Users table
|
||||
CREATE TABLE users (
|
||||
id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
|
||||
email VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
|
||||
name VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
|
||||
created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),
|
||||
updated_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),
|
||||
deleted_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
|
||||
|
||||
CONSTRAINT users_email_unique UNIQUE (email),
|
||||
CONSTRAINT users_email_format CHECK (email ~ '^[^@]+@[^@]+\.[^@]+$')
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
CREATE INDEX users_email_idx ON users (email) WHERE deleted_at IS NULL;
|
||||
CREATE INDEX users_created_at_idx ON users (created_at DESC);
|
||||
|
||||
-- Orders table
|
||||
CREATE TABLE orders (
|
||||
id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
|
||||
user_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES users(id) ON DELETE RESTRICT,
|
||||
status VARCHAR(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'pending',
|
||||
total_cents INTEGER NOT NULL,
|
||||
created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT now(),
|
||||
|
||||
CONSTRAINT orders_status_valid CHECK (status IN ('pending', 'paid', 'shipped', 'cancelled')),
|
||||
CONSTRAINT orders_total_positive CHECK (total_cents >= 0)
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
CREATE INDEX orders_user_id_idx ON orders (user_id);
|
||||
CREATE INDEX orders_status_created_idx ON orders (status, created_at DESC);
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Good
|
||||
|
||||
### Truth (Data P1)
|
||||
- The schema reflects the domain: `users` have `email`, `name`, lifecycle timestamps. `orders` have `status`, `total`.
|
||||
- No column named after a feature (`is_active_for_X`). No application state in the schema.
|
||||
|
||||
### Invariants in the Schema (Data P3)
|
||||
- `NOT NULL` where required: `email`, `name`, `user_id`, `status`, `total_cents`.
|
||||
- `UNIQUE (email)` — emails are unique. Enforced in the DB, defended in the app.
|
||||
- `CHECK (status IN (...))` — status is a finite domain. Enforced in the DB.
|
||||
- `CHECK (total_cents >= 0)` — totals are non-negative. Enforced in the DB.
|
||||
- `REFERENCES users(id) ON DELETE RESTRICT` — you cannot delete a user with orders. Referential integrity (P9).
|
||||
|
||||
### Type Fidelity (Data P7)
|
||||
- `id` is `UUID`, not `VARCHAR(36)`. The type matches the domain.
|
||||
- `created_at` is `TIMESTAMPTZ`, not `VARCHAR` or `INTEGER`. Timezone-aware.
|
||||
- `total_cents` is `INTEGER`, not `FLOAT`. Money in cents avoids floating point (P1 Truth).
|
||||
- `status` is `VARCHAR(20)` with a CHECK, not a free `TEXT`. Bounded.
|
||||
|
||||
### Naming Consistency (Data P6)
|
||||
- snake_case: `users`, `orders`, `user_id`, `created_at`.
|
||||
- Foreign key: `user_id` (singular table + `_id`), not `uid` or `user`.
|
||||
- Timestamps: `created_at`, `updated_at`, `deleted_at` — consistent suffix `_at`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Lifecycle Awareness (Data P8)
|
||||
- `deleted_at` for soft delete. Lifecycle is first-class.
|
||||
- The unique index on email is partial: `WHERE deleted_at IS NULL` — allows re-registration after soft delete.
|
||||
- Every query must filter `deleted_at IS NULL` (a discipline, not a schema property).
|
||||
|
||||
### Indexing with Intent (Data P5, P10)
|
||||
- `users_email_idx` — queries by email (login, lookup). Partial (excludes soft-deleted).
|
||||
- `users_created_at_idx` — list users by recency. DESC matches the typical query.
|
||||
- `orders_user_id_idx` — list a user's orders. FK index (join performance).
|
||||
- `orders_status_created_idx` — composite for "open orders by recency" (`WHERE status = 'pending' ORDER BY created_at DESC`).
|
||||
- No index on every column. Each index serves a query.
|
||||
|
||||
### Migration Safety (Data P4)
|
||||
- This schema is created via a migration with an `up` and a `down`.
|
||||
- The `down` drops the tables in reverse order (orders, then users) to respect FKs.
|
||||
- Adding a column later uses expand-contract (nullable first, then constrained).
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Does NOT Do (And Why That's Good)
|
||||
|
||||
- Does not use `FLOAT` for money — floating point errors (P7, P1).
|
||||
- Does not use `VARCHAR` for the UUID — wrong type (P7).
|
||||
- Does not omit the FK on `orders.user_id` — unenforced relationship (P9).
|
||||
- Does not index every column — write amplification (P10, C8).
|
||||
- Does not use `is_deleted BOOLEAN` without a timestamp — loses the deletion time (P8).
|
||||
- Does not allow `status` to be free text — would lose the finite domain (P3).
|
||||
@@ -1,139 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Good Example: Error Handler
|
||||
|
||||
> An error handler that follows Atelier's Errors principles. Each aspect cites the principle it satisfies.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Handler
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
// Centralized error middleware
|
||||
import { v4 as uuidv4 } from 'uuid';
|
||||
|
||||
type AppError = {
|
||||
code: string;
|
||||
message: string;
|
||||
statusCode: number;
|
||||
details?: Record<string, unknown>;
|
||||
cause?: unknown;
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
function errorHandler(err: unknown, req: Request, res: Response, next: NextFunction) {
|
||||
const requestId = req.headers['x-request-id'] as string || uuidv4();
|
||||
|
||||
const appError = normalizeError(err, requestId);
|
||||
|
||||
// Log with full context (server-side only)
|
||||
logger.error({
|
||||
request_id: requestId,
|
||||
code: appError.code,
|
||||
message: appError.message,
|
||||
details: appError.details,
|
||||
path: req.path,
|
||||
method: req.method,
|
||||
user_id: req.user?.id,
|
||||
stack: err instanceof Error ? err.stack : undefined,
|
||||
});
|
||||
|
||||
// Respond with safe, structured error
|
||||
res.status(appError.statusCode).json({
|
||||
error: {
|
||||
code: appError.code,
|
||||
message: appError.message,
|
||||
request_id: requestId,
|
||||
...(appError.details ? { details: appError.details } : {}),
|
||||
},
|
||||
});
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
function normalizeError(err: unknown, requestId: string): AppError {
|
||||
// Known error types — preserve their code and status
|
||||
if (err instanceof ValidationError) {
|
||||
return {
|
||||
code: err.code,
|
||||
message: err.message,
|
||||
statusCode: 422,
|
||||
details: err.details,
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (err instanceof NotFoundError) {
|
||||
return { code: err.code, message: err.message, statusCode: 404 };
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (err instanceof AuthError) {
|
||||
return { code: 'AUTH_REQUIRED', message: 'Authentication required', statusCode: 401 };
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// Unknown error — fail securely, do not leak internals
|
||||
return {
|
||||
code: 'INTERNAL_ERROR',
|
||||
message: 'An internal error occurred',
|
||||
statusCode: 500,
|
||||
cause: err,
|
||||
};
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Good
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors are Data (Errors P1)
|
||||
- Errors are normalized into a structured `AppError` type. They are values, not raw exceptions.
|
||||
- The `code` is a stable, machine-consumable string (`VALIDATION_FAILED`, not a free message).
|
||||
- The handler treats every error as data to be transformed, not a flow to be caught.
|
||||
|
||||
### Fail Loudly (Errors P2)
|
||||
- No `catch (e) {}`. Every error reaches the handler.
|
||||
- No silent swallowing. The error is logged and responded to.
|
||||
- The middleware is centralized — every route uses it. No route can "forget" to handle errors.
|
||||
|
||||
### Fail Specifically (Errors P3)
|
||||
- `ValidationError` → 422 with `code: err.code` (specific, e.g., `INVALID_EMAIL`).
|
||||
- `NotFoundError` → 404 with `code: err.code` (e.g., `USER_NOT_FOUND`).
|
||||
- Unknown → 500 with `INTERNAL_ERROR` (generic only when truly unknown).
|
||||
- Never "Something went wrong" — always a specific code.
|
||||
|
||||
### Preserve Context (Errors P4)
|
||||
- Server-side log includes: `request_id`, `code`, `message`, `details`, `path`, `method`, `user_id`, `stack`.
|
||||
- Client-side response includes: `code`, `message`, `request_id`, `details`.
|
||||
- The `request_id` ties the client response to the server log. Debuggable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Recoverable When Possible (Errors P5)
|
||||
- 422 (validation) — the client can fix and retry.
|
||||
- 401 (auth) — the client can re-auth and retry.
|
||||
- 404 (not found) — the client can correct the ID.
|
||||
- Only 500 is "the server has a bug" — not recoverable by the client.
|
||||
|
||||
### Unrecoverable Means Stop (Errors P6)
|
||||
- A 500 does not limp on. It logs and returns.
|
||||
- The server does not try to "recover" from an unknown error by guessing. It fails fast.
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors are Boundaries (Errors P7)
|
||||
- The middleware is the boundary. Internal error types (`ValidationError`, `NotFoundError`) are translated to HTTP responses here.
|
||||
- Internal code throws domain errors; the boundary translates to HTTP. No internal error type leaks to the client.
|
||||
|
||||
### User-Facing Errors are UX (Errors P8)
|
||||
- `message` is for the developer (log + response). The client UI renders a user-facing message based on `code`.
|
||||
- `INTERNAL_ERROR` → "Something went wrong. We're on it." (user-facing), not the stack.
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors are Logged (Errors P9)
|
||||
- Every error is logged at ERROR level with full context.
|
||||
- The handling is the recovery (return a response); the log is the memory (investigate later).
|
||||
|
||||
### Errors Don't Lie (Errors P10)
|
||||
- The status code matches the error type. 422 for validation, not 200.
|
||||
- `INTERNAL_ERROR` is returned only for unknown errors. Known errors get their specific code.
|
||||
- Never claim success on failure. Never claim failure on success.
|
||||
|
||||
### Security (Security P5 Output Safety, P9 Secret Hygiene)
|
||||
- Unknown errors return `INTERNAL_ERROR` with no internal details. No stack trace to the client.
|
||||
- The stack is logged server-side, never sent to the client.
|
||||
- The error message does not echo the input (which may contain a token).
|
||||
|
||||
### Observability (Observability P2 Correlation, P3 Context)
|
||||
- `request_id` on every error. Correlatable across services.
|
||||
- Sufficient context in the log: path, method, user_id. "What was the user doing?" is answerable.
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Does NOT Do (And Why That's Good)
|
||||
|
||||
- Does not `catch (e) { return null }` — silent failure (P2).
|
||||
- Does not return 200 with `{ error: ... }` — the status code lies (API P9).
|
||||
- Does not send the stack trace to the client — information leak (Security P5).
|
||||
- Does not log the request body — may contain secrets (Security P9, Observability P6).
|
||||
- Does not use a generic `Error("error")` — not specific (P3).
|
||||
@@ -1,157 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -1,108 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Good Example: React Component
|
||||
|
||||
> A UI component that follows Atelier's UI/UX principles. Each aspect cites the principle it satisfies.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Component
|
||||
|
||||
```tsx
|
||||
import { useId, useState } from 'react';
|
||||
import { Button } from './Button';
|
||||
import { Spinner } from './Spinner';
|
||||
|
||||
type DeleteButtonProps = {
|
||||
/** The resource name to display in the confirmation */
|
||||
resourceName: string;
|
||||
/** Called when the user confirms deletion */
|
||||
onDelete: () => Promise<void>;
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
export function DeleteButton({ resourceName, onDelete }: DeleteButtonProps) {
|
||||
const [isConfirming, setIsConfirming] = useState(false);
|
||||
const [isDeleting, setIsDeleting] = useState(false);
|
||||
const confirmId = useId();
|
||||
|
||||
const handleConfirm = async () => {
|
||||
setIsDeleting(true);
|
||||
try {
|
||||
await onDelete();
|
||||
} finally {
|
||||
setIsDeleting(false);
|
||||
setIsConfirming(false);
|
||||
}
|
||||
};
|
||||
|
||||
if (isConfirming) {
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<span role="group" aria-labelledby={confirmId}>
|
||||
<span id={confirmId}>Delete {resourceName}? This cannot be undone.</span>
|
||||
<Button variant="danger" onClick={handleConfirm} disabled={isDeleting}>
|
||||
{isDeleting ? <Spinner label="Deleting" /> : 'Yes, delete'}
|
||||
</Button>
|
||||
<Button variant="ghost" onClick={() => setIsConfirming(false)} disabled={isDeleting}>
|
||||
Cancel
|
||||
</Button>
|
||||
</span>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return (
|
||||
<Button variant="danger" onClick={() => setIsConfirming(true)}>
|
||||
Delete
|
||||
</Button>
|
||||
);
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## What Makes It Good
|
||||
|
||||
### Single Responsibility (components.md §1)
|
||||
- The component does one thing: confirm and trigger a deletion. No "And" in the name.
|
||||
- The `onDelete` callback is the single output. The component owns the confirmation UI, not the deletion logic.
|
||||
|
||||
### Explicit Boundaries (components.md §3)
|
||||
- Props are typed (`DeleteButtonProps`). Required props are required.
|
||||
- `onDelete` returns a `Promise<void>` — the caller knows it's async.
|
||||
- The component never reads global state. It receives `resourceName` and `onDelete`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Predictable State (components.md §4)
|
||||
- `isConfirming` and `isDeleting` are owned by the component (only it cares).
|
||||
- State is not duplicated. The parent does not know about confirmation.
|
||||
- The component transitions: idle → confirming → deleting → idle.
|
||||
|
||||
### Render Purity (components.md §5)
|
||||
- Given the same props and state, the component renders the same output.
|
||||
- Side effects (`onDelete`) are in the event handler, not in render.
|
||||
- `useId()` is deterministic per component instance (React guarantee).
|
||||
|
||||
### Accessible by Default (components.md §6, uiux P2)
|
||||
- The confirmation group has `role="group"` and `aria-labelledby`.
|
||||
- The Spinner has a `label` (screen reader announces "Deleting").
|
||||
- Buttons have text labels (not icon-only).
|
||||
- Focus order is logical (confirm → cancel).
|
||||
- Keyboard-reachable (buttons are natively focusable).
|
||||
|
||||
### Forgiveness (UI/UX P5, P10 Reversibility)
|
||||
- Destructive action requires confirmation (P5).
|
||||
- "This cannot be undone" names the consequence (P3 Clarity).
|
||||
- "Cancel" is offered and is not disabled during deletion (the user can cancel the *next* action).
|
||||
- The state is reversible: `isConfirming` can be set back to `false` (P10).
|
||||
|
||||
### Style via Tokens (components.md §7)
|
||||
- `variant="danger"` and `variant="ghost"` reference design tokens, not raw colors.
|
||||
- No `style={{ color: 'red' }}` — the token system owns the visual.
|
||||
|
||||
### Feedback (UI/UX P4)
|
||||
- The button shows a Spinner while deleting (P4, P6 Performance perception).
|
||||
- The button is disabled while deleting (prevents double-click).
|
||||
- The label changes: "Yes, delete" → Spinner (state is communicated).
|
||||
|
||||
### Clarity (UI/UX P3)
|
||||
- "Delete {resourceName}? This cannot be undone." — specific, names the resource and the consequence.
|
||||
- No "Are you sure?" — vague. No "Submit" — wrong verb.
|
||||
|
||||
## What This Example Does NOT Do (And Why That's Good)
|
||||
|
||||
- Does not use a `window.confirm()` dialog — not accessible, not styled, not composable.
|
||||
- Does not render a modal — the inline confirmation is lighter and less disruptive (P9 Simplicity).
|
||||
- Does not auto-delete on click — forgiveness (P5).
|
||||
- Does not hardcode "Project" — the resource name is a prop (composability, components.md §3).
|
||||
@@ -1,125 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# 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.
|
||||
@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Go — Language Application
|
||||
|
||||
> How Atelier's domain principles apply in Go specifically. Derives from `domains/` docs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Type System (C1 Correctness, Data P7 Type Fidelity)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Named types for domain concepts:** `type UserId string`, not bare `string`.
|
||||
- **No `interface{}`/`any` without justification:** Go 1.18+ generics reduce the need.
|
||||
- **`any` requires a type assertion or switch:** never use the value without narrowing.
|
||||
|
||||
```go
|
||||
type UserId string
|
||||
type OrderId string
|
||||
// UserId and OrderId are distinct; cannot be mixed
|
||||
func GetUser(id UserId) (*User, error) { ... }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling (Errors P1 Errors are Data)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Errors are values:** `error` is an interface, not an exception. Handle explicitly.
|
||||
- **Sentinel errors with `errors.Is`:**
|
||||
```go
|
||||
var ErrNotFound = errors.New("not found")
|
||||
if errors.Is(err, ErrNotFound) { ... }
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **Wrap with context:** `fmt.Errorf("get user %d: %w", id, err)`.
|
||||
- **Never `_ = err`:** swallowed error (Errors P2). Handle or return.
|
||||
- **Custom error types with `errors.As`:**
|
||||
```go
|
||||
type ValidationError struct {
|
||||
Field string
|
||||
Msg string
|
||||
}
|
||||
func (e *ValidationError) Error() string { return e.Field + ": " + e.Msg }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Concurrency (Concurrency — Go's strength)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Goroutines + channels** for message passing (P5 Lock Minimization).
|
||||
- **`context.Context` for cancellation and timeout:** every function that does I/O takes a `ctx`.
|
||||
- **`sync.Mutex` scoped minimally:** not held across I/O (P3 Lock Scope).
|
||||
- **Bounded channels:** `make(chan T, N)`, not unbounded (P9 Bounded Queues).
|
||||
|
||||
```go
|
||||
func fetchWithTimeout(ctx context.Context, url string) (*Response, error) {
|
||||
ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(ctx, 5*time.Second)
|
||||
defer cancel()
|
||||
return doFetch(ctx, url)
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Immutability (Concurrency P1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Pass by value for small structs; pass by pointer for large or mutable.**
|
||||
- **No mutation of method receivers:** use a value receiver, not a pointer receiver, for read-only methods.
|
||||
- **Copy-on-write for shared state:** return a new struct, not a mutated one.
|
||||
|
||||
## Nullability (C1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Pointers can be nil; values cannot.** Be explicit: `*User` (nullable) vs `User` (not).
|
||||
- **`nil` check before deref:** a nil deref is a panic.
|
||||
- **Return `(T, error)`, not `(*T, nil)`:** avoid the "nil pointer" trap.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing (Testing)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`testing` package + `testify/assert`** or stdlib only.
|
||||
- **Table-driven tests:** `[]struct{ name string; input X; want Y }`.
|
||||
- **`t.Parallel()`** for independent tests (P2 Independence).
|
||||
- **`httptest` for HTTP handlers; `sqlite` or testcontainers for DB.**
|
||||
|
||||
## Observability (Observability P1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`slog` (stdlib, Go 1.21+) or `zap`/`zerolog`:** structured logs.
|
||||
- **`context.Context` carries `trace_id`:** propagated via middleware.
|
||||
- **No `fmt.Println`:** use the logger.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tooling (DevOps P2)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`go vet` + `golangci-lint`:** lint.
|
||||
- **`gofmt`/`goimports`:** format (automated, not debated).
|
||||
- **`go test -race` in CI:** race detector (Concurrency P6 No Silent Races).
|
||||
- **`go mod tidy` + committed `go.sum`:** reproducible builds.
|
||||
@@ -1,77 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Python — Language Application
|
||||
|
||||
> How Atelier's domain principles apply in Python specifically. Derives from `domains/` docs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Type System (C1 Correctness, Data P7 Type Fidelity)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Type hints on every function:** `def get_user(id: UUID) -> User | None:`.
|
||||
- **`mypy --strict` or `pyright` in CI:** type check is not optional.
|
||||
- **No `Any` without justification:** `Any` disables the type checker. Use `object` + narrowing.
|
||||
- **Pydantic for runtime validation:** schemas validate and type at the boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
```python
|
||||
from pydantic import BaseModel
|
||||
from uuid import UUID
|
||||
|
||||
class UserCreate(BaseModel):
|
||||
email: str
|
||||
name: str
|
||||
# additionalProperties: false by default (extra='forbid')
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling (Errors P1 Errors are Data)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Exceptions for exceptional cases,** not control flow. `raise` not `return None` for errors.
|
||||
- **Custom exception hierarchy:**
|
||||
```python
|
||||
class AppError(Exception): pass
|
||||
class ValidationError(AppError): pass
|
||||
class NotFoundError(AppError): pass
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **Never bare `except:`:** `except Exception as e:` (catch specific, not everything).
|
||||
- **Never `except: pass`:** log and re-raise or handle, never swallow (Errors P2).
|
||||
|
||||
## Async (Concurrency P7, P8)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`asyncio` for I/O-bound:** `async def`, `await`. Not threads for I/O.
|
||||
- **`anyio` for portability** if you may switch runtimes (trio compatibility).
|
||||
- **Timeout on every `await`:** `asyncio.wait_for(coro, timeout=5)`, not bare `await`.
|
||||
- **Cancellation propagated:** `asyncio.CancelledError` is not caught; it propagates.
|
||||
|
||||
## Immutability (Concurrency P1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`frozen=True` dataclasses** for value objects:
|
||||
```python
|
||||
from dataclasses import dataclass
|
||||
@dataclass(frozen=True)
|
||||
class UserId:
|
||||
value: str
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **Tuples over lists** for fixed-length, immutable sequences.
|
||||
- **No in-place mutation of shared state:** return new objects.
|
||||
|
||||
## Nullability (C1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`Optional[T]` is `T | None`:** explicit, must be checked.
|
||||
- **`None` is not "not found":** raise `NotFoundError` or return `Result`, not `None`.
|
||||
- **`assert` is for invariants,** not for runtime checks (stripped with `-O`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing (Testing)
|
||||
|
||||
- **pytest** with fixtures (factories, not shared state).
|
||||
- **`pytest --randomly`** to catch order-dependent tests (P2 Independence).
|
||||
- **`freezegun` for time:** no `datetime.now()` in tests; inject the clock.
|
||||
- **`factory_boy` or `pytest-factoryboy`** for realistic factories.
|
||||
|
||||
## Observability (Observability P1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`structlog` or `python-json-logger`:** JSON logs, not `print`.
|
||||
- **`logging` with structured formatter:** every log has `request_id`, `user_id`, `event`.
|
||||
- **No secrets in logs:** `mask_secret()` helper, or `structlog` processors.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tooling (DevOps P2)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`ruff` for lint + format:** replaces flake8 + black + isort.
|
||||
- **`mypy --strict` in CI:** type check.
|
||||
- **`pip-tools` or `poetry` for lockfile:** pinned dependencies.
|
||||
- **`pip install --no-deps -r requirements.txt`:** reproducible install.
|
||||
@@ -1,79 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# Rust — Language Application
|
||||
|
||||
> How Atelier's domain principles apply in Rust specifically. Derives from `domains/` docs.
|
||||
|
||||
## Type System (C1 Correctness, Data P7 Type Fidelity)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Newtypes for domain concepts:** `struct UserId(String);` — zero-cost, type-safe.
|
||||
- **`enum` for finite domains:** `enum Status { Pending, Paid, Shipped }` — exhaustive.
|
||||
- **No `unsafe` without justification and review:** `unsafe` opts out of the compiler's guarantees.
|
||||
|
||||
```rust
|
||||
struct UserId(String);
|
||||
struct OrderId(String);
|
||||
// Cannot pass OrderId where UserId is expected
|
||||
fn get_user(id: UserId) -> Result<User, Error> { ... }
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling (Errors P1 Errors are Data)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`Result<T, E>` for fallible operations:** errors are values, not exceptions.
|
||||
- **`thiserror` for error enums, `anyhow` for applications:**
|
||||
```rust
|
||||
#[derive(thiserror::Error)]
|
||||
enum AppError {
|
||||
#[error("not found: {0}")]
|
||||
NotFound(String),
|
||||
#[error("validation: {0}")]
|
||||
Validation(String),
|
||||
#[error(transparent)]
|
||||
Io(#[from] std::io::Error),
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **`?` for propagation, not `unwrap()`:** `unwrap()` panics in production.
|
||||
- **No `panic::catch_unwind` for control flow:** panics are for bugs, not errors.
|
||||
|
||||
## Concurrency (Concurrency — Rust's ownership model)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`Send` and `Sync` traits enforced by the compiler:** data races are compile errors.
|
||||
- **`Arc<T>` for shared, `Mutex<T>`/`RwLock<T>` for mutation:** the lock is explicit.
|
||||
- **`tokio` for async:** `async fn`, `.await`. Bounded channels (`tokio::sync::mpsc::channel(N)`).
|
||||
- **`Drop` for cleanup:** no leaked resources (no `defer` needed; RAII).
|
||||
|
||||
```rust
|
||||
async fn fetch_with_timeout(url: &str) -> Result<Response, Error> {
|
||||
tokio::time::timeout(Duration::from_secs(5), fetch(url)).await??;
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Immutability (Concurrency P1 Immutability by Default)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Variables are immutable by default:** `let x = 5;` not `let mut x = 5;`.
|
||||
- **`&T` (shared ref) over `&mut T` (exclusive ref):** the compiler enforces aliasing rules.
|
||||
- **Interior mutability (`Cell`/`RefCell`) only when needed:** not as a default.
|
||||
|
||||
## Nullability (C1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`Option<T>`, not nullable pointers:** `Some(x)` / `None`. The compiler enforces handling.
|
||||
- **No `null`:** Rust has no null. `Option::None` is the explicit absence.
|
||||
- **`?` on `Option` for propagation:** `fn get_name(user: User) -> Option<String> { user.profile?.name }`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing (Testing)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`#[test]` + `#[cfg(test)] mod tests`:** tests co-located.
|
||||
- **`proptest` or `quickcheck` for property-based tests:** edge case coverage (P9).
|
||||
- **`tokio::test` for async tests.**
|
||||
- **No `SystemTime::now()` in tests:** inject an `Instant` or a mock clock.
|
||||
|
||||
## Observability (Observability P1)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`tracing` crate:** structured logs + spans + traces. Not `println!`.
|
||||
- **`tracing::instrument` on functions:** automatic span context.
|
||||
- **`tracing-subscriber` with JSON format:** structured output for production.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tooling (DevOps P2)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`cargo clippy`:** lint. `cargo clippy -- -D warnings` in CI.
|
||||
- **`cargo fmt`:** format.
|
||||
- **`cargo test`:** tests. `cargo test --release` for perf-sensitive.
|
||||
- **Committed `Cargo.lock`:** reproducible builds (even for libraries, for CI).
|
||||
@@ -1,76 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# TypeScript — Language Application
|
||||
|
||||
> How Atelier's domain principles apply in TypeScript specifically. Derives from `domains/` docs; this file is the language-specific lens.
|
||||
|
||||
## Type System (C1 Correctness, Data P7 Type Fidelity)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Strict mode on:** `strict: true` in `tsconfig.json`. No `any` without justification.
|
||||
- **No `any`, no `unknown` without narrowing:** `any` disables the type checker. `unknown` requires narrowing before use.
|
||||
- **Discriminated unions over enums:** `type Status = { type: 'pending' } | { type: 'paid'; amount: number }` — exhaustive, type-safe.
|
||||
- **Branded types for domain IDs:** `type UserId = string & { __brand: 'UserId' }` — prevents passing a `PostId` where a `UserId` is expected.
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
type UserId = string & { readonly __brand: 'UserId' };
|
||||
function getUser(id: UserId): User { ... }
|
||||
// getUser("abc") // type error
|
||||
// getUser("abc" as UserId) // ok
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Error Handling (Errors P1 Errors are Data)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Result type over exceptions for expected failures:**
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
type Result<T, E> = { ok: true; value: T } | { ok: false; error: E };
|
||||
```
|
||||
- **Exceptions for programmer errors:** null deref, invariant violation. Not for "user not found."
|
||||
- **Never `any` in catch:** `catch (e: unknown)` then narrow with `instanceof` or a type guard.
|
||||
|
||||
## Async (Concurrency P7 Cancellation Support, P8 Timeout Discipline)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`Promise` with `AbortSignal`:** every async function accepts an optional `AbortSignal` for cancellation.
|
||||
- **`Promise.race` with a timeout:** never `await` without a timeout for external calls.
|
||||
- **No `await` in a hot loop without batching:** use `Promise.all` for parallelism.
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
async function fetchWithTimeout(url: string, signal?: AbortSignal): Promise<Response> {
|
||||
const timeout = new AbortController();
|
||||
signal?.addEventListener('abort', () => timeout.abort());
|
||||
const timer = setTimeout(() => timeout.abort(), 5000);
|
||||
try {
|
||||
return await fetch(url, { signal: timeout.signal });
|
||||
} finally {
|
||||
clearTimeout(timer);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Immutability (Concurrency P1 Immutability by Default)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`readonly` on arrays and objects:** `readonly string[]`, `readonly { id: string }`.
|
||||
- **`as const` for literals:** `const status = 'pending' as const`.
|
||||
- **Immutable update patterns:** `spread` or `Immer` for nested updates, never mutation.
|
||||
|
||||
## Nullability (C1 Correctness)
|
||||
|
||||
- **`strictNullChecks: true`:** `null` and `undefined` are distinct and must be handled.
|
||||
- **No `!` (non-null assertion) without justification:** it disables the null check. Use narrowing.
|
||||
- **`optional chaining` over `&&`:** `user?.profile?.name` not `user && user.profile && user.profile.name`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing (Testing)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Jest or Vitest** with `ts-jest`/`vite`. Test files co-located: `user.ts` → `user.test.ts`.
|
||||
- **Factories over fixtures:** `makeUser()` returns a fresh object per test.
|
||||
- **No `Date.now()` in tests:** inject the clock. `jest.useFakeTimers()` or pass a `now` function.
|
||||
|
||||
## Observability (Observability P1 Structured by Default)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Structured logger:** `pino` or `winston` in JSON mode. Not `console.log`.
|
||||
- **`request_id` via middleware:** propagated on every log in the request.
|
||||
- **No secrets in logs:** the logger redacts known secret fields (`pino` redact option).
|
||||
|
||||
## Tooling (DevOps P2 Automation)
|
||||
|
||||
- **ESLint with `@typescript-eslint`** — strict ruleset.
|
||||
- **Prettier** — format, not debated.
|
||||
- **`tsc --noEmit` in CI** — type check without emitting.
|
||||
- **`npm ci`** — lockfile install, not `npm install`.
|
||||
+10
-20
@@ -6,14 +6,14 @@
|
||||
|
||||
| Core Principle | Domains that derive from it | Count |
|
||||
|----------------|---------------------------|-------|
|
||||
| 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 |
|
||||
| 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 |
|
||||
|
||||
## Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -37,20 +37,10 @@
|
||||
| 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**, **Infrastructure as Code**, and **Kubernetes** are tied for the broadest derivation (7 C-rules each) — these domains touch the most core concerns.
|
||||
- **Concurrency** has the broadest derivation (7 C-rules) — it touches 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.
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
@@ -173,40 +173,4 @@ 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 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
| P10 Failure as Expected | C1, C7 | Correctness; observability |
|
||||
@@ -125,28 +125,6 @@ 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?
|
||||
|
||||
+1
-35
@@ -121,32 +121,6 @@ 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 |
|
||||
@@ -155,12 +129,4 @@ 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 |
|
||||
|
||||
## 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 |
|
||||
| Leaky abstraction | C6, C2 | Hidden coupling |
|
||||
@@ -59,25 +59,7 @@ 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, 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?
|
||||
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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Etiquette
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user