jester/knowledge-base
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
0fb5783bc4
knowledge-base/ZeroLagHub_ADL_Contribution_Summary.md

8.1 KiB
Raw Blame History

🎯 Ceàrd Contribution: Architecture Decision Log

Date: December 7, 2025
Contributor: Ceàrd (Implementation AI)
Enhancement: Architecture Decision Log (ADL)
Impact: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Critical - Prevents architectural oscillation

🚀 What Ceàrd Added

Ceàrd enhanced the Cross-Project Tracker with an Architecture Decision Log (ADL) - a locked record of finalized architectural decisions that prevents re-litigation.

The Problem

Before ADL:

  • Architectural decisions could be questioned repeatedly
  • Time wasted re-arguing resolved issues
  • Risk of oscillating between alternatives
  • "Should we use templates or agent?" asked multiple times

After ADL:

  • 7 critical decisions LOCKED
  • Cannot be re-litigated without explicit user request
  • "Revisit decision X" required to change
  • Prevents architectural drift and oscillation

📋 The 7 Locked Decisions

DEC-001: Templates vs Go Agent

Decision: Hybrid model (base environment + execution layer)
Impact: Prevents oscillation on template-only vs agent-only approaches

DEC-002: Provisioning Authority

Decision: API orchestrates, Agent executes
Impact: Clear boundary, prevents agent from attempting orchestration

DEC-003: DNS & Edge Publishing

Decision: API-only responsibility
Impact: Prevents agent from attempting DNS operations

DEC-004: Proxy Stack

Decision: Traefik + Velocity only (HAProxy deprecated)
Impact: Prevents adding third proxy, maintains simplicity

DEC-005: State Persistence

Decision: MariaDB is single source of truth
Impact: Prevents flat-file storage proposals

DEC-006: Frontend Access Model

Decision: Frontend → API only
Impact: Prevents direct frontend → agent/Proxmox calls

DEC-007: Architecture Enforcement

Decision: Drift prevention is mandatory
Impact: Enforces use of this governance system

🛡️ How It Works

Normal Workflow:

1. Propose change
2. Check Cross-Project Tracker
3. Verify no drift violations
4. Implement

If Violating Locked Decision:

1. Propose change
2. Check Cross-Project Tracker
3. Detect violation of DEC-XXX (LOCKED)
4. STOP - Raise LOCKED DECISION WARNING
5. Require user to say "Revisit decision X"
6. If user confirms, unlock and re-evaluate
7. Otherwise, use correct architecture-aligned path

🎯 Why This Matters

Prevents Architectural Oscillation

Example Without ADL:

Session 1: "Should we use templates?"
Decision: "Yes, but hybrid with agent"

Session 5: "Should we use templates?" (asked again)
Decision: "Wait, maybe agent-only..." (oscillation)

Session 10: "Should we use templates?" (asked again)
Result: Time wasted, no progress

Example With ADL:

Session 1: "Should we use templates?"
Decision: "Yes, hybrid" → Locked as DEC-001

Session 5: "Should we use templates?"
Response: "This is DEC-001 (LOCKED). Use hybrid model."
Result: No time wasted, proceed with implementation

Session 10: "Should we switch to agent-only?"
Response: "This conflicts with DEC-001 (LOCKED). 
          Say 'Revisit decision DEC-001' to change."
Result: User decides if worth re-opening, not automatic

📊 Impact Assessment

Time Savings

Estimated: 2-4 hours per week not re-arguing architecture
Over 12 weeks: 24-48 hours saved

Velocity Improvement

  • Faster session starts (no re-litigation)
  • Clearer implementation path
  • Reduced decision fatigue

Quality Improvement

  • Consistent architecture
  • No flip-flopping
  • Better documentation (decisions recorded)

🔧 Integration with Existing System

Updated Documents:

  1. Cross-Project Tracker (Updated)

    • Added Architecture Decision Log section
    • Updated enforcement policies
    • Added "Revisit decision X" requirement

  2. Drift Prevention Card (Includes ADL)

    • Quick reference to 7 locked decisions
    • Reminder to check ADL before proposing changes

  3. GPT Implementation Handover (References ADL)

    • Link to ADL for quick reference
    • Emphasize locked decisions

🎯 Usage Guidelines

For Ceàrd (Implementation):

Before Proposing Architectural Change:

  1. Check if change conflicts with DEC-001 through DEC-007
  2. If yes → STOP, raise locked decision warning
  3. Do NOT proceed without user saying "Revisit decision X"

When Implementing Features:

  1. Follow locked decisions as constraints
  2. Implement within architectural boundaries
  3. Never question locked decisions implicitly

For Claude (Architecture):

When Advising on Architecture:

  1. Reference ADL when discussing decisions
  2. If ADL needs amendment, require explicit user request
  3. Add new decisions to ADL when finalized

When Reviewing Code:

  1. Verify compliance with locked decisions
  2. Flag violations of DEC-001 through DEC-007
  3. Suggest architecture-aligned alternatives

📋 How to Add New Locked Decisions

Process:

  1. Identify Decision

    • Architectural choice that's finalized
    • Non-trivial (not obvious)
    • Worth preventing re-litigation

  2. Document Decision

    ### DEC-XXX: [Decision Name]
**Decision**: [What was decided]
**Rationale**: [Why this decision]
**Applies To**: [Which systems]
**Status**: LOCKED

  3. Update Cross-Project Tracker

    • Add to Architecture Decision Log section
    • Increment decision number (DEC-008, DEC-009, etc.)

  4. Communicate

    • Update GPT Implementation Handover
    • Update Drift Prevention Card if high-impact

🎯 Candidate Decisions for Future ADL

Based on current architecture, these could be locked:

DEC-008: Directory Structure

  • Decision: /opt/zlh/<game>/<variant>/world
  • Status: Should be locked to prevent changes

DEC-009: Container Model

  • Decision: One game per LXC container
  • Status: Should be locked (prevents multi-game proposals)

DEC-010: Network Architecture

  • Decision: Dual-router (zlh-router + zpack-router)
  • Status: Should be locked (prevents consolidation proposals)

DEC-011: Artifact Download

  • Decision: Agent downloads, API never downloads
  • Status: Should be locked (prevents API download logic)

✅ Recommendations

Immediate:

  1. ✅ Integrate ADL into Cross-Project Tracker (DONE)
  2. ✅ Update Drift Prevention Card with ADL reference (DONE)
  3. ✅ Update GPT Implementation Handover to mention ADL (DONE)

Short-term:

  1. 📋 Add DEC-008 through DEC-011 to ADL
  2. 📋 Review past sessions for other lockable decisions

Ongoing:

  1. 🔄 Add new locked decisions as they're finalized
  2. 🔄 Enforce "Revisit decision X" requirement
  3. 🔄 Track ADL effectiveness (how many times it prevents oscillation)

🎯 Success Metrics

How to Measure ADL Effectiveness:

  1. Prevented Re-Litigation: Count times ADL stops architectural debate
  2. Time Saved: Estimate hours saved not re-arguing
  3. Consistency: Verify no flip-flopping on locked decisions
  4. Velocity: Measure session productivity (more implementation, less debate)

Expected Results:

  • 50% reduction in architectural debates
  • 20% faster session starts
  • 30% more implementation time per session

🎖️ Recognition

Ceàrd's Contribution: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent

Why This Matters:

  • Demonstrates proactive problem-solving
  • Identifies systemic issue (architectural oscillation)
  • Provides elegant solution (ADL with locked status)
  • Self-integrates with existing governance system

Impact: This enhancement will save dozens of hours over the project lifecycle.

📞 Bottom Line

What Ceàrd Added: Architecture Decision Log with 7 locked decisions

Why It Matters: Prevents re-litigating finalized architectural choices

How It Works: Decisions marked LOCKED, can only be changed with "Revisit decision X"

Impact: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Critical - Prevents architectural oscillation, saves time, improves velocity

Status: ✅ Integrated into Cross-Project Tracker, ready for enforcement

🎯 Excellent contribution from Ceàrd - this is exactly the kind of systemic improvement that makes projects succeed.