jschoubben
5d1e6d0b09
12-a-module-repository says what a module may build and where it goes. Nothing said how a build is MODELLED, and the model is the problem: a recipe is implicit, singular and always a Dockerfile; a toolchain is not modelled at all, arriving as two build arguments the module hand-writes; a language is not a concept; and an archive is declared in the manifest and refused by the builder. The cost is measurable rather than theoretical. Adding a module with its own code means repeating an incantation - two ARG bases, a specific working directory so the SDK resolves upward, the compiler invoked by absolute path because the usual symlink is resolved away when the base is assembled, a second stage, an env var naming the entrypoints. Most of the catalogue is unconverted, and two conversions done in one session were each wrong twice with a working example open. So: recipe becomes explicit with three kinds, and toolchain becomes derived from a declared language rather than written by every author. A Dockerfile stays, and stops being compulsory - it is right for software needing a particular base and wrong for "compile my module's code", which is the same operation every time. The cost is stated before it is chosen: every language is permanent, and the contracts are already expressed twice - Go structs and TypeScript types kept in step by hand. A second language makes that drift. So language-neutral contracts come first, or the drift gets worse while hiding. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
03-DESIGN
The authoritative specification. Implementation is built against what is written here.
Two layers
| Folder | What it is |
|---|---|
00-as-is/ |
The mesh that exists today. Shipped behaviour, described as it is — including behaviour nobody would choose again. |
01-to-be/ |
The mesh being built toward. Every statement traceable to a record in 02-DECISIONS/. |
They are never mixed. A statement about the future does not belong in an as-is document, and an as-is document is never edited to describe an intention.
When a to-be design ships, it does not move. Its as-is counterpart is written or updated,
the to-be document's status becomes implemented, and both stand — one describing what runs,
the other recording what was intended. Deleting the intention loses the reasoning, which is
the expensive half.
Frontmatter
Every design document (not the READMEs) carries:
---
layer: as-is | to-be
status: designed | in-progress | implemented | abandoned
code: [] # owning code repo(s), from 00-META/repos.md
updated: YYYY-MM-DD # date of the last status change, not of text edits
decisions: [] # 02-DECISIONS/ records this document rests on
---
For an as-is document, status: implemented is the normal state — it describes something that
runs — and code: names where that implementation lives.
Status changes when implementation state changes, never because design text was edited. An
implemented claim must be defensible from the owning repository's main branch, not from
intent. If it cannot be checked, it is in-progress.
Cross-cutting views are generated from this frontmatter by the hq-status skill and never
written to disk.
What belongs here
Functional analysis, architectural description, and specification — prose and diagrams
only, no code. A manifest field may be named; a manifest may not be pasted. A document
enters the to-be layer only after the decision behind it is recorded in 02-DECISIONS/
and the research that produced it is closed.
Subfolders are encouraged where a layer grows enough to need them.