jschoubben
85f972749a
0117 went a step further than it had grounds for. It was right that the bus is the only bus, and wrong that the amqp interface must therefore retire — because it conflated two reasons to want a broker. Using one to reach another module is a second bus and stays refused. Needing an AMQP broker as a backing service, the way something needs a database, is ordinary, and forbidding it would make the mesh unable to run normal software while calling that architecture. So the broker becomes a plain provider module: no seat, not foundation, never raised at genesis, no retirement condition. lavinmq now claims nothing and provides amqp; nats claims mesh-broker and provides nothing. The rule that survives is about direction, not software: inter-module communication goes over the bus. A module may hold a broker for itself; it may not use one as a channel to another module. That is a review judgement where 0117 could have used a parser, which is the honest cost. 0106's progressive insight was itself wrong and is corrected by a second one there — nothing moves off the old broker, so its "one purpose" sentence does not become true, it is just not what that server is. The insight check needed two fixes it found itself: a date may carry trailing words, and a bold run with a link is discussing an insight rather than marking one. All four bad shapes still fire.
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.