jschoubben
970da74136
Correcting a tick and a claim I made one commit ago. 4.1 does not wait on an enrolment user per live token; it waits on the whole composition, of which that user is one input. Tasks 1.3 and 1.4 are honest about what they built — the composer, the derivation, the permission model, the stream and consumer definitions, the asserter, all pure and held by unit tests and a golden composition. Nobody wrote the caller. Measured: outside the package that defines them there is not one use of the composer, the permission derivation, the stream set, the stream asserter or the principal type. Step 1's "done when" claims every account and permission composed from the manifests, and a mesh raised today would stand up a server with no user list at all. It also needs state the mesh does not keep. Design 25 §4 says the file holds bcrypt hashes and that passwords are minted and sealed exactly as today — but today the mesh mints one, hands it to the broker through a management call, seals the plaintext to the holder and keeps nothing. With no management call the hash has to survive every later recomposition, because the first thing a new module or a person's access change touches is a file that must still hold every other user's password. No bcrypt hash is stored anywhere in the controller. Named as its own task rather than folded into 1.3, so the gap between "the parts of step 1 exist" and "the mesh does any of it" is visible.
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.