jochen
aad92ea8fe
The design pass. Everything a module needs is a requirement: a name, a contract, and one of four kinds of provider — a module, the node's host, the mesh, the operator. Installing a module resolves every requirement or refuses, naming everything missing at once. It retires six mechanisms that grew separately: provisions through bindings, settings, assigned ports, machine facts, minted secrets and literals in the definition. ADR 0113, proposed: a provider makes what it provides, and the mesh carries it back sealed to the consumer's node. It is the return path ADR 0048 left "to a separate decision", now needed three ways: data provisions with nothing to answer with, contracts needing a value the controller cannot make, and a vault that generates nothing. Who a consumer is stays the mesh's (ADR 0049). Genesis is the one exception. On acceptance it supersedes 0048 and amends 0085. ADR 0112 is revised from three sources to that single concept. ADR 0110 is amended for two points raised in review. The vault gets the mesh-vault seat (issue 106). A seat's holder outranks co-location for a provision it delivers. Writing that down exposed an inconsistency: mesh-store delivering postgres-database would have sent every database consumer to the control-node, against to-be 23's node-local stores. So a seat delivers a provision only where the mesh has one answer for everyone — artifact store, npm registry, git, vault — and mesh-store and mesh-broker deliver nothing. 23 and 26 follow. 'Control plane' becomes 'controller' in the records written today.
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.