85 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
85 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
# Dev Design Review
|
|
|
|
## Overall Assessment
|
|
The current Dev-Design.md is 75-80% ready for delegation. Strong architecture and phased approach, but missing key operational sections.
|
|
|
|
## Chapter-by-Chapter Feedback
|
|
|
|
### 1. North Star
|
|
**Strengths**: Clear vision.
|
|
**Gaps**: No measurable success criteria for MVP.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add success metrics (e.g., Bob spends <15 min/week on research).
|
|
|
|
### 2. System Architecture
|
|
**Strengths**: Good diagram and memory budget.
|
|
**Gaps**: No data flow description, error propagation, or external dependency diagram.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add numbered daily run flow and failure modes section.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Data Layer
|
|
**Strengths**: Strong SQLite rationale and retention policy.
|
|
**Gaps**: No backup strategy or migration process.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add SQLite backup/restore and schema migration approach.
|
|
|
|
### 4. Adapter Layer
|
|
**Strengths**: Clear HTTP-only decision.
|
|
**Gaps**: No formal adapter interface contract.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Define minimal Adapter Interface (methods, exceptions).
|
|
|
|
### 5. Theme Tagging
|
|
**Strengths**: Good phased approach.
|
|
**Gaps**: No theme governance process.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add subsection on how themes are proposed and maintained.
|
|
|
|
### 6. Falsification Engine
|
|
**Strengths**: Exponential decay is a smart improvement.
|
|
**Gaps**: No calibration/tuning process.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add note on how decay parameters are validated.
|
|
|
|
### 7. Output Layer
|
|
**Strengths**: Good consumer separation.
|
|
**Gaps**: MCP tools are too high-level; no auth model.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Define minimum MCP tools and basic API auth.
|
|
|
|
### 8. Observability
|
|
**Strengths**: Decent start.
|
|
**Gaps**: No log retention, alerting thresholds, or SLIs.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add log retention policy and basic alerting matrix.
|
|
|
|
### 9. Scheduling
|
|
**Strengths**: Good comparison.
|
|
**Gaps**: No explicit recommendation for Phase 1 vs future.
|
|
**Recommendation**: State clear recommendation (cron for Phase 1).
|
|
|
|
### 10. Inference
|
|
**Strengths**: Clear host-level decision.
|
|
**Gaps**: No model upgrade/rollback process.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add model upgrade guidance.
|
|
|
|
### 11. Security
|
|
**Strengths**: Basic coverage.
|
|
**Gaps**: Container hardening and dependency scanning.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add MVP security baseline subsection.
|
|
|
|
### 12. Implementation Phases
|
|
**Strengths**: Strong.
|
|
**Gaps**: No Definition of Done per phase.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add DoD checklist for each phase.
|
|
|
|
### 13. Backport to PRD
|
|
**Strengths**: Useful.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Consider moving actual requirement text to PRD to avoid duplication.
|
|
|
|
### 14. Design Decisions
|
|
**Strengths**: Good.
|
|
**Recommendation**: Add "Revisit in Phase X" column for key decisions.
|
|
|
|
## Missing Sections to Add
|
|
|
|
1. **Testing Strategy** (unit, integration, E2E)
|
|
2. **Deployment & CI/CD**
|
|
3. **Operational Runbooks**
|
|
4. **Risk Register & Assumptions**
|
|
5. **Dependencies & Tooling**
|
|
|
|
## Priority for Next Revision
|
|
Focus on adding Testing Strategy, Runbooks, and DoD per phase first. This will make the document truly delegation-ready. |