Dmitry DementievandClaude Opus 4.8
6f9de57b0c
- Зачем:
- гравитация скилла тянула к «выдать артефакт»; управляющие документы
раздувались деталями реализации (диагностировано на живом тесте — ADR
с инлайном SQL).
- Что:
- gate/stop: «готово» = общее понимание + рекомендованное направление,
записанное минимально-достаточно, а не «артефакт произведён»; определение
в одном месте (stop_condition), gate на него ссылается.
- core_rules: минимально-достаточный артефакт + барьер высоты (без инлайна
исполняемых артефактов) + single source of truth; приоритет над
конвенциями репозитория.
- шаг 2: артефакт(ы) выбираются ПОСЛЕ понимания, набором по жанрам.
- adr.md/spec.md: Lifetime test → Scope test (ADR↔spec по охвату, не сроку);
detailed plan — transient и вне scope скилла.
- description + README: формулировки-цели ведут пониманием, не артефактом.
- Проверка:
- grep: старый framing (lifetime/transient) убран; cross-ref Scope test
сходится; определение «готово» не дублируется; витрина не artifact-first.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.9 KiB
Solution Design / Spec
Use for engineering, architecture, DevOps, integration, migration, or any non-product feature work where a direction has been chosen but not yet built.
Use the minimum-sufficient version: the smallest form that fully preserves the understanding, and no smaller. Drop sections that add nothing for this particular problem — an empty section is noise.
Template
# Title
## Problem
## Context
## Goals
## Non-goals
## Current state
## Options considered
## Recommended approach
## Rationale
## Decisions and rejected alternatives
## Risks and mitigations
## Validation
## Documentation impact
## Open questions
Notes on key sections
Options considered vs Decisions. Keep these two sections doing different jobs so the rejected options aren't written twice. Options considered is the landscape before the choice — the candidates and their trade-offs as they stood. Decisions and rejected alternatives is the outcome after the choice — what was picked and why each alternative was rejected. Frame in the first, judge in the second.
Decisions and rejected alternatives is the highest-value section. Capture:
- accepted decisions and the reason behind each
- rejected alternatives and why they were rejected
- subtle constraints and important defaults
- sequencing decisions
- assumptions future agents must not silently re-derive
Do not turn this section into an ADR dump. Keep decisions that are local to this
work here; promote a decision to its own ADR (artifacts/adr.md) only when it is
durable, surprising, the result of a real trade-off, and matters beyond the scope
of this work — cross-cutting, relevant to readers elsewhere (see the scope test
in artifacts/adr.md).
Validation describes how we will know the implementation is correct — tests,
checks, acceptance criteria. It belongs here, not in CONTEXT.md.