Skip to content

Quality And Change Management

This project tries to earn credibility by making architectural claims that can be checked.

Principle

Documentation is not accepted as evidence by itself.

Architectural claims should be backed by one or more of:

  • executable tests
  • schema snapshots
  • command snapshots where appropriate
  • release and maintainer checks

Evidence Flow

flowchart LR
    Claim[Architectural claim] --> Test[Executable tests]
    Claim --> Contract[Schema or contract]
    Claim --> Docs[Architecture docs]
    Test --> Confidence[earned confidence]
    Contract --> Confidence
    Docs --> Confidence

This diagram explains how the repository expects confidence to be earned. Documentation contributes context, but executable tests and contract assets are what keep an architectural claim reviewable instead of rhetorical.

sequenceDiagram
    participant Change as Code or docs change
    participant Tests as Tests and checks
    participant Review as Review
    participant Release as Release workflow

    Change->>Tests: verify behavior
    Tests->>Review: show evidence
    Review->>Release: accept or reject
    Release-->>Change: published or sent back

The sequence diagram shows the review loop around a change. It connects implementation work, checks, review, and release so the quality model is tied to the actual repository workflow.

What Quality Means Here

Quality is not defined as “many documents” or “many reports.”

Quality means:

  • public behavior is intentional
  • legacy assumptions are removed when they are no longer true
  • generated artifacts are disposable
  • the repository does not pretend a temporary migration note is permanent architecture

Change Rules

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Proposed
    Proposed --> Implemented
    Implemented --> Verified
    Verified --> Documented
    Documented --> Released

This state diagram expresses the expected maturity path for a change. Shipping is intentionally later than implementation so verification and documentation do not become optional cleanup.

flowchart TD
    NewBehavior[New behavior] --> A{Public contract?}
    A -->|yes| B[Update tests, contracts, and docs]
    A -->|no| C[Update internal implementation only]
    B --> D[Review and release]
    C --> D

The final diagram shows how contract scope changes the required follow-up. New public behavior must update tests, docs, and contracts together, while purely internal changes can stay narrower.

Documentation Rule

These architecture documents should stay:

  • few in number
  • current
  • explicit about limits
  • willing to say "not supported", "not public", or "not finished" when that is the truth

Honest Status

This repository still has complexity and some historical drag. The answer is not to hide that drag under confident prose. The answer is to keep a small architecture canon, keep it accurate, and let the code and tests carry the rest.