mirror of https://github.com/azaion/gps-denied-onboard.git synced 2026-06-21 05:51:13 +00:00

Files

T

Oleksandr Bezdieniezhnykh 6044a33197 chore: WIP pre-implement

Bundled hygiene commit before cycle-3 /implement (AZ-776, AZ-777). Mixes
two concerns by user choice (autodev option B):

- Cycle-3 autodev artifacts not yet committed by Step 9 (new-task):
  task specs for AZ-776 / AZ-777 under _docs/02_tasks/todo/ and the
  updated _docs/02_tasks/_dependencies_table.md.
- Accumulated skill / rule tooling maintenance under .cursor/ (skills:
  autodev, code-review, decompose, deploy, implement, new-task, plan,
  refactor, retrospective, test-spec; rules: coderule, cursor-meta,
  meta-rule, testing; new release skill scaffolding).
- Autodev bootstrap state: _docs/_autodev_state.md (step 10 in_progress)
  and _docs/_process_leftovers/2026-05-11_d_cross_cve_1_opencv_pin_deferred.md
  (replay timestamp refreshed; gtsam 4.2 still numpy<2-only).

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>

2026-05-21 13:14:11 +03:00

3.0 KiB

Raw Blame History

ADR-{NNN}: {decision-title}

Status: {Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded}
Date: {YYYY-MM-DD}
Deciders: {user / project owner}
Supersedes: {ADR-NNN | —}
Superseded by: {ADR-NNN | —}

Context

What problem does this decision address? Cite the relevant constraint(s), acceptance criterion / criteria, and risk(s) by ID.

Acceptance criteria addressed: AC-{ID-1}, AC-{ID-2}
Restrictions addressed: R-{ID-1}, R-{ID-2}
Risks addressed: RISK-{ID-1}
Research source (if any): _docs/01_solution/solution_draftN.md § {section}

A short paragraph (3–6 sentences) explaining why a choice is required now and what makes it non-trivial. Do not pre-announce the decision here — that goes in Decision. Focus on the forces at play (load, scale, team familiarity, hardware constraints, regulatory drivers, third-party limits).

Decision

One declarative sentence: "We will …" Then 1–3 paragraphs of supporting detail explaining how the decision will be implemented at the boundaries between components.

Be specific. "We will use Postgres" is too thin; "We will use Postgres 16 with logical replication for read scaling, restricting JSONB columns to top-level metadata only, with all transactional data in normalized tables" is the right resolution.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative	Rejected because
{Alt 1 — short label}	{one line: the cost / mismatch / risk that ruled it out, ideally referencing a measurable criterion}
{Alt 2 — short label}	{one line}
{Alt 3 — short label}	{one line}

At least one rejected alternative is mandatory. If only one option was ever considered, this is not an ADR — link to the source restriction or research selection from the parent doc instead.

Consequences

Positive

{What becomes easier / cheaper / faster, with concrete examples where possible}
{…}

Negative

{What becomes harder / locked in / costly to undo}
{…}

Every real decision has both. If the negatives section is hard to fill, the alternatives were probably not weighed seriously — return to the prior step.

Neutral / Open

{What is unchanged but worth flagging for future readers (e.g., "this does not change the auth boundary; auth remains in component 02_user_management as decided in ADR-003")}

Evidence

Where this decision is reflected on disk. Use file:section links so future readers can jump.

_docs/02_document/architecture.md § {section}
_docs/02_document/data_model.md § {section}
_docs/02_document/components/{##_name}/description.md § {section}
_docs/02_document/system-flows.md § {flow name}
_docs/02_document/deployment/{file}.md § {section}
{add more as needed}

Notes

Optional. Use for caveats that did not fit above, links to external research, or follow-ups that the team agreed to revisit on a known trigger ("re-evaluate after 6 months in production" / "re-evaluate when load exceeds 10× baseline").

3.0 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape