Files

glm-5.1 67ccfbf928 docs: restructure architecture docs to flowgraph pattern

- Create decisions/ directory with 32 numbered ADRs (ADR-001 through ADR-032)
  extracted from inline DD/SD/ED/SE decision sections
- Create open-questions.md with 16 OQs organized by theme, cross-referenced
  to ADRs, with status tracking (resolved/open)
- Create README.md as architecture index with doc table, ADR table, and
  lifecycle status definitions (draft/reviewed/stable/deprecated)
- Replace inline decision sections in all spec docs with ADR reference tables
- Replace inline open questions with OQ references to centralized tracker
- Update frontmatter: metagraph-module.md, overview.md, sqlite-host.md → reviewed;
  schema-evolution.md and encrypted-data.md remain draft
- DD1-DD10 → ADR-009 through ADR-018
- D1-D8 → ADR-001 through ADR-008
- SD1-SD5 → ADR-019 through ADR-023 (SD5 folded into ADR-006/008)
- ED1-ED5 → ADR-023 through ADR-027
- SE1-SE5 → ADR-028 through ADR-032

2026-05-29 07:19:03 +00:00

1023 B

Raw Blame History

ADR-013: Storage produces graphology format, flowgraph consumes it

Status

Accepted

Context

Graph data needs to flow between storage (persistence) and flowgraph (in-memory operations). The question is whether storage should depend on graphology directly.

Decision

Storage doesn't need a graphology dependency. It produces the JSON serialization format (SerializedGraph) that @alkdev/flowgraph's FlowGraph.fromJSON() and SerializedGraph consume. The Module entries validate data flowing in both directions. Storage defines the data shapes; flowgraph operates on them in memory.

Consequences

@alkdev/storage has zero dependency on graphology
The SerializedGraph factory signature stays the same — its schema arguments come from Module entries instead of standalone schemas
Storage produces format, flowgraph consumes format
moduleToGraphology() and fromGraphologyExport() bridge functions will be added in Phase 4

References

metagraph-module.md

1023 B Raw Blame History