Files

glm-5.1 e592caed57 Add architecture review findings and address documentation issues

Review of all ADR documents (001-007) and peripheral architecture docs
identified 3 critical, 10 warning, and 7 suggestion issues.

Addressed in this commit:
- W-1: Add draft qualifier to ADR-002 reference to incremental exploration
- W-2: Add Alternatives Considered section to ADR-001
- W-3: Add Document Lifecycle section to README.md (draft/stable/deprecated)
- W-4: Clarify includeCompleted semantics (only 'completed' status triggers exclusion)
- W-5: Document file I/O runtime constraints in frontmatter.md
- W-6: Add ADR reference to architecture.md redirect
- W-7: Verify CVE-2025-64718 (confirmed real, improved description)
- W-9: Convert workspace-absolute paths to relative/monorepo references
- S-7: Add future ADR-008 note to incremental-update-exploration.md

Critical issues (C-1, C-2, C-3) and remaining warnings (W-8, W-10, S-4, S-5)
were addressed by a parallel agent in a prior commit.

All 16 review tasks created and resolved.

2026-04-26 09:41:05 +00:00

1.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

id, name, status, depends_on, created, modified, scope, risk

name

status

depends_on

created

modified

scope

risk

architecture/c-2-qualitydegradation-naming

Fix qualityDegradation semantic inversion

completed

2026-04-26T09:10:23.809702955Z

2026-04-26T09:10:23.809703479Z

narrow

high

Description

Review ref: C-2 (Critical) Files affected: docs/architecture/schemas.md, docs/architecture/cost-benefit.md

The field qualityDegradation is described as "how much upstream failure bleeds through" with "0.0 = no propagation, 1.0 = full propagation." But the propagation formula in cost-benefit.md uses (1 - qualityDegradation), meaning 0.9 = 90% quality retained (low bleeding), not 90% degradation. The name and description are semantically inverted.

Resolve one of three ways:

Preferred: Rename field to qualityRetention (0.9 = 90% quality retained, high retention, low bleeding).
Invert the semantics so high values = high degradation (use qualityDegradation directly in formula, not 1 - qualityDegradation), and change default from 0.9 to 0.1.
Keep the name but add an explicit "Note on naming" section documenting the inversion: "Despite the name, qualityDegradation represents quality retention."

This must be decided before implementation because it affects the schema, the propagation formula, the DependencyEdge default, and all consumer code.

Source: /docs/reviews/architecture-review-2026-04-26.md C-2

1.4 KiB Raw Blame History

Description

1.4 KiB

Raw Blame History