@mriekki/lean 0.4.2 → 0.4.4

package/assets/generated/core/core/skills/system-lab/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,333 @@
+---
+name: system-lab
+description: "Optional evidence-backed advanced system-design lab for architecture, runtime flows, APIs, failures, capacity, performance, observability, security, messaging, deployment, testing, evolution, debugging, and interview practice."
+argument-hint: "[architecture|runtime|api|failure|capacity|performance|observability|security|messaging|deployment|testing|debug|changes|evolve|compare|interview|topic] [work-item]"
+user-invocable: true
+disable-model-invocation: true
+---
+
+# System Lab
+
+`/system-lab` is an optional advanced learning surface built from current repository/runtime evidence. It complements `/coach`; it does not replace the engineering workflow or authorize implementation changes.
+
+For detailed usage, model semantics, and examples, read `docs/process/SYSTEM_DESIGN_LEARNING_WORKBENCH.md` in a greenfield consumer (or canonical `core/process/SYSTEM_DESIGN_LEARNING_WORKBENCH.md`).
+
+## 1. Core contract
+
+- Start from the current repository and the minimum safe evidence needed for the requested lens.
+- Treat the repository/runtime/configuration evidence as authoritative; generated diagrams are disposable projections, never a second source of truth.
+- Re-discover evidence whenever the lab is invoked. Do not make the human remember to refresh or rebuild a diagram.
+- Prefer the distributed `tools/lean-system-lab/system-workbench.py` when present. It always rebuilds its model from current evidence and may compare with its prior disposable snapshot.
+- Never inspect Production credentials, Production data, or secret values.
+- Do not change production code, configuration, infrastructure, schemas, data, or deployment state while in System Lab mode.
+- Do not claim runtime behavior from static topology alone. Label evidence precisely.
+- Discovered implementation defects return to the normal engineering workflow; do not silently fix them here.
+- Learning is optional and never blocks delivery.
+
+## 2. Evidence labels
+
+Use these labels consistently:
+
+```text
+CONFIRMED BY CODE       — directly observed in source/configuration/tests
+CONFIRMED BY RUNTIME    — directly observed in safe runtime/telemetry evidence
+DOCUMENTED INTENT       — stated in project documentation/ADR/requirements
+INFERRED                — reasonable interpretation from incomplete evidence
+UNKNOWN                 — evidence is insufficient
+LEARNER ASSUMPTION      — value supplied for a design/capacity exercise
+```
+
+A diagram edge is not automatically proof that a runtime call occurred. A dependency discovered from configuration/package references may still be only structural evidence.
+
+## 3. System-design competencies
+
+Assess independently rather than using one generic "system design level":
+
+```text
+requirements + scope framing
+capacity estimation + workload modeling
+API + contract design
+service/module decomposition
+data/storage selection
+caching
+messaging + asynchronous workflows
+consistency + distributed coordination
+scaling + partitioning
+availability + fault tolerance
+latency + performance
+runtime/deployment topology
+observability + SLO reasoning
+security + abuse resistance
+cost/complexity awareness
+architecture evolution
+incident/debug reasoning
+testing/verification strategy
+tradeoff defense
+interview communication
+```
+
+Use the common L1-L6 levels, but record evidence per competency.
+
+## 4. Architecture lenses
+
+Treat one system model as the basis for multiple views:
+
+```text
+STRUCTURE      components and dependencies
+RUNTIME        request/event path for a scenario
+API            contracts, boundaries, callers, downstreams
+DATA           stateful components and data movement
+SCALE          load assumptions and bottleneck questions
+FAILURE        failure domains and propagation hypotheses
+CONSISTENCY    places state may disagree or ordering/idempotency matters
+PERFORMANCE    latency budgets, fan-out, saturation, timeout/retry behavior
+OBSERVABILITY  metrics/logs/traces/SLO evidence and gaps
+SECURITY       trust boundaries, authn/authz, secrets/PII exposure, abuse controls
+MESSAGING      producers/consumers, delivery semantics, ordering, retries, DLQ
+DEPLOYMENT     processes/containers/nodes/environments and rollout concerns
+TESTING        verification boundaries and untested risk
+CHANGES        architecture impact of the current/recent work item
+EVOLUTION      what complexity becomes justified as constraints change
+```
+
+If evidence for a lens is absent, show the gap instead of inventing detail.
+
+## 5. Interactive workbench
+
+When `tools/lean-system-lab/system-workbench.py` exists, prefer it for a current project snapshot.
+
+The tool is read-only and dependency-free. It:
+
+- scans current repository evidence for application/service/frontend/library/datastore/cache/messaging/external/deployment/test signals;
+- records provenance for inferred components and dependencies;
+- generates a stable evidence fingerprint and current Git commit when available;
+- automatically compares with the prior disposable snapshot in the selected output directory;
+- accepts optional explicit model JSON for richer known architecture, scenarios, failure behavior, decisions, SLOs, and metadata;
+- accepts changed-file paths so a delivered work item can be overlaid on the architecture;
+- creates self-contained `index.html` plus `workbench.json`;
+- supports draggable nodes, search, zoom, clickable nodes/edges, scenario highlighting, lens switching, change overlays, failure exploration, capacity calculations, latency budgets, scale/evolution prompts, design drills, and interview perturbations.
+
+Generate into a stable per-repository temp/cache directory so the prior disposable snapshot can be used for change comparison. Do not commit generated output unless explicitly requested.
+
+## 6. Scenario-to-architecture tracing
+
+For a scenario such as checkout, authentication, background processing, or notification:
+
+```text
+entry point
+→ participating components
+→ synchronous calls
+→ state reads/writes
+→ asynchronous messages
+→ external dependencies
+→ user-visible/result state
+```
+
+Highlight only evidence-backed participants. If the sequence is inferred from topology rather than captured runtime evidence, say so.
+
+Ask the learner to explain the path before filling gaps when that improves learning.
+
+## 7. Prediction before reveal
+
+For advanced learning, default to making the human predict before revealing the explanation when practical.
+
+Examples:
+
+```text
+What fails if this dependency times out?
+Which component becomes the bottleneck at 10x traffic?
+Where can duplicate delivery cause damage?
+Which signal would distinguish database latency from downstream latency?
+What consistency guarantee does the requirement actually need?
+```
+
+Do not turn every interaction into a quiz. Explanation-first remains valid when explicitly requested.
+
+## 8. Failure and debugging mode
+
+Failure mode should distinguish verified behavior from topological hypotheses.
+
+```text
+symptom/failure injection
+→ learner predicts impact
+→ identify failure boundary
+→ likely propagation
+→ distinguishing telemetry/evidence
+→ resilience behavior
+→ user-visible effect
+→ prevention/design alternatives
+```
+
+Useful perturbations include database/cache/queue/dependency unavailability, slow dependency, duplicate/delayed/out-of-order messages, retry amplification, queue backlog, regional failure, network partition, bad deployment, and traffic spikes.
+
+For `/system-lab debug`, reveal evidence incrementally and ask what evidence the learner would inspect next. Do not implement the fix in learning mode.
+
+## 9. Capacity and performance mode
+
+Use explicit learner/design assumptions, not invented production numbers.
+
+Connect:
+
+```text
+DAU / active users
+requests per user
+peak multiplier
+read/write mix
+payload size
+retention
+fan-out
+latency/SLO target
+```
+
+with derived average/peak RPS, write RPS, bandwidth, storage growth, and latency-budget reasoning. Explain simplifying assumptions.
+
+A scale slider or changed workload is a prompt to re-evaluate bottlenecks and complexity; it is not proof that a specific technology is required.
+
+## 10. Distributed-systems and messaging mode
+
+Practice:
+
+- strong/eventual/read-after-write consistency;
+- optimistic concurrency and conflict handling;
+- idempotency and deduplication;
+- at-least-once delivery and the limits of "exactly once" claims;
+- ordering and partitioning;
+- retry/backoff/DLQ behavior;
+- outbox/inbox patterns;
+- sagas/compensation;
+- distributed locks only when justified.
+
+Use timelines when helpful. Make the learner reason about state before and after duplicate, delayed, failed, or reordered events.
+
+## 11. API, security, observability, testing, and deployment lenses
+
+API:
+- contract shape, validation, versioning, auth, errors, pagination, idempotency, downstream coupling.
+
+Security:
+- trust boundaries, public exposure, authentication, authorization, secret handling, PII/data classification, replay/abuse/rate limiting.
+
+Observability:
+- logs, metrics, traces, SLOs, correlation, dependency health, saturation/queue depth, evidence gaps.
+
+Testing:
+- unit/integration/contract/e2e boundaries, failure-path coverage, architecture risks not currently exercised.
+
+Deployment:
+- artifact/process/container topology, environment/config boundaries, health/readiness, scaling, rollout/rollback, region/failure-domain assumptions.
+
+Treat missing evidence as a learning question, not a defect by itself.
+
+## 12. Architecture evolution and counterfactuals
+
+Use the current system as the baseline and explore changes such as:
+
+```text
+remove the cache
+make a synchronous path asynchronous
+increase traffic 10x/100x
+move from SQLite to a server database
+introduce multi-region requirements
+split or recombine a service
+add a queue/search/object store/CDN
+tighten latency/availability/privacy requirements
+```
+
+For each evolution:
+
+```text
+problem/evidence
+→ change
+→ expected benefit
+→ new complexity/failure modes
+→ migration path
+→ when NOT to do it
+```
+
+Prefer evolutionary design over cargo-cult complexity.
+
+## 13. Tradeoff and "why not?" drills
+
+Challenge choices with credible alternatives:
+
+```text
+Why not a monolith?
+Why not microservices?
+Why not Kafka/a queue?
+Why not synchronous HTTP?
+Why not cache this?
+Why not shard now?
+Why not retry here?
+Why not use the existing relational database?
+```
+
+The goal is to defend the simplest design that satisfies current constraints, then adapt when constraints materially change.
+
+## 14. Architecture decisions
+
+When ADRs or documented decisions exist, connect diagram components/edges to them. For each major choice discuss:
+
+```text
+context
+chosen decision
+alternatives
+tradeoffs
+consequences
+revisit trigger
+```
+
+Do not silently create durable ADRs in learning mode.
+
+## 15. Change-focused learning
+
+`/system-lab changes <work-item>` should focus on the accepted/delivered change set when evidence is available.
+
+Show:
+
+- added/removed/changed components and dependencies;
+- affected runtime/data/message paths;
+- newly introduced or materially changed failure modes;
+- new security/observability/performance/testing questions;
+- architecture decisions or assumptions worth explaining.
+
+A changed file is evidence that a component was touched, not proof that its runtime behavior changed. Keep that distinction visible.
+
+## 16. Interview mode
+
+Make the human drive:
+
+```text
+requirements
+→ constraints + scale assumptions
+→ API/contracts
+→ data/storage
+→ high-level architecture
+→ deep dive
+→ bottleneck/failure analysis
+→ consistency/reliability
+→ security/observability
+→ evolution
+→ tradeoff defense
+```
+
+Perturb one material constraint at a time: 20x traffic, multi-region, strict data residency, unreliable dependency, tighter p99, zero-downtime migration, duplicate delivery, cost pressure, or new abuse threat.
+
+Score/coach the independent system-design competencies rather than assigning one generic score.
+
+## 17. Cross-lab navigation
+
+System Lab owns system context; Database Lab owns schema/query/ORM/plan depth.
+
+When a system node represents a database, explicitly offer `/db-lab` for deeper relational/query evidence. When `/db-lab` reaches system-level concerns such as service boundaries, traffic, availability, or end-to-end runtime flow, offer `/system-lab`.
+
+Do not duplicate database internals inside System Lab or architecture reasoning inside Database Lab.
+
+## 18. Delivery-completion visibility
+
+After successful delivery, Lean may recommend the labs as optional learning while the change is fresh.
+
+- If database-related evidence changed, make `/db-lab` or `/db-lab changes <work-item>` visibly recommended.
+- If architecture/runtime/API/messaging/deployment/security/observability behavior changed, make `/system-lab` or `/system-lab changes <work-item>` visibly recommended.
+- If neither is especially relevant, the labs may remain visible as available options without claiming the ticket changed them.
+- Never use user-facing wording such as "rebuild the diagram" or "refresh the database model". Running a lab already means inspect current evidence and generate the current view.
+- Best-effort disposable artifact generation after delivery is allowed when safe and cheap, but failure to generate a learning artifact never changes delivery state.