@mriekki/lean 0.4.3 → 0.4.4

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

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 name: db-lab
-description: "Optional project-aware database learning lab using actual schema, ORM, migration, query, and query-plan evidence for SQL, relational design, debugging, and interview practice."
-argument-hint: "[schema|trace|plan|debug|migration|interview|topic] [light|focused|deep]"
+description: "Optional project-aware database learning lab using actual schema, ORM, migration, query, and query-plan evidence for SQL, relational design, debugging, change exploration, and interview practice."
+argument-hint: "[schema|changes|trace|plan|debug|migration|interview|topic] [work-item] [light|focused|deep]"
 user-invocable: true
 disable-model-invocation: true
 ---
@@ -14,12 +14,13 @@ For detailed usage and examples, read `docs/process/DATABASE_LEARNING_WORKBENCH.
 
 ## 1. Boundaries
 
-- Start from the actual repository and its documented development/test database configuration.
+- Start from the **current** repository and its documented development/test database configuration.
+- Re-discover relevant database evidence whenever the lab is invoked. Running `/db-lab` means inspect current evidence and show the current view; do not make the human remember to refresh/rebuild an ERD.
 - Prefer read-only inspection. Do not mutate application data, apply migrations, add/drop indexes, or change production code while in Database Lab mode.
 - Never inspect Production credentials or Production data.
 - Do not invent schema, SQL, query-plan behavior, ORM translation, or index usage. Distinguish inferred behavior from captured evidence.
 - If safe local database/runtime evidence is unavailable, fall back to repository artifacts and say what could not be verified.
-- Generated learning artifacts are allowed only as disposable local output from read-only evidence; do not commit them unless the human explicitly asks for a durable artifact.
+- Generated learning artifacts are disposable projections of current evidence. Generate in temp/cache output and do not commit them unless explicitly requested.
 - Discovered implementation defects return to the normal engineering workflow; do not silently fix them here.
 - Learning is optional and never blocks delivery.
 
@@ -45,7 +46,7 @@ Do not collapse these into one generic "SQL level". A developer may be strong in
 
 ## 3. Schema mode
 
-Build an evidence-backed view from the best available sources:
+Build an evidence-backed current view from the best available sources:
 
 ```text
 physical database metadata
@@ -65,7 +66,25 @@ ORM MODEL      — what the ORM maps and tracks
 PHYSICAL MODEL — what the relational database actually stores/enforces
 ```
 
-## 4. Query trace mode
+## 4. Change-focused mode
+
+`/db-lab changes <work-item>` should focus on the accepted/delivered change set when evidence is available.
+
+Show relevant changes to:
+
+- entities/tables and columns;
+- keys, constraints, relationships and cascade behavior;
+- indexes/access paths;
+- ORM mappings and generated SQL behavior;
+- migrations/schema evolution;
+- affected query paths;
+- transaction/concurrency assumptions.
+
+Connect each material change to the learning implication. A changed ORM/model file is evidence that persistence code was touched, not proof that the physical database changed; verify against migrations/schema/database evidence.
+
+When a previous disposable workbench snapshot exists, it may be used as a comparison aid. The current database/repository evidence remains authoritative.
+
+## 5. Query trace mode
 
 Trace a real application query without guessing:
 
@@ -82,7 +101,7 @@ application/ORM expression
 
 Keep translation preview and actual executed command distinct when the framework exposes both.
 
-## 5. Query-to-ERD highlighting
+## 6. Query-to-ERD highlighting
 
 When the distributed SQLite workbench or another compatible viewer is available, a selected query should drive a linked ERD view:
 
@@ -97,7 +116,7 @@ Never claim the planner used an index merely because it exists or looks relevant
 
 If no interactive viewer is available, provide a temporary Mermaid/text diagram using the same evidence and clearly label it as a fallback rather than a live ERD.
 
-## 6. SQLite workbench
+## 7. SQLite workbench
 
 When `tools/lean-db-lab/sqlite-workbench.py` exists and a safe local development/test SQLite database is known, prefer it for physical-schema and query-plan evidence.
 
@@ -110,11 +129,11 @@ The tool:
 - generates self-contained `index.html` plus `workbench.json` learning artifacts;
 - supports interactive table/index inspection and query-to-ERD highlighting.
 
-Generate output in an explicitly selected disposable/temp location. Do not write it into tracked project paths by default.
+Generate output in a stable per-repository disposable/temp location when practical. Running the lab should regenerate the current view; an already-open older browser tab is not authoritative.
 
 The workbench analyzes captured SQL; it does not itself capture Entity Framework commands. Obtain translation/execution evidence through supported framework mechanisms first, then pass the captured SQL into the workbench when useful.
 
-## 7. Query-plan/performance mode
+## 8. Query-plan/performance mode
 
 Use provider-native plan evidence where safely available. Ask the developer to predict likely scans/searches/joins/index behavior before revealing the plan when that improves learning.
 
@@ -130,7 +149,7 @@ query/access pattern
 
 Do not teach "add an index" without connecting it to a concrete access pattern, selectivity/order needs, write cost, and plan evidence.
 
-## 8. Debug mode
+## 9. Debug mode
 
 ```text
 symptom
@@ -145,7 +164,7 @@ symptom
 
 The human should diagnose before the lab reveals the answer unless they explicitly request explanation-first coaching.
 
-## 9. Migration mode
+## 10. Migration mode
 
 Connect:
 
@@ -159,7 +178,7 @@ ORM migration/change
 
 Ask the developer to predict effects before showing generated SQL when useful. Discuss destructive changes, nullability transitions, backfills, constraint creation, and rollback limitations without applying migrations in learning mode.
 
-## 10. Interview/design mode
+## 11. Interview/design mode
 
 Use the active project domain as context, but perturb requirements so the developer must reason rather than reproduce the existing schema.
 
@@ -181,7 +200,7 @@ requirements clarification
 
 Challenge unsupported choices. Ask why a junction table exists, why a key was selected, what deletion means historically, which queries justify an index, and how changed requirements alter the design.
 
-## 11. ORM-specific evidence
+## 12. ORM-specific evidence
 
 When Entity Framework Core is present, distinguish:
 
@@ -195,8 +214,32 @@ Do not present a translation preview as proof of the exact command that executed
 
 For other ORMs, apply the same principle using framework-supported evidence instead of guessing.
 
-## 12. Tooling
+## 13. Cross-lab navigation
+
+Database Lab owns database depth; System Lab owns end-to-end system context.
+
+When database exploration reaches service boundaries, request/event flow, traffic, availability, security, deployment, or system-wide failure behavior, offer `/system-lab` when installed.
+
+When `/system-lab` reaches a database node and the learner needs schema/query/index/ORM/plan depth, return to `/db-lab`.
+
+## 14. Delivery-completion visibility
+
+After successful delivery, Lean may visibly recommend `/db-lab` while the change is fresh when the accepted diff changed database-related evidence such as entities, migrations, schema, SQL/query code, repository/persistence behavior, indexes, constraints, or transaction logic.
+
+Prefer learner-facing wording such as:
+
+```text
+★ /db-lab changes WI-24
+  This work changed database structure or behavior.
+  Explore affected relationships, queries, indexes, constraints, and ORM behavior.
+```
+
+Do **not** say "rebuild the database diagram" or "refresh the model". Current evidence is part of invoking the lab.
+
+Best-effort disposable workbench generation after delivery is allowed only when a safe development/test database is already known. Do not guess a database path, create/apply migrations, or touch Production just to generate a learning artifact. Generation failure never changes delivery state.
+
+## 15. Tooling
 
 Optional IDE/database extensions may improve exploration but are not workflow authority and must not become a required dependency unless the project explicitly owns that requirement.
 
-Prefer provider/framework-native inspection plus repository evidence. The SQLite workbench is a reusable read-only learning aid; future provider/ORM adapters should preserve the same evidence and safety contract.
+Prefer provider/framework-native inspection plus repository evidence. The SQLite workbench is a reusable read-only learning aid; future provider/ORM adapters should preserve the same evidence, current-by-default behavior, and safety contract.

package/assets/generated/core/core/skills/deliver/SKILL.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: deliver
-description: "Streamlined delivery after implementation review/approval: short-lived branch recovery/setup, selective commit/push/PR/CI mechanics, one explicit merge/finalize gate, post-merge CI, and safe delivered-branch cleanup."
+description: "Streamlined delivery after implementation review/approval: short-lived branch recovery/setup, selective commit/push/PR/CI mechanics, one explicit merge/finalize gate, post-merge CI, safe delivered-branch cleanup, and optional non-blocking learning handoff."
 argument-hint: "[optional work-item ID or external key]"
 user-invocable: true
 disable-model-invocation: true
@@ -49,8 +49,11 @@ D. MERGE + FINALIZE DECISION — one human gate
 E. POST-MERGE DEFAULT-BRANCH CI — automatic observation
 F. DELIVERED-BRANCH FINALIZATION — automatic when authorized and safe
 G. DELIVERY COMPLETE
+H. OPTIONAL LEARNING HANDOFF — visible, read-only/non-blocking
 ```
 
+Phase H never changes whether engineering delivery is complete.
+
 ## 3. Resume-aware initial inspection
 
 Inspect only what is needed to determine the furthest safe delivery state, such as:
@@ -281,9 +284,9 @@ Never use force deletion merely to bypass uncertainty.
 
 If any safety condition fails, preserve the branch and report `BRANCH CLEANUP PENDING` with the exact reason instead of asking repetitive yes/no questions.
 
-## 11. Delivery completion
+## 11. Delivery completion and optional learning handoff
 
-Report the observed outcome:
+First report the observed engineering outcome:
 
 ```text
 DELIVERY COMPLETE
@@ -302,6 +305,73 @@ DELIVERY COMPLETE — BRANCH CLEANUP PENDING
 
 and preserve the branch.
 
+After engineering delivery is complete, use the accepted PR/work-item diff to classify optional learning relevance. This classification is read-only and does not create another delivery state.
+
+Database relevance can include observed changes to entities/models, migrations, DDL/schema, SQL/query/repository/persistence code, indexes/constraints, ORM mappings, or transaction/concurrency behavior.
+
+System-design relevance can include observed changes to APIs/contracts, service/module boundaries, cross-component dependencies, external integrations, messaging/events, caches, security/auth boundaries, observability, deployment/runtime topology, infrastructure, scaling/performance behavior, or failure handling.
+
+A changed file proves that evidence was touched; it does not by itself prove a physical-schema or runtime-behavior change. Use `changed`/`affected` wording conservatively and verify deeper claims through the corresponding lab.
+
+### Best-effort disposable workbench preparation
+
+After merge, satisfactory post-merge/default-branch evidence, and update to the delivered default-branch checkout, `/deliver` may prepare current disposable learning artifacts automatically when all prerequisites are already safe and unambiguous.
+
+System Lab:
+- when system-design relevance is present and `tools/lean-system-lab/system-workbench.py` exists, it may run the exporter against the current repository;
+- use a stable per-repository temp/cache output directory so an older disposable `workbench.json` can be compared before replacement;
+- pass the accepted changed-file list via `--changed-file` when practical;
+- never write generated workbench output into tracked project paths by default.
+
+Database Lab:
+- when database relevance is present, `tools/lean-db-lab/sqlite-workbench.py` exists, and a safe local development/test SQLite database path is already known from project setup/configuration/evidence, it may generate the current DB workbench;
+- do not guess a database path;
+- do not create a database, apply migrations, mutate data, inspect Production, or change code merely to prepare a learning artifact.
+
+For either lab:
+- artifact generation is read-only/best-effort;
+- failure/unavailability is reported briefly and never changes `DELIVERY COMPLETE`;
+- generation does not mean the human performed the learning activity or demonstrated understanding;
+- do not open browser/UI automatically unless normal repository/local-workflow conventions make that expected and non-disruptive.
+
+### Visible optional learning reminder
+
+Keep learning visible while the change is fresh. Prefer this order:
+
+```text
+OPTIONAL LEARNING — recommended while this change is fresh
+
+★ /db-lab changes <work-item>
+  This work changed database structure or behavior.
+  Explore affected relationships, queries, indexes, constraints, and ORM behavior.
+
+★ /system-lab changes <work-item>
+  This work changed system structure or runtime behavior.
+  Explore affected components, flows, dependencies, tradeoffs, and failure modes.
+
+○ /code-walkthrough <work-item>
+  Walk through the implementation and changed-file flow.
+
+○ /learning-review <work-item>
+  Test your understanding.
+
+Learning is optional and does not affect delivery state.
+```
+
+Only use `★` for a lab supported by the accepted change evidence. If a lab is not especially relevant, keep it visible as an available option when useful, for example:
+
+```text
+○ /db-lab
+  Explore the current database schema, relationships, queries, indexes, and ORM behavior.
+
+○ /system-lab
+  Explore the current architecture, runtime flows, dependencies, scaling, and failure behavior.
+```
+
+Do not tell the human to "rebuild", "refresh", or maintain a generated diagram. Invoking a lab means inspect current evidence and generate/show the current view.
+
+Do not turn these reminders into approval prompts. The human may invoke one, continue to deployment work, start another work item, or do nothing.
+
 ## 12. Deployment handoff
 
 If the delivered work item owns release/deployment engineering, successful engineering delivery may hand off to the selected environment's state-driven readiness workflow:
@@ -314,12 +384,14 @@ Readiness re-discovers current state and continues from the furthest safe point;
 
 The readiness workflow is environment-generic. Production remains an environment role with stronger policy; merge approval never implies remote or production-deployment authorization.
 
+The optional learning handoff does not block or replace deployment readiness when deployment is the sensible next engineering action.
+
 ## 13. Relationship to /start-work, /next-step, and /cleanup-branches
 
 `/start-work` establishes the short-lived work branch as routine implementation setup once implementation is actually authorized.
 
-`/next-step` answers `Where am I?`.
+`/next-step` answers `Where am I?` and may surface optional learning choices without creating learning-only workflow states.
 
-`/deliver` takes reviewed/accepted work through routine branch/commit/push/PR/CI mechanics automatically, then stops once for the merge-and-finalize decision.
+`/deliver` takes reviewed/accepted work through routine branch/commit/push/PR/CI mechanics automatically, then stops once for the merge-and-finalize decision. After successful engineering completion it may prepare disposable learning workbenches and shows an optional learning handoff without creating another gate.
 
 `/cleanup-branches` is the standalone preview-first path for accumulated, previously retained, unrelated, or otherwise out-of-band branch housekeeping.

package/assets/generated/core/core/skills/next-step/SKILL.md

@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ Use only states supported by observed evidence.
 
 Do not add a separate final-PR-acceptance state when the PR still exactly matches the already accepted local implementation. In that normal case, `/deliver` combines final acceptance and merge into the single `MERGE_READY` decision. If PR evidence changed materially, describe the required final PR review explicitly before returning to `MERGE_READY`.
 
-Do not add learning-only states such as `CODE_WALKTHROUGH_PENDING`. Optional coaching does not change engineering delivery state.
+Do not add learning-only states such as `CODE_WALKTHROUGH_PENDING`. Optional coaching and labs do not change engineering delivery state.
 
 ## 3. Output
 
@@ -96,9 +96,17 @@ When implementation is stable enough to learn from and the human appears interes
 /code-walkthrough <scope> — guided changed-file explanation [READ ONLY]
 /learning-review <scope> — understanding assessment [READ ONLY]
 /coach <topic> — focused concept coaching [READ ONLY]
+/db-lab [changes <work-item>] — current database/schema/query/ORM evidence [READ ONLY]
+/system-lab [changes <work-item>] — current architecture/runtime/failure/design evidence [READ ONLY]
 ```
 
-Prefer `/code-walkthrough` when the user wants to understand what changed across an implementation. Do not recommend it as mandatory before `/deliver`.
+Prefer `/code-walkthrough` when the user wants to understand what changed across an implementation. Prefer `/db-lab` when the question depends on concrete schema/query/index/ORM evidence. Prefer `/system-lab` when it depends on architecture, runtime flows, APIs, dependencies, failure behavior, scale, messaging, observability, security, deployment, testing, or system-design tradeoffs.
+
+When a known work-item diff materially touches one of those evidence areas, make the corresponding `changes <work-item>` option visibly relevant. Do not claim a runtime or physical-schema change solely because a file was touched.
+
+Labs inspect current evidence when invoked. Do not tell the human to refresh or rebuild a generated diagram.
+
+Do not recommend any learning activity as mandatory before `/deliver`.
 
 ## 5. Delivery handoff
 
@@ -140,7 +148,7 @@ Never merge from `/next-step` merely because CI is green.
 After merge:
 - if required default-branch CI is pending, return to `/deliver` to resume observation/finalization;
 - if failed, inspect/diagnose;
-- if green and branch finalization is safe/complete, report delivery complete.
+- if green and branch finalization is safe/complete, report delivery complete and optional relevant learning follow-ups without changing the delivery state.
 
 ## 6. Deployment handoff
 
@@ -173,3 +181,5 @@ Do not infer readiness of one environment from another. Production is never an i
 ## 7. Keep it lean
 
 Do not auto-run Reviewer, auto-run learning activities, auto-merge, auto-deploy, pin/select a model, or maintain duplicate workflow state outside Git/GitHub and the configured work-item/readiness authority.
+
+Generating a disposable read-only learning workbench is not the same as auto-running a learning activity or proving understanding. `/deliver` may prepare such artifacts best-effort after successful delivery when safe and relevant; learning itself remains optional.

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.