@mytechtoday/augment-extensions 1.2.2 → 1.3.1

package/augment-extensions/workflows/adr-support/examples/complete-lifecycle-example.md

@@ -0,0 +1,449 @@
+# Complete ADR Lifecycle Example
+
+This example demonstrates the full lifecycle of an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) from initial draft through all status transitions to final superseded state.
+
+## Overview
+
+This example tracks ADR-0042 "Migrate to Microservices Architecture" through its complete lifecycle:
+
+```
+draft → proposed → approved → implemented → maintained → superseded
+```
+
+## Timeline Summary
+
+- **2026-02-05**: Created (draft)
+- **2026-02-08**: Proposed for review
+- **2026-02-12**: Approved by team
+- **2026-03-15**: Implemented (first services migrated)
+- **2026-06-01**: Moved to maintained (initial review)
+- **2027-06-01**: Superseded by ADR-0089 (return to modular monolith)
+
+---
+
+## Version 1: Draft Status
+
+**File:** `adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md`
+
+```markdown
+# ADR-0042: Migrate to Microservices Architecture
+
+**Status:** Draft
+
+**Date:** 2026-02-05
+
+**Deciders:** Tech Lead, Senior Architect, Development Team
+
+**Technical Story:** Related to OpenSpec change: scaling-architecture
+
+---
+
+## Context
+
+Our monolithic application is experiencing scaling challenges:
+- Deployment takes 45+ minutes
+- Cannot scale individual components independently
+- Team coordination bottlenecks with 20+ developers
+- Database contention during peak loads
+
+### Forces
+
+- Need to scale user service independently (10x traffic growth expected)
+- Payment processing requires PCI compliance isolation
+- Team wants to use different tech stacks for different services
+- Operations team concerned about complexity
+- Limited experience with distributed systems
+
+---
+
+## Decision
+
+We will migrate our monolithic application to a microservices architecture, starting with user and payment services.
+
+### Rationale
+
+- Independent scaling of high-traffic services
+- Faster deployment cycles (target: \u003c 10 minutes)
+- Team autonomy and technology flexibility
+- Better fault isolation
+
+---
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+
+- Independent service scaling
+- Faster deployments
+- Team autonomy
+- Technology flexibility
+
+### Negative
+
+- Increased operational complexity
+- Distributed system challenges (network, consistency)
+- Need for service mesh/API gateway
+- Higher infrastructure costs initially
+
+### Neutral
+
+- Learning curve for team
+- Need to build DevOps capabilities
+- Monitoring and observability requirements
+
+---
+
+## Related Decisions
+
+- Related to: ADR-0038 (API Gateway Selection)
+- Related to: ADR-0040 (Service Mesh Evaluation)
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+### References
+
+- [Microservices Patterns](https://microservices.io/patterns/)
+- [Building Microservices by Sam Newman](https://samnewman.io/books/building_microservices/)
+
+### Implementation Notes
+
+**DRAFT - INCOMPLETE**
+- Need to finalize service boundaries
+- Need to evaluate service mesh options
+- Need to plan data migration strategy
+```
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Initial draft created
+- Context gathered from team discussions
+- Basic structure in place
+- Marked as DRAFT - not ready for review
+
+---
+
+## Version 2: Proposed Status
+
+**File:** `adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md` (updated)
+
+**Changes from Draft:**
+- Added complete service boundary analysis
+- Added detailed migration plan
+- Added risk assessment
+- Identified reviewers and review deadline
+- Completed all required sections
+
+**Metadata Updates:**
+```yaml
+status: proposed
+review_by: 2026-02-12
+reviewers: ["tech-lead", "senior-architect", "ops-lead", "team"]
+```
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Completed all sections
+- Added migration phases
+- Documented risks and mitigation
+- Sent to team for review
+- Scheduled review meeting for 2026-02-12
+
+---
+
+## Version 3: Approved Status
+
+**File:** `adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md` (updated)
+
+**Changes from Proposed:**
+- Added approval metadata
+- Addressed review feedback
+- Created implementation tasks
+- Linked to Beads tasks
+
+**Metadata Updates:**
+```yaml
+status: approved
+approved_date: 2026-02-12
+approved_by: ["tech-lead", "senior-architect", "ops-lead"]
+related_tasks: ["bd-ms01", "bd-ms02", "bd-ms03", "bd-ms04"]
+related_specs: ["openspec/changes/microservices-migration"]
+```
+
+**Review Feedback Addressed:**
+1. ✅ Added rollback plan
+2. ✅ Defined service SLAs
+3. ✅ Created monitoring requirements
+4. ✅ Documented data consistency strategy
+
+**Implementation Tasks Created:**
+- `bd-ms01`: Set up API gateway (Kong)
+- `bd-ms02`: Migrate user service
+- `bd-ms03`: Migrate payment service
+- `bd-ms04`: Implement service mesh (Istio)
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Team approved decision
+- Created implementation tasks in Beads
+- Updated coordination manifest
+- Began implementation planning
+
+---
+
+## Version 4: Implemented Status
+
+**File:** `adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md` (updated)
+
+**Changes from Approved:**
+- Added implementation completion date
+- Documented implementation notes
+- Updated with actual outcomes
+- Linked to deployed services
+
+**Metadata Updates:**
+```yaml
+status: implemented
+approved_date: 2026-02-12
+implemented_date: 2026-03-15
+implementation_notes: |
+  Completed migration of user service and payment service.
+
+  Services deployed:
+  - user-service: https://api.example.com/users
+  - payment-service: https://api.example.com/payments
+
+  Infrastructure:
+  - Kong API Gateway configured
+  - Istio service mesh deployed
+  - Prometheus + Grafana monitoring
+
+  Metrics (first week):
+  - User service: 99.9% uptime, avg response 45ms
+  - Payment service: 99.95% uptime, avg response 120ms
+  - Deployment time reduced from 45min to 8min
+```
+
+**Implementation Completed:**
+- ✅ `bd-ms01`: API gateway deployed
+- ✅ `bd-ms02`: User service migrated and deployed
+- ✅ `bd-ms03`: Payment service migrated and deployed
+- ✅ `bd-ms04`: Service mesh configured
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Marked all implementation tasks as complete
+- Updated ADR with implementation notes
+- Scheduled 3-month review
+- Began monitoring consequences
+
+---
+
+## Version 5: Maintained Status
+
+**File:** `adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md` (updated)
+
+**Changes from Implemented:**
+- Added review schedule
+- Documented lessons learned
+- Updated consequences with actual outcomes
+- Added review notes
+
+**Metadata Updates:**
+```yaml
+status: maintained
+implemented_date: 2026-03-15
+last_reviewed: 2026-06-01
+next_review: 2027-02-01
+review_frequency: annual
+review_notes: |
+  First review completed 3 months after implementation.
+
+  Observed Benefits (as expected):
+  - ✅ Deployment time: 45min → 8min (82% improvement)
+  - ✅ Independent scaling working well
+  - ✅ Team velocity increased 30%
+  - ✅ Zero downtime deployments achieved
+
+  Observed Benefits (unexpected):
+  - ✅ Improved developer satisfaction
+  - ✅ Better fault isolation than anticipated
+  - ✅ Easier to onboard new developers
+
+  Challenges (expected):
+  - ⚠️ Operational complexity higher than estimated
+  - ⚠️ Monitoring requires dedicated attention
+  - ⚠️ Network latency between services
+
+  Challenges (unexpected):
+  - ⚠️ Data consistency more complex than planned
+  - ⚠️ Testing distributed transactions difficult
+  - ⚠️ Infrastructure costs 40% higher than budgeted
+
+  Actions Taken:
+  - Created ADR-0095: Monitoring and Observability Strategy
+  - Created ADR-0096: Distributed Transaction Patterns
+  - Scheduled cost optimization review
+
+  Decision: Continue with microservices, address challenges
+```
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Conducted first review
+- Documented actual vs expected outcomes
+- Created follow-up ADRs for challenges
+- Scheduled annual review
+- Updated team on findings
+
+---
+
+## Version 6: Superseded Status
+
+**File:** `adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md` (updated)
+
+**Changes from Maintained:**
+- Marked as superseded
+- Linked to superseding ADR
+- Documented superseding reason
+- Preserved historical context
+
+**Metadata Updates:**
+```yaml
+status: superseded
+implemented_date: 2026-03-15
+last_reviewed: 2027-05-15
+superseded_date: 2027-06-01
+superseded_by: adr-0089
+superseded_reason: |
+  After 15 months of operation, team decided to migrate back to
+  modular monolith architecture. See ADR-0089 for details.
+
+  Key factors in decision reversal:
+  - Operational costs 60% higher than monolith
+  - Team size (20 developers) not large enough to justify complexity
+  - Most services don't need independent scaling
+  - Distributed system complexity outweighed benefits
+
+  Lessons learned preserved in ADR-0089.
+```
+
+**Final Status:**
+- Decision reversed after 15 months
+- Superseded by ADR-0089: "Migrate to Modular Monolith"
+- Historical record preserved
+- Lessons learned documented
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Created ADR-0089 with lessons learned
+- Updated cross-references
+- Preserved this ADR for historical context
+- Shared findings with broader team
+
+---
+
+## Coordination Manifest Updates
+
+Throughout the lifecycle, the `.augment/coordination.json` was updated to track relationships:
+
+### Draft → Proposed
+```json
+{
+  "adrs": {
+    "adr-0042": {
+      "status": "proposed",
+      "file": "adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md",
+      "relatedSpecs": [],
+      "relatedTasks": []
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Approved → Implemented
+```json
+{
+  "adrs": {
+    "adr-0042": {
+      "status": "implemented",
+      "file": "adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md",
+      "relatedSpecs": ["microservices-migration"],
+      "relatedTasks": ["bd-ms01", "bd-ms02", "bd-ms03", "bd-ms04"],
+      "affectedFiles": [
+        "services/user-service/**",
+        "services/payment-service/**",
+        "infrastructure/kong/**",
+        "infrastructure/istio/**"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "specs": {
+    "microservices-migration": {
+      "relatedADRs": ["adr-0042"]
+    }
+  },
+  "tasks": {
+    "bd-ms01": { "relatedADRs": ["adr-0042"] },
+    "bd-ms02": { "relatedADRs": ["adr-0042"] },
+    "bd-ms03": { "relatedADRs": ["adr-0042"] },
+    "bd-ms04": { "relatedADRs": ["adr-0042"] }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Superseded
+```json
+{
+  "adrs": {
+    "adr-0042": {
+      "status": "superseded",
+      "file": "adr/0042-migrate-to-microservices.md",
+      "supersededBy": "adr-0089",
+      "relatedSpecs": ["microservices-migration"],
+      "relatedTasks": ["bd-ms01", "bd-ms02", "bd-ms03", "bd-ms04"]
+    },
+    "adr-0089": {
+      "status": "approved",
+      "file": "adr/0089-modular-monolith.md",
+      "supersedes": "adr-0042",
+      "relatedSpecs": ["modular-monolith-migration"]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Key Takeaways
+
+### Status Transitions
+
+1. **Draft → Proposed**: Complete all sections, identify reviewers
+2. **Proposed → Approved**: Address feedback, create implementation tasks
+3. **Approved → Implemented**: Complete tasks, document outcomes
+4. **Implemented → Maintained**: Review consequences, schedule ongoing reviews
+5. **Maintained → Superseded**: Create superseding ADR, document reasons
+
+### Best Practices Demonstrated
+
+1. ✅ **Incremental Updates**: Each status change adds metadata
+2. ✅ **Traceability**: Links to specs, tasks, and related ADRs
+3. ✅ **Lessons Learned**: Documented actual vs expected outcomes
+4. ✅ **Historical Context**: Preserved even after superseding
+5. ✅ **Coordination**: Manifest kept in sync throughout lifecycle
+
+### Common Pitfalls Avoided
+
+1. ❌ Skipping status transitions (e.g., draft → implemented)
+2. ❌ Not documenting actual outcomes
+3. ❌ Deleting superseded ADRs
+4. ❌ Not linking to implementation tasks
+5. ❌ Forgetting to schedule reviews
+
+---
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Lifecycle Management Rules](../rules/lifecycle-management.md)
+- [ADR Creation Guidelines](../rules/adr-creation.md)
+- [Validation Rules](../rules/validation-rules.md)
+- [Nygard Template](../templates/nygard.md)
+- [Superseding Example](./superseding-example.md)
+- [Integration Example](./integration-example.md)
+