Illustrative recommendations · Simple Project
The most valuable improvements 5
Five recommendations selected for this fictional sample. They illustrate possible next steps, not a measured ranking or a customer result.
-
Project Health / Payment retry policy
A timed-out payment can be submitted a second time without a stable request key
Define one idempotency rule for payment attempts and apply it at the payment boundary. This keeps a retry from creating a second charge when the first response is lost.
-
Project Health / Payment regression coverage
No automated case covers a timeout followed by a retry
Add regression cases for a successful charge, failure, timeout, and retry before the next release. These checks can expose a payment-policy break before customers encounter it.
-
Architecture Health / Authorization ownership
Permission rules are split between route handlers and domain services
Choose one authorization boundary for permission decisions and document the inputs it requires. A clear owner keeps new routes and agent-written changes from applying different rules.
-
Decision Health / Recovery objectives
No recorded decision defines acceptable downtime or order-data loss
Agree how long Simple Project can be unavailable and how much order data it can afford to lose, then record those targets beside the recovery plan.
-
Decision Health / Refund policy
The project has no agreed rule for approval and order-state changes
Decide when refunds are allowed, who approves them, and how an order changes afterward. A shared rule keeps support, product, and payment behavior aligned.
Project Health / Payment retry policy
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: Critical
A timed-out payment can be submitted a second time without a stable request key
Define one idempotency rule for payment attempts and apply it at the payment boundary. This keeps a retry from creating a second charge when the first response is lost.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Project Health / Payment regression coverage
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
No automated case covers a timeout followed by a retry
Add regression cases for a successful charge, failure, timeout, and retry before the next release. These checks can expose a payment-policy break before customers encounter it.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Project Health / Release recovery readiness
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
The rollback guide has not been exercised against an order-data change
Rehearse rollback and order-data recovery on a release-like change. Record what failed, then update and retest the recovery guidance.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Project Health / Failure traceability
✓ Status: No change needed
Payment failures carry a shared request identifier through the service logs
In this fictional sample, payment failures can be followed through traceable logs. Keep that evidence current as the payment flow changes; no repair is proposed.
Illustrative detail only; no repair is proposed.
Project Health / Workspace access isolation
✓ Status: No change needed
Workspace reads consistently apply the customer boundary
In this fictional sample, shared access checks protect customer workspace boundaries. Review the checks when new customer-data paths are added; no repair is proposed.
Illustrative detail only; no repair is proposed.
Authorization ownership
Permission rules are split between route handlers and domain services
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
-
1. Evidence
Route handlers and domain services each contain permission decisions, and the project guidance does not name one owner.
-
2. Project-specific recommendation
Keep permission decisions at the domain authorization boundary already used for workspace access, with routes supplying identity and resource context.
-
3. Customer decision
Confirm which layer owns authorization and which exceptions, if any, the project must preserve.
-
4. Agent guidance
Record the agreed architecture and constraints so a coding agent can follow the same permission boundary in later work.
Project guidance or skill update · when supported
-
5. Implementation
A separate implementation change can consolidate the permission checks and verify affected routes after you approve the approach.
-
6. Re-audit
A separate future audit can review the new evidence. Guidance or implementation does not automatically change this assessment to green.
This illustrative flow does not change a repository, implement the recommendation, guarantee an outcome, or run another audit.
Architecture Health / Module boundaries
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
Payment UI imports internal order-service modules directly
Move cross-module calls behind the existing public module interface, then verify the payment paths affected by those calls.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Architecture Health / Payment provider boundary
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
Payment components interpret provider-specific response fields
Keep provider requests and responses behind the payment integration boundary so screens consume stable payment outcomes.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Architecture Health / Migration discipline
✓ Status: No change needed
Schema changes are represented by ordered versioned migrations
In this fictional sample, versioned migrations record schema changes. Keep migration and rollout evidence current; no repair is proposed.
Illustrative detail only; no repair is proposed.
Architecture Health / Order data ownership
✓ Status: No change needed
All order writes pass through the service named as their owner
In this fictional sample, one service owns order writes and their validation. Recheck that boundary when payment or refund paths change; no repair is proposed.
Illustrative detail only; no repair is proposed.
Decision Health / Recovery objectives
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
No recorded decision defines acceptable downtime or order-data loss
Agree how long Simple Project can be unavailable and how much order data it can afford to lose, then record those targets beside the recovery plan.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Decision Health / Refund policy
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: High
The project has no agreed rule for approval and order-state changes
Decide when refunds are allowed, who approves them, and how an order changes afterward. A shared rule keeps support, product, and payment behavior aligned.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
Decision Health / Authentication decision
✓ Status: No change needed
The implemented sign-in approach matches the recorded architecture decision
In this fictional sample, authentication matches the recorded project decision. Keep implementation and decision evidence aligned as sign-in flows change; no repair is proposed.
Illustrative detail only; no repair is proposed.
Decision Health / Order lifecycle rules
✓ Status: No change needed
Implemented order states match the documented product rules
In this fictional sample, order states follow documented product rules. Revisit that evidence when payments or refunds change; no repair is proposed.
Illustrative detail only; no repair is proposed.
Decision Health / Agent guidance consistency
! Status: Needs improvement Priority: Normal
Repository guidance names two different owners for release approval
Choose the release-approval owner and update the conflicting guidance. Consistent project instructions help people and coding agents follow the same decision.
Suggested approach for this fictional project.
