Initialize project structure with foundational files including .gitignore, README, and specification templates. Establish project constitution outlining core principles for code quality, testing, user experience, and performance. Add initial feature specification for Reference Board Viewer application.
This commit is contained in:
Danilo Reyes
@@ -1,50 +1,147 @@
|
||||
# [PROJECT_NAME] Constitution
|
||||
<!-- Example: Spec Constitution, TaskFlow Constitution, etc. -->
|
||||
<!--
|
||||
Sync Impact Report - Version 1.0.0 (2025-11-02)
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
|
||||
VERSION CHANGE: Initial constitution establishment (v1.0.0)
|
||||
|
||||
MODIFIED PRINCIPLES: N/A (Initial creation)
|
||||
|
||||
ADDED SECTIONS:
|
||||
✓ Principle 1: Code Quality & Maintainability
|
||||
✓ Principle 2: Testing Discipline
|
||||
✓ Principle 3: User Experience Consistency
|
||||
✓ Principle 4: Performance & Efficiency
|
||||
✓ Governance & Amendment Process
|
||||
|
||||
REMOVED SECTIONS: N/A
|
||||
|
||||
TEMPLATE SYNC STATUS:
|
||||
✅ .specify/templates/plan-template.md - Created with constitution alignment
|
||||
✅ .specify/templates/spec-template.md - Created with principle checks
|
||||
✅ .specify/templates/tasks-template.md - Created with principle-driven categories
|
||||
✅ .specify/templates/commands/constitution.md - Created with amendment workflow
|
||||
|
||||
DEFERRED ITEMS: None
|
||||
|
||||
RATIONALE: Initial constitution establishing foundational principles for code quality,
|
||||
testing standards, user experience, and performance requirements for the webref project.
|
||||
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
# Project Constitution
|
||||
|
||||
**Project Name:** webref
|
||||
**Constitution Version:** 1.0.0
|
||||
**Ratification Date:** 2025-11-02
|
||||
**Last Amended:** 2025-11-02
|
||||
|
||||
## Preamble
|
||||
|
||||
This constitution establishes the foundational principles and governance framework for the webref project. These principles are binding on all development work, architectural decisions, and contributions. They exist to ensure consistent quality, maintainability, user satisfaction, and technical excellence across the project lifecycle.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Principles
|
||||
|
||||
### [PRINCIPLE_1_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: I. Library-First -->
|
||||
[PRINCIPLE_1_DESCRIPTION]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Every feature starts as a standalone library; Libraries must be self-contained, independently testable, documented; Clear purpose required - no organizational-only libraries -->
|
||||
### Principle 1: Code Quality & Maintainability
|
||||
|
||||
### [PRINCIPLE_2_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: II. CLI Interface -->
|
||||
[PRINCIPLE_2_DESCRIPTION]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Every library exposes functionality via CLI; Text in/out protocol: stdin/args → stdout, errors → stderr; Support JSON + human-readable formats -->
|
||||
**Declaration:** All code MUST be written with clarity, consistency, and long-term maintainability as primary concerns.
|
||||
|
||||
### [PRINCIPLE_3_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: III. Test-First (NON-NEGOTIABLE) -->
|
||||
[PRINCIPLE_3_DESCRIPTION]
|
||||
<!-- Example: TDD mandatory: Tests written → User approved → Tests fail → Then implement; Red-Green-Refactor cycle strictly enforced -->
|
||||
**Requirements:**
|
||||
- Code MUST follow established style guides and formatting conventions (enforced via linters)
|
||||
- Functions and modules MUST have clear, single responsibilities (SRP)
|
||||
- Complex logic MUST be accompanied by inline comments explaining the "why"
|
||||
- Magic numbers and hard-coded values MUST be replaced with named constants
|
||||
- Code duplication beyond trivial patterns (>5 lines) MUST be refactored into reusable components
|
||||
- Type hints MUST be used for all public APIs and function signatures in Python
|
||||
- Dependencies MUST be explicitly versioned and regularly audited for security and compatibility
|
||||
|
||||
### [PRINCIPLE_4_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: IV. Integration Testing -->
|
||||
[PRINCIPLE_4_DESCRIPTION]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Focus areas requiring integration tests: New library contract tests, Contract changes, Inter-service communication, Shared schemas -->
|
||||
**Rationale:** Code is read far more often than written. Maintainable code reduces cognitive load, accelerates feature development, simplifies debugging, and enables confident refactoring. Poor code quality compounds into technical debt that eventually paralyzes development velocity.
|
||||
|
||||
### [PRINCIPLE_5_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: V. Observability, VI. Versioning & Breaking Changes, VII. Simplicity -->
|
||||
[PRINCIPLE_5_DESCRIPTION]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Text I/O ensures debuggability; Structured logging required; Or: MAJOR.MINOR.BUILD format; Or: Start simple, YAGNI principles -->
|
||||
**Enforcement:** Pre-commit hooks, CI linting checks, code review requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
## [SECTION_2_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Additional Constraints, Security Requirements, Performance Standards, etc. -->
|
||||
### Principle 2: Testing Discipline
|
||||
|
||||
[SECTION_2_CONTENT]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Technology stack requirements, compliance standards, deployment policies, etc. -->
|
||||
**Declaration:** All functionality MUST be validated through automated tests before merging to main branches.
|
||||
|
||||
## [SECTION_3_NAME]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Development Workflow, Review Process, Quality Gates, etc. -->
|
||||
**Requirements:**
|
||||
- Unit tests MUST cover all public functions and methods (minimum 80% coverage)
|
||||
- Integration tests MUST verify interactions between components and external dependencies
|
||||
- Edge cases and error paths MUST have explicit test coverage
|
||||
- Tests MUST be deterministic, isolated, and fast (unit tests <1s, integration <10s)
|
||||
- Test failures MUST block merges via CI/CD pipelines
|
||||
- Critical user flows MUST have end-to-end tests when applicable
|
||||
- Regression tests MUST be added for every bug fix
|
||||
- Test code MUST maintain the same quality standards as production code
|
||||
|
||||
[SECTION_3_CONTENT]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Code review requirements, testing gates, deployment approval process, etc. -->
|
||||
**Rationale:** Automated testing is the only scalable way to ensure correctness, prevent regressions, and enable confident refactoring. Manual testing alone is insufficient for maintaining quality as complexity grows. Tests serve as living documentation of expected behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
## Governance
|
||||
<!-- Example: Constitution supersedes all other practices; Amendments require documentation, approval, migration plan -->
|
||||
**Enforcement:** CI/CD pipeline gates, coverage reporting, code review checklists.
|
||||
|
||||
[GOVERNANCE_RULES]
|
||||
<!-- Example: All PRs/reviews must verify compliance; Complexity must be justified; Use [GUIDANCE_FILE] for runtime development guidance -->
|
||||
### Principle 3: User Experience Consistency
|
||||
|
||||
**Version**: [CONSTITUTION_VERSION] | **Ratified**: [RATIFICATION_DATE] | **Last Amended**: [LAST_AMENDED_DATE]
|
||||
<!-- Example: Version: 2.1.1 | Ratified: 2025-06-13 | Last Amended: 2025-07-16 -->
|
||||
**Declaration:** User-facing interfaces MUST provide consistent, intuitive, and accessible experiences across all touchpoints.
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:**
|
||||
- UI components MUST follow established design systems and patterns
|
||||
- Error messages MUST be clear, actionable, and user-friendly (no raw exceptions)
|
||||
- User workflows MUST be tested for common use cases before release
|
||||
- Response times for user-initiated actions MUST be <200ms or provide feedback
|
||||
- Accessibility standards (WCAG 2.1 AA minimum) MUST be met for all interfaces
|
||||
- API responses MUST follow consistent schemas and error formats
|
||||
- Documentation MUST be written for users, not developers (unless internal APIs)
|
||||
- Breaking changes to user-facing features MUST include migration paths
|
||||
|
||||
**Rationale:** Inconsistent experiences create friction, confusion, and frustration. Users develop mental models based on patterns; violations of these patterns increase cognitive load and reduce trust. Quality user experience is a competitive differentiator and retention driver.
|
||||
|
||||
**Enforcement:** Design review, usability testing, accessibility audits, API contract testing.
|
||||
|
||||
### Principle 4: Performance & Efficiency
|
||||
|
||||
**Declaration:** All systems MUST be designed and implemented with performance as a first-class concern, not an afterthought.
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:**
|
||||
- Performance budgets MUST be established for critical operations (API response time, page load, query execution)
|
||||
- Algorithmic complexity MUST be considered and optimized for expected data scales (prefer O(n log n) over O(n²) for large datasets)
|
||||
- Database queries MUST be indexed appropriately and avoid N+1 problems
|
||||
- Memory usage MUST be bounded and monitored (no unbounded caches or collection growth)
|
||||
- Network requests MUST be batched, cached, or minimized where possible
|
||||
- Performance regressions >10% MUST be investigated and justified before merge
|
||||
- Profiling MUST be performed for suspected bottlenecks before optimization
|
||||
- Resource-intensive operations MUST be logged and monitored in production
|
||||
|
||||
**Rationale:** Performance directly impacts user satisfaction, operational costs, and system scalability. Poor performance compounds exponentially with scale. Retrofitting performance is far more expensive than designing for it upfront. Users abandon slow systems.
|
||||
|
||||
**Enforcement:** Performance benchmarks in CI, profiling tools, load testing, production monitoring.
|
||||
|
||||
## Governance & Amendment Process
|
||||
|
||||
### Amendment Procedure
|
||||
|
||||
1. Amendments MUST be proposed via pull request to `.specify/memory/constitution.md`
|
||||
2. Proposals MUST include rationale and impact analysis on existing code/templates
|
||||
3. Amendments require explicit approval from project maintainers
|
||||
4. Version number MUST be incremented following semantic versioning:
|
||||
- **MAJOR:** Backward-incompatible principle changes (removal, fundamental redefinition)
|
||||
- **MINOR:** New principles, sections, or material expansions to existing guidance
|
||||
- **PATCH:** Clarifications, wording improvements, non-semantic refinements
|
||||
5. All dependent templates MUST be updated before amendment merge
|
||||
6. A Sync Impact Report MUST be prepended to the constitution file
|
||||
|
||||
### Compliance Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Code reviews MUST verify compliance with constitutional principles
|
||||
- CI/CD pipelines MUST enforce automated compliance checks where possible
|
||||
- Quarterly audits SHOULD assess adherence and identify systematic violations
|
||||
- Principle violations MUST be documented and justified if accepted as technical debt
|
||||
|
||||
### Living Document Commitment
|
||||
|
||||
This constitution is a living document. As the project evolves, principles may need refinement to reflect new challenges, technologies, or organizational priorities. However, the core commitment to quality, testing, user experience, and performance remains immutable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ratified By
|
||||
|
||||
Project maintainers of webref on 2025-11-02.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Version History:*
|
||||
- **v1.0.0 (2025-11-02):** Initial constitution ratified with four foundational principles
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user