Skip to content

Architecture Risks

Architectural risk appears when the package boundary becomes hard to explain or hard to test.

This page should keep risk language concrete. The right risks are the ones that would make the package harder to reason about even if the current implementation still appears to work.

Treat the architecture pages for bijux-canon-reason as a reviewer-facing map of structure and flow. They should shorten code reading, not try to replace it.

Visual Summary

flowchart TB
    page["Architecture Risks<br/>clarifies: trace execution | spot dependency pressure | judge structural drift"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    module1["plan construction and intermediate representation"]
    module1 --> page
    module2["claim and reasoning semantics"]
    module2 --> page
    module3["step execution and tool dispatch"]
    module3 --> page
    code1["src/bijux_canon_reason/reasoning"]
    page --> code1
    code2["src/bijux_canon_reason/execution"]
    page --> code2
    code3["src/bijux_canon_reason/planning"]
    page --> code3
    pressure1["tests/unit for planning, reasoning, execution, verification, and interfaces"]
    pressure1 -.tests whether this structure still holds.-> page
    pressure2["tests/e2e for API, CLI, replay gates, retrieval reasoning, and smoke coverage"]
    pressure2 -.tests whether this structure still holds.-> page
    pressure3["tests/perf for retrieval benchmark coverage"]
    pressure3 -.tests whether this structure still holds.-> page
    class page page;
    class module1,module2,module3 positive;
    class code1,code2,code3 anchor;
    class pressure1,pressure2,pressure3 caution;

Risk Signals

  • behavior moves into the wrong package because it seems convenient
  • interfaces start depending on lower-level implementation details directly
  • produced artifacts stop matching their documented contract

Review Areas

  • src/bijux_canon_reason/planning for plan construction and intermediate representation
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/reasoning for claim and reasoning semantics
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/execution for step execution and tool dispatch
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/verification for checks and validation outcomes
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/traces for trace replay and diff support
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/interfaces for CLI and serialization boundaries

Concrete Anchors

  • src/bijux_canon_reason/planning for plan construction and intermediate representation
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/reasoning for claim and reasoning semantics
  • src/bijux_canon_reason/execution for step execution and tool dispatch

Use This Page When

  • you are tracing structure, execution flow, or dependency pressure
  • you need to understand how modules fit before refactoring
  • you are reviewing design drift rather than one isolated bug

Decision Rule

Use Architecture Risks to decide whether a structural change makes bijux-canon-reason easier or harder to explain in terms of modules, dependency direction, and execution flow. If the change works only because the design becomes harder to read, the safer answer is redesign rather than acceptance.

What This Page Answers

  • how bijux-canon-reason is organized internally in terms a reviewer can follow
  • which modules carry the main execution and dependency story
  • where structural drift would show up before it becomes expensive

Reviewer Lens

  • trace the described execution path through the named modules instead of trusting the diagram alone
  • look for dependency direction or layering that now contradicts the documented seam
  • verify that the structural risks named here still match the current code shape

Honesty Boundary

This page describes the current structural model of bijux-canon-reason, but it does not guarantee that every import path or runtime path still obeys that model. Readers should treat it as a map that must stay aligned with code and tests, not as an authority above them.

Next Checks

  • move to interfaces when the review reaches a public or operator-facing seam
  • move to operations when the concern becomes repeatable runtime behavior
  • move to quality when you need proof that the documented structure is still protected

Purpose

This page keeps architectural review focused on durable package risks instead of transient churn.

Stability

Keep it aligned with the package structure and known review concerns.