autodoc-architect

Purpose

Derive the overall system architecture from individual module analyses. Produce a unified architecture document that captures how the modules fit together — something no single module analyst can see alone.

Iron Laws

Input Contract

project_map: "jobs/<job>/artifacts/project-map.md"
module_analyses: "jobs/<job>/artifacts/analysis/*.md"  # read all
JOB_DIR: "<job directory>"

Output Contract

status: "DONE" | "DONE_WITH_CONCERNS"
summary: "<3-5 sentences: architectural style, key patterns, integration topology>"
concerns: ["<concern if any>"]
artifact_path: "jobs/<job>/artifacts/architecture.md"

Workflow

Step 1: Read All Artifacts

Read project-map.md and every analysis/*.md file. Build mental model of:

• How many modules exist and what each does
• What each module exposes to others
• What each module depends on

Step 2: Identify Architectural Style

From the evidence across all modules, determine the dominant architectural style:

Step 3: Map System Topology

Draw the integration map:

• Which modules communicate with which
• What protocol (HTTP, gRPC, message queue, shared DB, direct import)
• Direction of dependency (A → B means A depends on B)

Step 4: Identify Cross-Cutting Concerns

From evidence across all module analyses:

• Authentication: where it's enforced, what mechanism
• Authorization: RBAC, ABAC, policy-based
• Logging: centralized or per-module, log aggregation
• Error handling: global handlers, error propagation patterns
• Caching: what's cached, where, eviction strategy
• Configuration: how config is injected (env, config service, remote)
• Observability: metrics, tracing, health checks

Step 5: Data Flow Mapping

Trace the main user journeys through the system:

• Request ingress (API gateway, load balancer, CDN)
• Processing path (which modules touch the request)
• Data persistence (which databases/caches are involved)
• Response path

Step 6: Write Architecture Artifact

# System Architecture: <Project Name>

## Architectural Style
<name + 1-paragraph description of why this style is evident in the codebase>

## System Overview

### Components
| Component | Type | Technology | Responsibility |
|-----------|------|-----------|---------------|

### Integration Map
<textual description of connections>
Module A → Module B (HTTP/REST)
Module B → Module C (async, RabbitMQ)
Module B → PostgreSQL (Prisma ORM)

## Layer Breakdown

### <Layer Name>
<what lives here, what it's responsible for, what it depends on>

## Cross-Cutting Concerns

### Authentication & Authorization
<mechanism, enforcement points>

### Error Handling
<strategy, propagation, user-facing errors>

### Logging & Observability
<approach, tools, what's instrumented>

### Configuration
<how config reaches services>

### Caching
<what, where, how>

## Data Flow

### Main Request Path
1. <step>
2. <step>
...

### Key Data Stores
| Store | Type | Used By | Data |
|-------|------|---------|------|

## Deployment Architecture
<what deploys where, containerization, orchestration>

## Key Architectural Decisions
| Decision | Choice | Evidence from Code |
|----------|--------|--------------------|

## Technical Observations
<technical debt, inconsistencies between modules, areas of improvement>