🎯 NEXT BIG PROJECT (post-stability): whole-codebase refactor — performance/security/flexibility/reliability/maintainability + full documentation + operator walkthrough + human-contributor readiness #41

New issue

Open

opened 2026-06-24 00:19:00 +00:00 by dark · 0 comments

dark commented

2026-06-24 00:19:00 +00:00

Owner

Original note: "I need to sit down with Claude across multiple sessions and really understand the internals of the codebase. This will be a good opportunity to do some refactoring as well."

Elevated 2026-07-13 (operator decision): this is the NEXT BIG PROJECT, gated on one condition — the bridge-as-a-service being declared stable. Once beta hardening settles, this takes priority over new features.

Charter

A whole-codebase refactor + documentation pass, targeting all five qualities at once:
performance · security · flexibility · reliability · maintainability — plus complete documentation of the entire codebase.

Phases

High-level architectural decisions — made together (operator + Claude), first.
Decide the big shapes before touching code: process model (monolith vs process-per-tenant — the #47 question), module/crate boundaries, error/config/state conventions, API seams for future features (#8 video, #48 soundboards), test architecture. Decisions recorded as short ADRs in docs/.
The refactor itself, executed against those decisions across multiple sessions, with the live e2e suite as the safety net (no behavioral regressions; suite stays green throughout).
Documentation of the entire codebase — architecture docs refreshed, per-crate/module docs, invariants and gotchas (the CLAUDE.md hard-constraint list expanded into real docs), operational runbooks consolidated.
The walkthrough. Post-refactor, Claude walks the operator through the entire codebase, module by module, until the operator genuinely understands it — not a summary, a working understanding.
Human-contributor readiness. The end state must support accepting patches from future human developers: CONTRIBUTING.md, code-review conventions, issue/PR templates, "how the tests work" docs, and a codebase whose structure explains itself.

Success criteria

Operator can navigate and explain any module's role and invariants.
A competent Rust developer with no prior context can land a small patch guided by the docs alone.
e2e suite green before, throughout, and after; no user-visible behavioral change except where explicitly decided.
Every architectural decision has a written ADR with its rationale.

(Related but separate: #105 build-process optimization, #90 build isolation — candidates to fold into phase 1's decisions.)

> Original note: *"I need to sit down with Claude across multiple sessions and really understand the internals of the codebase. This will be a good opportunity to do some refactoring as well."* **Elevated 2026-07-13 (operator decision): this is the NEXT BIG PROJECT, gated on one condition — the bridge-as-a-service being declared stable.** Once beta hardening settles, this takes priority over new features. ## Charter A whole-codebase refactor + documentation pass, targeting all five qualities at once: **performance · security · flexibility · reliability · maintainability** — plus complete documentation of the entire codebase. ## Phases 1. **High-level architectural decisions — made together (operator + Claude), first.** Decide the big shapes before touching code: process model (monolith vs process-per-tenant — the #47 question), module/crate boundaries, error/config/state conventions, API seams for future features (#8 video, #48 soundboards), test architecture. Decisions recorded as short ADRs in `docs/`. 2. **The refactor itself**, executed against those decisions across multiple sessions, with the live e2e suite as the safety net (no behavioral regressions; suite stays green throughout). 3. **Documentation of the entire codebase** — architecture docs refreshed, per-crate/module docs, invariants and gotchas (the CLAUDE.md hard-constraint list expanded into real docs), operational runbooks consolidated. 4. **The walkthrough.** Post-refactor, Claude walks the operator through the entire codebase, module by module, until the operator genuinely understands it — not a summary, a working understanding. 5. **Human-contributor readiness.** The end state must support accepting patches from future human developers: CONTRIBUTING.md, code-review conventions, issue/PR templates, "how the tests work" docs, and a codebase whose structure explains itself. ## Success criteria - Operator can navigate and explain any module's role and invariants. - A competent Rust developer with no prior context can land a small patch guided by the docs alone. - e2e suite green before, throughout, and after; no user-visible behavioral change except where explicitly decided. - Every architectural decision has a written ADR with its rationale. *(Related but separate: #105 build-process optimization, #90 build isolation — candidates to fold into phase 1's decisions.)*

dark added the

enhancement

label

2026-06-24 00:19:00 +00:00

dark added this to the Roadmap project

2026-06-27 16:29:34 +00:00

robocub referenced this issue from a commit

2026-06-27 16:47:54 +00:00

docs(readme): reframe Future directions around hosted bridging roadmap

robocub referenced this issue

2026-07-11 00:29:12 +00:00

Pre-launch adversarial security + abuse review of the open-registration surface (run on Fable) #79

robocub referenced this issue from a commit

2026-07-11 23:15:42 +00:00

docs: retire the shipped roadmap, fix moderator-check wording, live policy links

robocub changed title from ~~Human Code Review & Refactor~~ to 🎯 NEXT BIG PROJECT (post-stability): whole-codebase refactor — performance/security/flexibility/reliability/maintainability + full documentation + operator walkthrough + human-contributor readiness

2026-07-13 16:35:42 +00:00