38a0f0619d
Archive milestone artifacts (roadmap, requirements, audit, phase directories) to .planning/milestones/. Evolve PROJECT.md with validated requirements and decision outcomes. Create MILESTONES.md and RETROSPECTIVE.md. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
67 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
67 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
# Project Retrospective
|
|
|
|
*A living document updated after each milestone. Lessons feed forward into future planning.*
|
|
|
|
## Milestone: v1.0 — Analytics & Monitoring
|
|
|
|
**Shipped:** 2026-02-25
|
|
**Phases:** 5 | **Plans:** 10 | **Sessions:** ~4
|
|
|
|
### What Was Built
|
|
- Database foundation with 3 monitoring tables (service_health_checks, alert_events, document_processing_events) and typed TypeScript models
|
|
- Health probe system with real authenticated API calls to Document AI, Claude/OpenAI, Supabase, and Firebase Auth
|
|
- Alert service with email delivery via nodemailer, deduplication cooldown, and config-driven recipients
|
|
- Fire-and-forget analytics service for non-blocking document processing event tracking
|
|
- Admin-authenticated API layer with health, analytics, and alerts endpoints
|
|
- Frontend admin dashboard with service health grid, analytics summary, and critical alert banner
|
|
- Tech debt cleanup: env-driven config, consolidated retention, removed hardcoded defaults
|
|
|
|
### What Worked
|
|
- Strict dependency ordering (data → services → API → frontend) prevented integration surprises — each phase consumed exactly what the prior phase provided
|
|
- Fire-and-forget pattern enforced at the type level (void return) caught potential performance issues at compile time
|
|
- GSD audit-milestone workflow caught 5 tech debt items before shipping — all resolved
|
|
- 2-day milestone completion shows GSD workflow is efficient for well-scoped work
|
|
|
|
### What Was Inefficient
|
|
- Phase 5 (tech debt) was added to the roadmap but executed as a direct commit — the GSD plan/execute overhead wasn't warranted for 3 small fixes
|
|
- Summary one-liner extraction returned null for all summaries — frontmatter format may not match what gsd-tools expects
|
|
|
|
### Patterns Established
|
|
- Static class model pattern for Supabase (no instantiation, getSupabaseServiceClient per-method)
|
|
- makeSupabaseChain() factory for Vitest mocking of Supabase client
|
|
- requireAdminEmail middleware returns 404 (not 403) to hide admin routes
|
|
- Firebase Secrets read inside function body, never at module level
|
|
- void return type to prevent accidental await on fire-and-forget operations
|
|
|
|
### Key Lessons
|
|
1. Small tech debt fixes don't need full GSD plan/execute — direct commits are fine when the audit already defines the scope
|
|
2. Type-level enforcement (void vs Promise<void>) is more reliable than code review for architectural constraints
|
|
3. Promise.allSettled is the right pattern when partial results are better than total failure (health probes)
|
|
4. Admin email should always be config-driven from day one — hardcoding "just for now" creates tech debt immediately
|
|
|
|
### Cost Observations
|
|
- Model mix: ~80% sonnet (execution), ~20% haiku (research/verification)
|
|
- Sessions: ~4
|
|
- Notable: Phase 4 (frontend) completed fastest — well-defined API contracts from Phase 3 made UI wiring straightforward
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Cross-Milestone Trends
|
|
|
|
### Process Evolution
|
|
|
|
| Milestone | Sessions | Phases | Key Change |
|
|
|-----------|----------|--------|------------|
|
|
| v1.0 | ~4 | 5 | First milestone — established patterns |
|
|
|
|
### Cumulative Quality
|
|
|
|
| Milestone | Tests | Coverage | Zero-Dep Additions |
|
|
|-----------|-------|----------|-------------------|
|
|
| v1.0 | 14+ | — | 3 tables, 5 services, 4 routes, 3 components |
|
|
|
|
### Top Lessons (Verified Across Milestones)
|
|
|
|
1. Type-level enforcement > code review for architectural constraints
|
|
2. Strict phase dependency ordering prevents integration surprises
|