|
| 1 | +# Code-Police Analysis Report: LFG Automation Architecture |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +**Date:** 2026-01-22 |
| 4 | +**Analyst:** Winston (Architect Agent) |
| 5 | +**Status:** Analysis Complete, Recommendations Implemented |
| 6 | + |
| 7 | +--- |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Executive Summary |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +A Letta "code-police" agent reviewed Log File Genius and recommended 10 improvements. After architecture exploration and dogfooding analysis against actual log files, we implemented a pragmatic subset focused on reliability over automation. |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +**Key Finding:** LFG's value comes from *rich, contextual entries* that only the AI working on a task can write. Automation cannot replace this. |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +--- |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +## Original Code-Police Recommendations |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +| # | Recommendation | Effort | Impact | Status | |
| 20 | +|---|----------------|--------|--------|--------| |
| 21 | +| 1 | MCP Server for programmatic API | High | High | ⏸️ Deferred to Future | |
| 22 | +| 2 | Git Hooks for auto-logging | Medium | High | ✅ Epic 8.2 (safety net) | |
| 23 | +| 3 | CLI Tools for quick entries | Low | Medium | ✅ Epic 8.3-8.5, Epic 9 | |
| 24 | +| 4 | Token counter integration | Low | Medium | ✅ Already in validation | |
| 25 | +| 5 | Archive automation | Medium | Medium | ✅ In rules, Story 7.2 | |
| 26 | +| 6 | Template system | Low | Low | ✅ product/templates/ | |
| 27 | +| 7 | Validation pre-commit | Low | High | ✅ Already implemented | |
| 28 | +| 8 | Context summarizer | Medium | High | ✅ Epic 9.1 (CLI) | |
| 29 | +| 9 | Multi-profile support | Medium | Medium | ✅ Epic 3 | |
| 30 | +| 10 | ADR generator | Low | Medium | ✅ Epic 8.3 | |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +--- |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +## Architecture Evolution |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +### Phase 1: Initial MCP Proposal (Over-Engineered) |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +Winston proposed elaborate MCP Server architecture: |
| 39 | +- TypeScript + npm package + MCP SDK |
| 40 | +- 5 services: Parser, Summarizer, Cache, Writer, Transport |
| 41 | +- 3 main tools: `get_context`, `log_update`, `query_history` |
| 42 | +- ~150 tokens tool definition overhead |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +**Problem:** Added complexity for marginal benefit. Solo developers don't need programmatic APIs. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +### Phase 2: Git-Native Simplification |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +Pivoted to git hooks + bash/PowerShell: |
| 49 | +- post-commit hook auto-updates CHANGELOG from commit message |
| 50 | +- `.lfg/pending.md` staging file for DEVLOG entries |
| 51 | +- Simple CLI commands |
| 52 | + |
| 53 | +**Problem:** "Who writes the words?" - Commit messages are too terse for quality log entries. |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +### Phase 3: Reality Check (Dogfooding Analysis) |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +Examined actual `logs/CHANGELOG.md` and `logs/DEVLOG.md`: |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +| Document | Expected Size | Actual Size | Implication | |
| 60 | +|----------|---------------|-------------|-------------| |
| 61 | +| CHANGELOG entry | ~10 tokens | 60-80 tokens | Cannot auto-generate from commits | |
| 62 | +| DEVLOG entry | ~50 tokens | 500-1000 tokens | Requires full session context | |
| 63 | +| ADR | ~100 tokens | 200+ lines | Deliberate, not automatable | |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +**Key Insight:** Current rules-based approach already works. AI has context, git hooks don't. |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +--- |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +## What Was Implemented |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +### Epic 8 Revised: Log Automation & Reliability |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | +| Story | Description | Approach | |
| 74 | +|-------|-------------|----------| |
| 75 | +| 8.1 | Enhanced Rule Enforcement | ⛔ STOP markers, self-correction | |
| 76 | +| 8.2 | Git Hook Safety Net | Warn-only, not auto-generate | |
| 77 | +| 8.3 | ADR Scaffold Command | `lfg adr "Title"` CLI | |
| 78 | +| 8.4 | CHANGELOG Entry Helper | `lfg changelog "Desc"` CLI | |
| 79 | +| 8.5 | DEVLOG Decision Logger | `lfg decision "What"` CLI | |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +### Epic 9: CLI Tooling (Unchanged) |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +Stories 9.1-9.4 remain as specified - context injection, handoffs, status, quick entry. |
| 84 | + |
| 85 | +--- |
| 86 | + |
| 87 | +## What Was Deferred |
| 88 | + |
| 89 | +### MCP Server → Future Considerations |
| 90 | + |
| 91 | +**Rationale:** |
| 92 | +1. Token savings minimal (~150 tokens vs ~50 token rules) |
| 93 | +2. Content quality requires AI session context |
| 94 | +3. Rules + git hooks achieve 95%+ reliability |
| 95 | +4. Solo developers don't need programmatic API |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +**Trigger for Reconsideration:** |
| 98 | +- Multi-agent scenarios needing shared context API |
| 99 | +- Enterprise deployments requiring audit trails |
| 100 | +- Rules-based approach proves unreliable at scale |
| 101 | + |
| 102 | +--- |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +## Lessons Learned |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +1. **Analyze real data before architecting** - Assumptions about entry sizes were wrong |
| 107 | +2. **Simpler is better for solo developers** - MCP adds overhead without proportional value |
| 108 | +3. **AI context is irreplaceable** - Git hooks can detect but not create quality content |
| 109 | +4. **Defense-in-depth works** - Rules + validation + git hooks = reliable system |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | +--- |
| 112 | + |
| 113 | +## References |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +- PRD Epic 8: `project/specs/prd.md` lines 1106-1237 |
| 116 | +- PRD Future Considerations (MCP): `project/specs/prd.md` lines 1444-1468 |
| 117 | +- Actual CHANGELOG format: `logs/CHANGELOG.md` |
| 118 | +- Actual DEVLOG format: `logs/DEVLOG.md` |
| 119 | +- AI rules: `.augment/rules/log-file-maintenance.md` |
| 120 | + |
0 commit comments