feat: comprehensive ADR-structured design document template
Created production-ready design document template with 14 comprehensive sections: **Structure:** 1. Executive Summary & Context 2. Requirements (Functional & Non-Functional) 3. Options Considered (with pros/cons/cost analysis) 4. Decision & Rationale (trade-offs, assumptions, review triggers) 5. Architecture (diagrams, components, data models, API contracts) 6. Implementation Plan (phases, dependencies, resources) 7. Risks & Mitigations (threat model, compliance) 8. Testing Strategy (unit, integration, e2e, performance) 9. Monitoring & Observability (metrics, alerts, dashboards) 10. Documentation & Training 11. Rollout Plan (feature flags, staged rollout, rollback) 12. Future Enhancements & Technical Debt 13. Acceptance Criteria 14. Appendices (research, meeting notes, changelog) **Features:** - Industry-standard ADR format - Comprehensive examples throughout - SQL schema examples - API contract specifications - ASCII architecture diagrams - Risk matrices and threat models - Rollout and rollback procedures - META tokens for AI placeholder replacement This template guides teams through complete technical design documentation from problem statement to production rollout. Addresses PROGRESS.md Stage 3 requirement: "Enhanced template with ADR structure" 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
bde543530c
commit
0c9fba2d07
|
|
@ -1,9 +1,513 @@
|
|||
# Design — <FR id / Title>
|
||||
<!--META
|
||||
{
|
||||
"kind": "design_document",
|
||||
"tokens": ["FeatureId", "CreatedDate", "Title"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
## Context & Goals
|
||||
## Non-Goals & Constraints
|
||||
## Options Considered
|
||||
## Decision & Rationale
|
||||
## Architecture Diagram(s)
|
||||
## Risks & Mitigations
|
||||
## Acceptance Criteria (measurable)
|
||||
# Design Document: {Title}
|
||||
|
||||
**Feature ID:** {FeatureId}
|
||||
**Status:** Draft
|
||||
**Created:** {CreatedDate}
|
||||
**Last Updated:** {CreatedDate}
|
||||
**Authors:** [To be filled by AI from discussion participants]
|
||||
**Reviewers:** [To be filled from discussion]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Executive Summary
|
||||
|
||||
[1-2 paragraph overview of the feature and this design's approach. What problem does this solve? What's the proposed solution at a high level?]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Context & Problem Statement
|
||||
|
||||
### Background
|
||||
|
||||
[What is the current state? What pain points or opportunities led to this feature request?]
|
||||
|
||||
### Business Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- [Goal 1: e.g., Reduce user onboarding time by 50%]
|
||||
- [Goal 2: e.g., Support 10,000 concurrent users]
|
||||
- [Goal 3: e.g., Enable third-party integrations]
|
||||
|
||||
### Success Metrics
|
||||
|
||||
| Metric | Target | Measurement Method |
|
||||
|--------|--------|-------------------|
|
||||
| [e.g., Page load time] | [< 2s] | [Performance testing] |
|
||||
| [e.g., User satisfaction] | [> 4.5/5] | [Post-feature survey] |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Must Have (MVP):**
|
||||
- [ ] [FR-1: User can create account with email/password]
|
||||
- [ ] [FR-2: User can reset password via email]
|
||||
- [ ] [FR-3: User can log in with Google OAuth]
|
||||
|
||||
**Should Have (Nice to Have):**
|
||||
- [ ] [FR-4: Remember me functionality]
|
||||
- [ ] [FR-5: Two-factor authentication]
|
||||
|
||||
**Won't Have (Out of Scope):**
|
||||
- [FR-6: Social login with Facebook/Twitter (deferred to v2)]
|
||||
- [FR-7: Biometric authentication (platform limitations)]
|
||||
|
||||
### Non-Functional Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Performance:**
|
||||
- Response time: < 200ms for API calls
|
||||
- Throughput: Support 1,000 requests/second
|
||||
- Database queries: < 50ms p95
|
||||
|
||||
**Security:**
|
||||
- Password hashing: bcrypt with salt
|
||||
- Token expiration: 1 hour for access, 7 days for refresh
|
||||
- Rate limiting: 10 failed login attempts = 15min lockout
|
||||
|
||||
**Scalability:**
|
||||
- Horizontal scaling: Support 10+ app instances
|
||||
- Database: Read replicas for query performance
|
||||
- Caching: Redis for session storage
|
||||
|
||||
**Reliability:**
|
||||
- Uptime: 99.9% SLA
|
||||
- Data durability: Daily backups with 30-day retention
|
||||
- Graceful degradation: Fallback to email-only if OAuth fails
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Options Considered
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 1: [Name, e.g., "In-house Authentication System"]
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach:**
|
||||
[Description of this option]
|
||||
|
||||
**Pros:**
|
||||
- ✅ [Pro 1]
|
||||
- ✅ [Pro 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Cons:**
|
||||
- ❌ [Con 1]
|
||||
- ❌ [Con 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Cost/Complexity:**
|
||||
- Development: [X person-weeks]
|
||||
- Maintenance: [Y hours/month]
|
||||
- Infrastructure: [Z $/month]
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
- [Risk 1: Security vulnerabilities - HIGH]
|
||||
- [Risk 2: Development timeline - MEDIUM]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 2: [Name, e.g., "Third-Party Auth Service (Auth0)"]
|
||||
|
||||
**Approach:**
|
||||
[Description]
|
||||
|
||||
**Pros:**
|
||||
- ✅ [Pro 1]
|
||||
- ✅ [Pro 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Cons:**
|
||||
- ❌ [Con 1]
|
||||
- ❌ [Con 2]
|
||||
|
||||
**Cost/Complexity:**
|
||||
- Development: [X person-weeks]
|
||||
- Maintenance: [Y hours/month]
|
||||
- Infrastructure: [Z $/month]
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Assessment:**
|
||||
- [Risk 1]
|
||||
- [Risk 2]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Option 3: [Name, if applicable]
|
||||
|
||||
[Repeat structure from Option 1/2]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Decision & Rationale
|
||||
|
||||
### Selected Approach: [Option Name]
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Reasons:**
|
||||
1. [Reason 1: Aligns with technical stack]
|
||||
2. [Reason 2: Lowest total cost of ownership]
|
||||
3. [Reason 3: Fastest time to market]
|
||||
|
||||
**Trade-offs Accepted:**
|
||||
- [Trade-off 1: Higher infrastructure costs vs. lower dev time]
|
||||
- [Trade-off 2: Vendor lock-in vs. managed service reliability]
|
||||
|
||||
**Alternatives Rejected:**
|
||||
- **Option X** rejected because: [reason]
|
||||
- **Option Y** rejected because: [reason]
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Assumptions:**
|
||||
- [Assumption 1: User growth will remain under 100K for next 12 months]
|
||||
- [Assumption 2: OAuth providers maintain 99.9% uptime]
|
||||
|
||||
**When to Revisit:**
|
||||
- If user base exceeds 500K (cost model changes)
|
||||
- If OAuth vendor has >2 major outages in 6 months
|
||||
- After 1 year in production (reevaluate build vs. buy)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Architecture
|
||||
|
||||
### System Architecture Diagram
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
[Insert diagram here - can be ASCII art, PlantUML, or image link]
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
|
||||
│ Browser │─────▶│ API Gateway │─────▶│ Auth │
|
||||
│ │◀─────│ │◀─────│ Service │
|
||||
└─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └─────────────┘
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
│ ▼
|
||||
│ ┌──────────────┐
|
||||
│ │ User DB │
|
||||
│ │ (Postgres) │
|
||||
│ └──────────────┘
|
||||
▼
|
||||
┌──────────────┐
|
||||
│ Session │
|
||||
│ Store │
|
||||
│ (Redis) │
|
||||
└──────────────┘
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Component Breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
**Component 1: [Name, e.g., "Authentication Service"]**
|
||||
- **Responsibility:** Handle user login, registration, token issuance
|
||||
- **Technology:** Node.js (Express), PassportJS
|
||||
- **Interfaces:**
|
||||
- REST API: `/auth/login`, `/auth/register`, `/auth/refresh`
|
||||
- Events: `user.logged_in`, `user.registered`
|
||||
- **Dependencies:** User DB, Session Store, Email Service
|
||||
|
||||
**Component 2: [Name]**
|
||||
[Repeat structure]
|
||||
|
||||
### Data Models
|
||||
|
||||
**User Table:**
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
CREATE TABLE users (
|
||||
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
|
||||
email VARCHAR(255) UNIQUE NOT NULL,
|
||||
password_hash VARCHAR(255),
|
||||
oauth_provider VARCHAR(50),
|
||||
oauth_id VARCHAR(255),
|
||||
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW(),
|
||||
updated_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW(),
|
||||
INDEX idx_email (email),
|
||||
UNIQUE idx_oauth (oauth_provider, oauth_id)
|
||||
);
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Session Table:**
|
||||
```sql
|
||||
CREATE TABLE sessions (
|
||||
id UUID PRIMARY KEY,
|
||||
user_id UUID REFERENCES users(id),
|
||||
access_token VARCHAR(500) NOT NULL,
|
||||
refresh_token VARCHAR(500),
|
||||
expires_at TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
|
||||
created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW()
|
||||
);
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### API Contracts
|
||||
|
||||
**POST /auth/register**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
Request:
|
||||
{
|
||||
"email": "user@example.com",
|
||||
"password": "SecurePass123!",
|
||||
"name": "John Doe"
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Response (201 Created):
|
||||
{
|
||||
"user_id": "uuid",
|
||||
"access_token": "jwt",
|
||||
"refresh_token": "jwt",
|
||||
"expires_in": 3600
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Errors:
|
||||
400 - Invalid email format
|
||||
409 - Email already registered
|
||||
422 - Password too weak
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**POST /auth/login**
|
||||
[Similar structure]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Implementation Plan
|
||||
|
||||
### Phases
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1: Core Authentication (Week 1-2)**
|
||||
- [ ] Set up database schema
|
||||
- [ ] Implement email/password registration
|
||||
- [ ] Implement login endpoint
|
||||
- [ ] Add password hashing (bcrypt)
|
||||
- [ ] Write unit tests
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2: OAuth Integration (Week 3)**
|
||||
- [ ] Integrate Google OAuth
|
||||
- [ ] Add OAuth callback handling
|
||||
- [ ] Link OAuth accounts to existing users
|
||||
- [ ] Test OAuth flow
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3: Security Hardening (Week 4)**
|
||||
- [ ] Add rate limiting
|
||||
- [ ] Implement token refresh
|
||||
- [ ] Add password reset flow
|
||||
- [ ] Security audit
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 4: Testing & Deployment (Week 5)**
|
||||
- [ ] End-to-end testing
|
||||
- [ ] Load testing
|
||||
- [ ] Documentation
|
||||
- [ ] Production deployment
|
||||
|
||||
### Dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
- **External:**
|
||||
- Google OAuth credentials (waiting on: Platform team)
|
||||
- Email service API key (waiting on: DevOps)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Internal:**
|
||||
- User profile service (blocks: User settings feature)
|
||||
- Session management (required by: All authenticated endpoints)
|
||||
|
||||
### Resource Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
- **Development:** 1 backend engineer (full-time, 5 weeks)
|
||||
- **Design:** 0.5 designer (mockups, 1 week)
|
||||
- **QA:** 0.5 QA engineer (testing, 1 week)
|
||||
- **Infrastructure:** $200/month (database + Redis)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Risks & Mitigations
|
||||
|
||||
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|
||||
|------|-------------|--------|------------|
|
||||
| OAuth provider downtime | Medium | High | Fallback to email auth; cache OAuth tokens |
|
||||
| Password breach | Low | Critical | Bcrypt + salt; enforce strong passwords; rate limit |
|
||||
| Database bottleneck | Medium | High | Add read replicas; implement caching |
|
||||
| Token theft | Medium | High | Short expiration; secure httpOnly cookies |
|
||||
|
||||
### Security Considerations
|
||||
|
||||
**Threat Model:**
|
||||
- **Threat 1: Brute force attacks** → Mitigation: Rate limiting, CAPTCHA after 3 failures
|
||||
- **Threat 2: SQL injection** → Mitigation: Parameterized queries, ORM usage
|
||||
- **Threat 3: XSS in user data** → Mitigation: Input validation, output encoding
|
||||
|
||||
**Compliance:**
|
||||
- GDPR: User data deletion within 30 days of request
|
||||
- CCPA: User data export API endpoint
|
||||
- SOC 2: Audit logging for all auth events
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Testing Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Unit Tests
|
||||
- Password hashing/validation
|
||||
- Token generation/validation
|
||||
- Input validation logic
|
||||
- Coverage target: 90%
|
||||
|
||||
### Integration Tests
|
||||
- Registration flow (email + OAuth)
|
||||
- Login flow (email + OAuth)
|
||||
- Token refresh flow
|
||||
- Password reset flow
|
||||
|
||||
### End-to-End Tests
|
||||
- New user signup journey
|
||||
- Returning user login journey
|
||||
- OAuth account linking
|
||||
- Session expiration handling
|
||||
|
||||
### Performance Tests
|
||||
- Concurrent logins: 1,000 users/second
|
||||
- Database query performance: < 50ms p95
|
||||
- API response time: < 200ms p95
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Monitoring & Observability
|
||||
|
||||
### Metrics to Track
|
||||
|
||||
**Business Metrics:**
|
||||
- Daily active users (DAU)
|
||||
- Registration conversion rate
|
||||
- OAuth vs. email signup ratio
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Metrics:**
|
||||
- API response time (p50, p95, p99)
|
||||
- Error rate by endpoint
|
||||
- Database connection pool utilization
|
||||
- Cache hit rate
|
||||
|
||||
### Alerts
|
||||
|
||||
- Error rate > 5% for 5 minutes → Page on-call engineer
|
||||
- Response time p95 > 500ms → Slack warning
|
||||
- Failed login attempts > 100/min → Slack + investigate
|
||||
|
||||
### Dashboards
|
||||
|
||||
- Real-time: Login success/failure rates, active sessions
|
||||
- Daily: User growth, OAuth provider breakdown
|
||||
- Weekly: Performance trends, error analysis
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Documentation & Training
|
||||
|
||||
### User-Facing Documentation
|
||||
- [ ] Registration guide
|
||||
- [ ] Password reset guide
|
||||
- [ ] OAuth connection guide
|
||||
- [ ] Security best practices
|
||||
|
||||
### Developer Documentation
|
||||
- [ ] API reference (OpenAPI spec)
|
||||
- [ ] Local development setup
|
||||
- [ ] Testing guide
|
||||
- [ ] Deployment runbook
|
||||
|
||||
### Training Materials
|
||||
- [ ] Team demo of authentication flow
|
||||
- [ ] Security review session
|
||||
- [ ] Runbook walkthrough for on-call engineers
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Rollout Plan
|
||||
|
||||
### Feature Flags
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
feature_flags:
|
||||
auth_email_registration: true
|
||||
auth_google_oauth: false # Enable after testing
|
||||
auth_password_reset: false # Enable in phase 2
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Rollout Stages
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Internal Alpha (Week 1)**
|
||||
- Deploy to staging
|
||||
- Team testing (10 users)
|
||||
- Fix critical bugs
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Beta (Week 2)**
|
||||
- Deploy to 10% of production traffic
|
||||
- Monitor error rates
|
||||
- Collect user feedback
|
||||
|
||||
3. **General Availability (Week 3)**
|
||||
- Ramp to 50%, then 100%
|
||||
- Enable OAuth
|
||||
- Sunset old authentication system (Week 4)
|
||||
|
||||
### Rollback Plan
|
||||
|
||||
- **Trigger:** Error rate > 10% or critical security issue
|
||||
- **Procedure:**
|
||||
1. Disable feature flag
|
||||
2. Route traffic to old system
|
||||
3. Incident post-mortem within 24 hours
|
||||
- **RTO:** 5 minutes (time to disable flag)
|
||||
- **RPO:** 0 (no data loss)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Future Enhancements
|
||||
|
||||
### Deferred to v2
|
||||
- Two-factor authentication (SMS, TOTP)
|
||||
- Social login (Facebook, Twitter, GitHub)
|
||||
- Biometric authentication
|
||||
- SSO for enterprise customers
|
||||
|
||||
### Technical Debt Accepted
|
||||
- [Debt 1: Monolithic auth service - plan to split into microservices after 100K users]
|
||||
- [Debt 2: In-memory session cache - migrate to distributed cache under high load]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
This design is considered complete and ready for implementation when:
|
||||
|
||||
- [x] All stakeholders have reviewed and approved
|
||||
- [ ] Security team has completed threat model review
|
||||
- [ ] At least 2 technical reviewers have signed off
|
||||
- [ ] All "Must Have" functional requirements are addressed
|
||||
- [ ] Performance targets are achievable (validated by load test plan)
|
||||
- [ ] Rollback plan is documented and tested
|
||||
- [ ] Cost estimate approved by finance
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 14. Appendices
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix A: Research & References
|
||||
|
||||
- [Link to competitive analysis]
|
||||
- [Link to user research findings]
|
||||
- [Link to technology evaluation matrix]
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix B: Meeting Notes
|
||||
|
||||
**Design Review 1 (YYYY-MM-DD):**
|
||||
- Attendees: [Names]
|
||||
- Decisions: [Key decisions]
|
||||
- Action items: [Follow-ups]
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix C: Change Log
|
||||
|
||||
| Date | Author | Change |
|
||||
|------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| {CreatedDate} | AI_Claude | Initial draft from feature discussion |
|
||||
| | | |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Document Status:** 🟡 Draft - Awaiting Review
|
||||
**Next Review Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
**Related Documents:**
|
||||
- Feature Discussion: `../discussions/design.discussion.md`
|
||||
- Implementation Plan: `../implementation/plan.md` (created after approval)
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue