31 KiB

Raw Blame History

AI enabled home lab productivity and development tool

Context

AI generated checkable todo lists with timelines from conversations
periodic productivity auditing and sumaries
periodic task re-evaluating and planning
beggining of day conversations and task deligation as well as end of day check in and summarizing
periodic non intrusive ai lead interviews to establish why goals were not met and use for input in future planning

Requirements

Must run locally in home lab (no cloud dependency)
Conversation interface for daily standups and check-ins
Persistent storage for tasks, goals, and progress history
Scheduling system for periodic check-ins (daily, weekly)
Non-intrusive notification system for reminders
Export/summary generation (daily, weekly reports)

Open Questions

What AI model/provider should power the conversations? (local LLM vs API)
How should tasks be stored? (markdown files, database, calendar integration)
What platforms need support? (CLI, web UI, mobile notifications)
How to handle multiple projects/contexts?
What level of automation vs user prompting for check-ins?
How to measure "productivity" - what metrics matter?

Discussion begins below.

Name: AI-Architect

Architectural Analysis\n\n### System Boundaries & Concerns\n\nThis proposal bundles several distinct capabilities that should be architecturally separated:\n\n1. Task Management System - CRUD operations, hierarchies, dependencies\n2. Conversation Agent - AI-powered standups and interviews\n3. Analytics/Reporting Engine - Summaries, productivity metrics\n4. Scheduling/Notification Service - Periodic triggers and reminders\n5. Storage Layer - Persistent state management\n\nARTIFACT: diagrams/homelab-arch.puml\n\n### Critical Architectural Decisions Needed\n\n1. Data Model & Storage Strategy\n\nThe proposal lacks clarity on how data flows and persists:\n- What's the schema for tasks vs goals vs journal entries vs metrics?\n- How do you handle task history/versioning (user might want undo/audit trail)?\n- How do conversations map to structured task updates?\n- Where's the single source of truth when AI suggests changes?\n\nRecommendation: Adopt event sourcing pattern. Store all interactions as events (task created, goal updated, standup completed), derive current state. This gives you audit trail, undo, and analytics for free.\n\n2. AI Integration Architecture\n\nLocal LLM vs API is a false dichotomy - you need abstraction:\n`\nConversation Interface\n ↓\nIntent Parser (deterministic)\n ↓\nAI Provider Abstraction Layer\n ↓ (strategy pattern)\n[Local LLM] [API Provider] [Hybrid]\n`\n\nStart with API (faster iteration), add local LLM support later. Don't let AI provider choice dictate your architecture.\n\n3. Temporal Concerns\n\nThis system is fundamentally about time-series data:\n- Goals set at T0 may be irrelevant at T30\n- "Why goals weren't met" requires comparing past intent with current reality\n- Productivity trends need historical context\n\nRecommendation: Model time explicitly. Each entity should be temporal (valid-from/valid-to). This prevents "updating" goals and losing historical context.\n\n4. Integration Strategy\n\nDon't build a walled garden. This should be a productivity hub, not a replacement for existing tools:\n- Import from/export to standard formats (iCal, Markdown, JSON)\n- Webhook/API support for external tools (GitHub, GitLab, Jira)\n- File-based storage enables git versioning and external processing\n\nRecommendation: Follow Unix philosophy - do one thing well, compose with other tools.\n\n### Architectural Risks\n\nRISK: Scope Creep\nThis description contains 6+ distinct products. Without clear boundaries, you'll build a monolith that does everything poorly.\n\nRISK: AI Over-reliance\nIf core functionality (task CRUD, scheduling) depends on AI availability, system becomes fragile. AI should augment, not replace, deterministic logic.\n\nRISK: Local-First Constraints\nLocal-only means:\n- No mobile push notifications (requires cloud relay)\n- No multi-device sync (without building sync infrastructure)\n- Harder integration with cloud tools (GitHub, etc.)\n\nConsider hybrid: core logic local, optional sync/notification services.\n\nRISK: Privacy/Security Model Undefined\nPersonal productivity data is sensitive. Needs:\n- Encryption at rest if using local LLM\n- Clear data retention policies\n- Audit logging for AI access to personal data\n\n### Recommended Architecture\n\nPhase 1 Foundation:\n1. File-based event store (append-only markdown or JSONLines)\n2. CLI for manual task management (prove data model works)\n3. Simple scheduler for periodic prompts (cron + notification)\n4. Markdown export (human-readable, git-friendly)\n\nPhase 2 AI Layer:\n1. Conversation parser (maps natural language → structured events)\n2. AI provider abstraction (start with API, add local later)\n3. Summarization service (reads event store, generates reports)\n\nPhase 3 Intelligence:\n1. Analytics engine (productivity metrics from events)\n2. Adaptive scheduling (learns optimal check-in times)\n3. Retrospective interviewer (compares goals vs outcomes)\n\nKey Patterns to Apply:\n- Event Sourcing: All changes as events, state is derived\n- CQRS: Separate write (AI conversations) from read (reports/queries)\n- Strategy Pattern: Pluggable AI providers, notification channels\n- Repository Pattern: Abstract storage (easy migration from files → DB later)\n\n### Open Questions for Next Phase\n\n1. Who is the user? Solo developer or team? Multi-tenant requirements?\n2. What's the MVP? Which of these 6 features is the actual核心 (core)?\n3. What existing tools do you use? This should integrate, not replace\n4. What's your deployment model? Docker, systemd service, cron jobs?\n5. How do you handle schema evolution? Data format will change - migration strategy?\n\n### Verdict\n\nThe concept is sound but architecturally under-specified. Before writing code:\n1. Define bounded contexts (separate task mgmt from analytics from AI)\n2. Design the data model (entity relationships, temporal aspects)\n3. Choose file format (Markdown? YAML? JSONLines?)\n4. Sketch the MVP (1-2 features max)\n\nThis prevents building a big ball of mud.

VOTE: CHANGES

Name: AI-Security

Security Analysis - AI-Enabled Home Lab Tool

I've reviewed the proposal from a security perspective. Here are my findings:

Critical Security Considerations

CONCERN: Sensitive data exposure - Daily conversations, goals, task histories, and "why goals weren't met" interviews will contain highly personal and potentially sensitive information about work patterns, mental state, and personal life.

CONCERN: Local LLM model security - If using local models, need to verify model provenance and ensure no data exfiltration capabilities are embedded.

CONCERN: Authentication and access control - No mention of how the system authenticates users or restricts access to personal productivity data.

Threat Model Overview

I've created a threat model diagram showing the primary attack surfaces and trust boundaries.

DIAGRAM: diagrams/ai-enabled-home-lab-productivity-and-development-tool_security_1.puml

Key Security Requirements

Q: How will conversation data be encrypted at rest? - Given the personal nature of daily check-ins and retrospectives, encryption is essential.

Q: What authentication mechanism will protect the web UI (if implemented)? - Home lab doesn't mean no authentication needed.

Q: How will the notification system be secured? - Push notifications or external integrations could leak task/goal information.

TODO: Define data retention policy - How long to keep conversation histories, and secure deletion procedures.

TODO: Implement audit logging - Track who accessed what data and when, especially for sensitive retrospective interviews.

TODO: Establish backup security - Encrypted backups of personal productivity data with secure key management.

Recommended Security Controls

Data Protection
- Encrypt SQLite/database at rest (e.g., SQLCipher)
- If using markdown files, consider encrypted filesystem or file-level encryption
- Secure deletion for removed tasks/conversations
Access Control
- Authentication even for local-only deployments (protect against other home lab services/users)
- Consider hardware token support (YubiKey) for high-value productivity data
- Session management with timeouts
Network Security
- If web UI: HTTPS only (even localhost), strong CSP headers
- Rate limiting on API endpoints to prevent brute force
- No external network calls without explicit user consent and audit trail
Input Validation
- Sanitize all user inputs to prevent injection attacks
- Validate task/goal formats before storage
- Prevent path traversal in export/summary generation
AI-Specific Risks
- Prompt injection protection - users might unintentionally include malicious patterns
- Model output validation - ensure AI can't suggest executing arbitrary commands
- Context isolation between projects to prevent data leakage

Privacy Considerations

CONCERN: Interview data sensitivity - "AI-led interviews to establish why goals weren't met" is psychologically sensitive data. This needs the highest protection level.

Recommendation: Implement granular privacy controls allowing users to mark certain conversations as "extra sensitive" with enhanced encryption or opt-out from persistent storage.

Lower Priority Items

Dependency scanning for local LLM libraries
Regular security updates for web framework (if used)
Sandboxing for AI model execution
Secure random number generation for session tokens

Verdict

The concept is sound for a home lab project, but given the highly personal nature of productivity/goal data, security must be built in from the start, not added later.

VOTE: CHANGES

Required changes before proceeding:

Define authentication mechanism
Specify encryption approach for data at rest
Establish data retention and deletion policy
Address the "sensitive interview data" storage concern

DIAGRAM: diagrams/ai-enabled-home-lab-productivity-and-development-tool_security_1.puml VOTE: CHANGES

Name: AI-Pragmatist This proposal has classic over-engineering warning signs. Let me break down what we can ship NOW vs what we're dreaming about.

CONCERN: COMPLEXITY - Scope Creep Alert

This isn't one project, it's 3-4 projects mashed together:

Task management system
AI conversation bot
Productivity analytics engine
Interview/retrospective system

MVP That Ships This Week

Start with the SMALLEST thing that adds value:

Week 1 MVP: Daily Check-in Bot

Single markdown file for tasks (tasks.md)
Two CLI commands: homelab start-day and homelab end-day
AI reads tasks.md, asks 2-3 questions, appends today's plan
End of day: quick review, mark done items, note blockers
That's it. No scheduling, no analytics, no interviews.

What To Defer (Maybe Forever)

"Periodic productivity auditing" - Who asked for this? Start with manual homelab summary command you run when YOU want it.

"Timelines from conversations" - Just write tasks with optional due dates. Don't build a project management system.

"Non-intrusive AI lead interviews" - This is session 10 material. You don't even know if daily check-ins work yet.

"Periodic task re-evaluating" - Manual for now. Add automation after 2 weeks of actual usage.

Open Questions - Pragmatic Answers

Q: What AI model? A: Whatever you already have API keys for. Don't block on this. OpenAI API or Anthropic works fine. Local LLM setup is a 2-week rabbit hole.

Q: Storage? A: Markdown files in ~/.homelab/. Grep-able, git-friendly, zero setup. Database is premature.

Q: Platform support? A: CLI only. Web UI is month 2. Mobile is month 6 if you're still using this.

Q: Multiple projects? A: One context. Add tags later if needed (#work, #personal). Don't build project management.

Q: Automation level? A: Zero automation. You type commands. Add cron jobs after proving you use it daily for a week.

Q: Productivity metrics? A: Count completed tasks. That's it. Fancy metrics come after you have 30 days of data.

Shipping Strategy

Day 1-2: homelab start-day that reads tasks.md and asks "What's your focus today?"
Day 3-4: homelab end-day that reviews what you said you'd do
Day 5: Use it yourself for 3 days
Week 2: Add homelab add-task command
Week 3: Add homelab summary --week

If you're not using it daily by week 2, the fancy features won't save it.

Reality Check

The requirements list says "must run locally" but also implies complex scheduling and notifications. Pick one:

Simple: CLI tool you run manually = ships fast
Complex: Background service with notifications = 3x the work

Start simple. Add complexity only when manual gets annoying.

DIAGRAM: diagrams/ai-enabled-home-lab-productivity-and-development-tool_mvp_1.puml

VOTE: CHANGES

Simplify to daily check-in CLI tool. Defer analytics, automation, and interviews until you prove the core loop works.

DIAGRAM: diagrams/ai-enabled-home-lab-productivity-and-development-tool_mvp_1.puml VOTE: CHANGES

Name: rob Thanks for the thorough feedback. Here are my thoughts:

Scope Decision

Pragmatist is right - I'm describing 4 projects. Let me narrow to the core value proposition:

MVP Focus: Daily AI Check-in CLI

homelab start-day - Review yesterday, plan today
homelab end-day - Quick reflection, capture blockers
Simple markdown file storage

I'll defer: analytics, automated scheduling, interviews, web UI, notifications.

Addressing Architect's Concerns

Data Model: Starting with append-only markdown files. Each day gets a section. Git-friendly, grep-able, zero infrastructure.
AI Provider: Will use Claude API initially (already have access). Abstract behind a simple interface so I can swap later.
Single user: Just me, no multi-tenant complexity.

Addressing Security's Concerns

Encryption: Home directory permissions + encrypted drive is sufficient for MVP. Not storing secrets, just task notes.
Authentication: CLI tool runs as my user. No web UI = no auth needed initially.
Sensitive data: Fair point about interview data. For MVP, I control what I type - will be mindful.

Revised MVP Requirements

CLI tool with start-day and end-day commands
Markdown file storage in ~/.homelab/
Claude API integration for conversation
No scheduling, no automation, no web UI

Open Questions Answered

Platform: CLI only
Storage: Markdown files
AI: Claude API
Metrics: Count completed tasks (manual)

Ready to move to sketching the implementation? VOTE: READY

Name: AI-Architect

Architectural Review - Revised MVP

Excellent Scope Reduction

The pivot to a focused CLI tool is architecturally sound. You've eliminated 80% of complexity while keeping the core value proposition. This is the right move.

Architecture Validation

Data Model: Markdown Files ✓

Append-only markdown in ~/.homelab/ is perfect for MVP:

Git-friendly (automatic versioning and audit trail)
Grep-able (ad-hoc queries without building a query engine)
Human-readable (can edit manually if needed)
Zero infrastructure overhead

Suggested file structure:

~/.homelab/
  ├── journal.md          # Daily entries (append-only)
  ├── tasks.md            # Current active tasks
  └── archive/            # Completed tasks (optional)
      └── 2025-12.md

This gives you separation of concerns: journal is temporal, tasks.md is current state.

AI Provider Abstraction ✓

Starting with Claude API behind an interface is the right call. Minimal abstraction needed:

# Simple provider interface
class ConversationProvider:
    def chat(self, messages: list) -> str:
        pass

class ClaudeProvider(ConversationProvider):
    def chat(self, messages: list) -> str:
        # API call here
        pass

Don't over-engineer this. Single method is enough for MVP.

Security Model: Sufficient ✓

For single-user CLI:

Filesystem permissions (0600 on journal files)
Encrypted drive (already have)
No network exposure

This is adequate. Don't add complexity you don't need.

Architectural Recommendations

1. Command Structure

Keep commands simple and composable:

homelab start-day    # Interactive check-in
homelab end-day      # Interactive reflection
homelab add-task     # Quick task capture (optional)
homelab show         # View current tasks

Follow CLI best practices:

--help on all commands
Exit codes (0 = success, non-zero = error)
JSON output option (--json) for future scripting

2. Conversation Flow Architecture

User runs command
    ↓
Read current state (tasks.md, journal.md)
    ↓
Build context for AI (recent entries + current tasks)
    ↓
AI conversation (2-3 exchanges max)
    ↓
Parse AI response for structured data
    ↓
Append to journal.md
Update tasks.md

Key: Parse AI output for structure. Don't just append freeform text. Extract:

Tasks mentioned (parse "- task" format)
Blockers (parse "BLOCKED: reason")
Priorities (parse "PRIORITY: high/med/low")

This makes future analytics trivial (just grep for patterns).

3. State Management

For MVP, two files hold all state:

journal.md: append-only, timestamped entries
tasks.md: current state, updated in-place

This separation prevents journal pollution while keeping tasks easily editable.

4. Configuration

Simple YAML config in ~/.homelab/config.yaml:

ai:
  provider: claude
  api_key_env: ANTHROPIC_API_KEY  # Don't store keys in config
  model: claude-3-5-sonnet-20241022

paths:
  journal: ~/.homelab/journal.md
  tasks: ~/.homelab/tasks.md

Read from env vars for secrets. Never commit API keys.

Critical Design Decisions

DECISION: Journal Entry Format

Standardize on a format NOW to avoid migration pain:

## 2025-12-16 Monday

### Morning Check-in (08:30)
Focus: MVP for homelab tool
Planned:
- [ ] Design CLI architecture
- [ ] Set up project structure

### Evening Reflection (18:00)
Completed:
- [x] Design CLI architecture
- [ ] Set up project structure (blocked: need to finalize storage format)

Blockers: Deciding between JSON and markdown
Notes: Made good progress on design

Consistent structure = easy parsing later.

DECISION: AI Context Window Management

Don't send entire journal history to AI every time. Limit context:

Last 3 days of journal entries
Current tasks.md (all tasks)
System prompt with personality/instructions

This keeps tokens low and responses focused.

DECISION: Error Handling Strategy

For MVP, fail gracefully:

API down? Degrade to manual entry (prompt user for text)
Malformed markdown? Show warning but don't block
Missing config? Use sensible defaults

Robustness > perfection for a personal tool.

Implementation Phases

Phase 1: Scaffolding (Day 1)

CLI framework (argparse or click)
Config loading
File I/O (read/write markdown)
Basic start-day command (no AI, just prompts)

Phase 2: AI Integration (Day 2-3)

Claude API client
Conversation loop
Response parsing
Append to journal

Phase 3: Polish (Day 4-5)

end-day command
Task extraction from conversations
Help text and error messages
Self-dogfood for 3 days

Risks & Mitigations

RISK: API Costs Mitigation: Set token limits, cache responses, use cheaper model (Haiku) for simple prompts.

RISK: Journal Size Growth Mitigation: Archive old entries monthly. Keep last 90 days in main journal.

RISK: AI Hallucinating Tasks Mitigation: Always show proposed changes before writing. Require user confirmation.

Testing Strategy

For MVP:

Manual testing (use it yourself daily)
Unit tests for markdown parsing/writing
Integration test with mocked AI responses

No need for comprehensive test suite yet. Add tests when you find bugs.

Future Architecture Considerations

Later additions (if you actually use it daily):

homelab summary --week - Read journal, generate summary
homelab trends - Parse task completion patterns
Local LLM support - Swap provider implementation
Export formats (PDF, HTML) - Read markdown, convert

All of these are easy to add because of clean separation:

Data layer (markdown files)
AI layer (provider interface)
CLI layer (commands)

No refactoring needed, just new commands.

Verdict

The revised MVP is architecturally sound and shippable. Key strengths:

✓ Clear scope boundary (CLI only, single user) ✓ Simple data model (markdown files) ✓ Minimal abstractions (just enough for future flexibility) ✓ No premature optimization ✓ Fails gracefully (manual fallback if AI unavailable)

One recommendation: Add a homelab init command that creates the directory structure and config template. This makes onboarding trivial.

VOTE: READY VOTE: READY

Name: AI-Security

Security Assessment - Revised MVP

Good news: The scope reduction dramatically shrinks the attack surface. Here's my security analysis of the revised CLI-only MVP.

Security Posture: Much Improved

The pivot to CLI-only with local markdown storage eliminates most of my previous concerns:

✅ No web UI = no CSRF, XSS, or session management issues
✅ No background service = no daemon security hardening needed
✅ No notifications = no external communication channels to secure
✅ Single user = no authorization complexity

Remaining Security Considerations

1. API Key Security

CONCERN: Claude API key storage - This is now the primary security risk.

TODO: Implement secure credential storage

Use system keyring (e.g., keyring Python library) rather than plaintext config file
Never log API keys or include in markdown output
Document key rotation procedure

Example: Don't store in ~/.homelab/config.yaml, use OS keychain.

2. Data Protection

The markdown files will contain:

Daily work patterns
Task priorities
Blockers and frustrations
Performance reflection

Recommendation (not blocking):

Ensure ~/.homelab/ has 0700 permissions (user-only)
Consider adding .homelab/ to backup encryption scope
Document that git commits of this data should use private repos

3. AI Prompt Injection (Low Risk)

If you accidentally paste malicious content during check-ins, Claude's output could theoretically include harmful suggestions.

Mitigation: Don't execute AI suggestions automatically. Since this is conversational CLI, you're the human in the loop - low risk.

4. Dependency Security

TODO: Pin dependencies and use virtual environment

requirements.txt with exact versions
Regular updates for the Anthropic SDK
Consider pip-audit in your dev workflow

Low Priority / Future Considerations

Rate limiting Claude API calls (cost control, not security)
Input sanitization if you add shell command execution features
Audit logging if you later add web UI or sharing features

Verdict

The revised MVP has a reasonable security posture for a personal CLI tool. The main risk is API key exposure.

Required for READY:

Confirm you'll use secure credential storage (keyring/keychain, not plaintext config)
Set proper file permissions on ~/.homelab/

Once you confirm the API key handling approach, this is READY from a security perspective. VOTE: CHANGES

Name: AI-Pragmatist Parse error VOTE: NONE

Name: AI-Architect

Architectural Review - API Key Security

Security raises a valid concern about credential management, but I want to provide architectural context on the tradeoffs.

Keyring vs Environment Variables vs Config File

Option 1: System Keyring (Security's recommendation)

Pros: OS-level encryption, no plaintext storage
Cons: Adds dependency (keyring library), complicates deployment, harder to debug
Complexity: Medium

Option 2: Environment Variable (My recommendation for MVP)

Pros: Standard practice, works everywhere, zero dependencies
Cons: Visible in process list, shell history risk
Complexity: Zero

Option 3: Config file with 0600 permissions

Pros: Simple, explicit, easy to manage
Cons: Plaintext on disk
Complexity: Minimal

Architectural Recommendation

For a personal CLI tool running on an encrypted drive with filesystem permissions, environment variables are sufficient:

# In ~/.bashrc or ~/.zshrc
export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="sk-ant-..."

Config reads from env:

import os
api_key = os.environ.get('ANTHROPIC_API_KEY')
if not api_key:
    print("Error: Set ANTHROPIC_API_KEY environment variable")
    sys.exit(1)

Why this is architecturally sound:

Zero dependencies - No keyring library, no OS-specific code
Standard practice - How AWS CLI, GitHub CLI, and most dev tools work
Portable - Works on Linux, macOS, Windows (WSL)
Debuggable - Clear error message if not set
Secure enough - On encrypted drive with user-only shell config

Security vs Pragmatism Balance

Security's keyring recommendation is architecturally over-engineered for this threat model:

Threat: Someone with filesystem access reads API key
Reality: If attacker has filesystem access to your home directory, they can:
- Read your SSH keys
- Access your browser session tokens
- Read the journal.md (which is the actual sensitive data)

Defending the API key with keyring while leaving journal.md as plaintext markdown is security theater.

Proper Threat Modeling

The real risks, in order:

Journal data exposure - Contains personal productivity patterns
API key exposure - Could run up charges or access Claude
Dependency vulnerabilities - Outdated packages

Mitigation strategy:

Filesystem permissions (0700 on ~/.homelab/)
Encrypted drive (already have)
Environment variable for API key
Dependabot/pip-audit for dependencies

This provides defense-in-depth without unnecessary complexity.

Alternative: Hybrid Approach

If you want to satisfy Security's concern without adding dependencies:

# Try env var first, fall back to config with warning
api_key = os.environ.get('ANTHROPIC_API_KEY')
if not api_key:
    # Read from config but warn
    api_key = config.get('ai', {}).get('api_key')
    if api_key:
        print("WARNING: API key in config file. Use ANTHROPIC_API_KEY env var instead.")

This educates users toward better practice without blocking functionality.

Decision: Defer to Implementation Phase

This is an implementation detail, not an architectural blocker. Both approaches work:

MVP (Week 1): Environment variable (ships fastest)
Hardening (Week 4): Add keyring support as optional enhancement

Don't block on this. The architecture supports either approach via the provider interface.

File Permissions - Agreed

Security's recommendation for 0700 permissions is correct and trivial:

import os
homelab_dir = os.path.expanduser('~/.homelab')
os.makedirs(homelab_dir, mode=0o700, exist_ok=True)

This should be in the homelab init command I previously recommended.

Verdict

The credential storage approach doesn't affect the core architecture. Start with environment variables (standard practice), add keyring later if needed.

The file permissions requirement is valid and easy to implement.

DECISION: Use environment variable for API key in MVP, document keyring migration path.

VOTE: READY - This is an implementation detail, not an architectural concern. The provider abstraction supports any credential source. VOTE: READY

Name: AI-Security

Security Status: Waiting on Credential Storage Confirmation\n\nStill awaiting confirmation from rob on the API key storage approach.\n\n### Blocking Issue\n\nThe current proposal mentions storing API keys in environment variables (`ANTHROPIC_API_KEY`), which is better than plaintext config files, but I need explicit confirmation of the implementation approach:\n\nQ: Will you use OS keychain/keyring for API key storage, or rely solely on environment variables?\n\nEnvironment variables are acceptable for MVP if:\n- Set in shell profile (not committed to git)\n- Protected with proper file permissions (0600)\n- Never logged or echoed\n\nPreferred approach:\n- Use Python `keyring` library to store in OS keychain\n- Prompt for API key on first run: `homelab init --api-key`\n- Retrieve from keychain on subsequent runs\n\n### Additional Security Requirement\n\nTODO: Document in README that `~/.homelab/` should be excluded from backups to cloud services, or ensure backups are encrypted.\n\n### File Permissions\n\nThe `homelab init` command (as Architect suggested) should automatically:\n`bash\nmkdir -p ~/.homelab\nchmod 700 ~/.homelab\ntouch ~/.homelab/journal.md ~/.homelab/tasks.md\nchmod 600 ~/.homelab/*.md\n`\n\nThis ensures no other users on the system can read your productivity data.\n\n### Verdict\n\nOnce you confirm the API key handling approach (environment variables with proper precautions OR keyring), I'll vote READY. The rest of the security posture is acceptable for a personal CLI tool.\n\nCONCERN: API key storage method not yet confirmed

VOTE: CHANGES

Name: AI-Pragmatist

Security Response - API Key Storage

Good question on the API key. Here's the pragmatic answer:

MVP Approach: Environment Variable

For shipping this week:

export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="sk-..."
homelab start-day

Add to your .bashrc or .zshrc. Done. Ships today.

Why Not OS Keychain?

Security suggested keyring library. That's adding:

New dependency
Platform-specific code (macOS Keychain vs Linux Secret Service vs Windows Credential Locker)
Setup complexity for a single secret
Debugging pain when keyring daemon isn't running

For a personal CLI tool, env vars are fine. You already protect your shell config.

File Permissions: Already Handled

If you're on Linux/macOS, ~/.homelab/ gets your user's default permissions (typically 755 or 700). Explicitly setting 0700 is one line:

import os
config_dir = os.path.expanduser('~/.homelab')
os.makedirs(config_dir, mode=0o700, exist_ok=True)

Add this to homelab init. Takes 30 seconds.

Dependency Pinning: Yes, But Later

pip freeze > requirements.txt

Run this after you get it working. Don't block on it now.

Reality Check

This tool accesses:

Your markdown task notes (already on your encrypted drive)
Claude API (HTTPS, already secure)
No external services, no network exposure, no user data

The threat model is "someone with access to your laptop reads your todo list." If that happens, you have bigger problems than this tool.

Verdict

Security's concerns are valid but don't block shipping:

✅ Use env var for API key (add to shell config)
✅ Set 0700 on ~/.homelab/ in init command
✅ Pin dependencies after first working version

This is a personal productivity tool, not a bank. Ship it, use it for a week, then harden if you're still using it.

VOTE: READY

The MVP is simple, scoped, and secure enough for personal use. Let's build it. VOTE: READY

31 KiB Raw Blame History

AI enabled home lab productivity and development tool

Context

Requirements

Open Questions

Security Analysis - AI-Enabled Home Lab Tool

Critical Security Considerations

Threat Model Overview

Key Security Requirements

Recommended Security Controls

Privacy Considerations

Lower Priority Items

Verdict

CONCERN: COMPLEXITY - Scope Creep Alert

MVP That Ships This Week

What To Defer (Maybe Forever)

Open Questions - Pragmatic Answers

Shipping Strategy

Reality Check

Scope Decision

Addressing Architect's Concerns

Addressing Security's Concerns

Revised MVP Requirements

Open Questions Answered

Architectural Review - Revised MVP

Excellent Scope Reduction

Architecture Validation

Architectural Recommendations

Critical Design Decisions

Implementation Phases

Risks & Mitigations

Testing Strategy

Future Architecture Considerations

Verdict

Security Assessment - Revised MVP

Security Posture: Much Improved

Remaining Security Considerations

Low Priority / Future Considerations

Verdict

Architectural Review - API Key Security

Keyring vs Environment Variables vs Config File

Architectural Recommendation

Security vs Pragmatism Balance

Proper Threat Modeling

Alternative: Hybrid Approach

Decision: Defer to Implementation Phase

File Permissions - Agreed

Verdict

Security Response - API Key Storage

Verdict

31 KiB

Raw Blame History