Christian Nennemann
21becd8b58
The archetypes and shadows are distinctive enough — no need for a fancy name on top of the standard PDCA cycle terminology.
1.8 KiB
Example: Feature Implementation (Standard Workflow)
Task
"Add rate limiting to the API authentication endpoint"
How ArcheFlow Handles It
Cycle 1
Plan Phase:
- Explorer researches: finds the auth handler, discovers no existing rate limit middleware, notes the Redis connection already exists, identifies 3 routes that need protection
- Creator proposes: use token bucket algorithm via Redis, add middleware at route level, 100 req/min per IP, return 429 with Retry-After header
Do Phase: 3. Maker implements in worktree: writes rate-limit middleware, adds tests (happy path, rate exceeded, Redis down fallback), commits incrementally
Check Phase (parallel): 4. Guardian reviews: APPROVED — finds no security issues, notes Redis fallback behavior is safe 5. Skeptic challenges: WARNING — "What about distributed deployments with multiple Redis instances?" Suggests adding a note about Redis cluster configuration 6. Sage reviews: REJECTED — test for Redis-down scenario doesn't actually simulate Redis failure, it mocks the entire middleware
Act: Rejected (1 critical quality issue). Feed findings back.
Cycle 2
Plan Phase: 7. Creator revises: update test strategy to use actual Redis disconnect simulation, add Redis cluster note to README
Do Phase: 8. Maker implements fixes in new worktree: rewrites Redis-down test to kill the connection, adds documentation
Check Phase: 9. Guardian: APPROVED 10. Skeptic: APPROVED (cluster concern addressed in docs) 11. Sage: APPROVED (tests now simulate real failure)
Act: All approved. Merge.
Result
- 4 files changed, +180 -5 lines
- 8 tests added (including real Redis failure simulation)
- Rate limiting active on 3 auth routes
- Documentation updated
- 2 PDCA cycles, standard workflow