Files

Antoine 176b75328f chore(hq): daily sync 2026-02-19

2026-02-19 10:00:18 +00:00

7.2 KiB

Raw Blame History

Atomizer Project Standard — Executive Audit Summary

For: Antoine Letarte, CEO
From: Auditor 🔍
Date: 2026-02-19
TL;DR: Spec is over-engineered. Use Hydrotech Beam's structure — it already works.

VERDICT

The spec proposes enterprise-grade standardization for a one-person engineering practice.

❌ 13 top-level files (PROJECT.md + AGENT.md + STATUS.md + CHANGELOG.md + ...)
❌ 5-branch KB architecture (Design/Analysis/Manufacturing/Domain/Introspection)
❌ 9-step template instantiation protocol
❌ IBIS-inspired decision format (academic design rationale capture)

Recommendation: Adopt the Minimum Viable Standard (MVS) — codify what Hydrotech Beam already does, skip the academic bloat.

WHAT TO KEEP

From the spec, these parts are solid:

Feature	Why	Status
✅ Self-contained project folders	100% context in one place	Keep
✅ Numbered studies (`01_`, `02_`)	Track campaign evolution	Already in Hydrotech
✅ Knowledge base	Memory across studies	Keep (simplified)
✅ DECISIONS.md	Why we chose X over Y	Already in Hydrotech
✅ Models baseline	Golden copies, never edit	Keep
✅ Results tracking	Reproducibility	Keep

WHAT TO CUT

These add complexity without value for a solo consultant:

Feature	Why Cut	Impact
❌ AGENT.md (separate file)	LLM ops can live in README	Merge into README
❌ STATUS.md (separate file)	Goes stale immediately	Merge into README
❌ CHANGELOG.md	Git log + DECISIONS.md already track this	Remove
❌ Numbered folders (00-, 01-, 02-)	Cognitive overhead, no clear benefit	Use simple names
❌ 5-branch KB	Enterprise-scale, not solo-scale	Use 4-folder KB (Hydrotech pattern)
❌ 00-context/ folder (4 files)	Overkill — use single CONTEXT.md	Single file
❌ stakeholders.md	You know who the client is	Remove
❌ .atomizer/ metadata	Tooling doesn't exist yet	Add when needed
❌ IBIS decision format	Too formal (Context/Options/Consequences)	Use Hydrotech's simpler format

MINIMUM VIABLE STANDARD (MVS)

What Hydrotech Beam already has (with minor tweaks):

project-name/
│
├── README.md                 # Overview, status, navigation (ONE file, not 3)
├── CONTEXT.md                # Client, requirements, scope (ONE file, not 4)
├── DECISIONS.md              # Simple format: Date, By, Decision, Rationale, Status
│
├── models/                   # Golden copies (not 01-models/)
│   ├── README.md
│   └── baseline/
│
├── kb/                       # Knowledge base (not 02-kb/)
│   ├── _index.md
│   ├── components/           # 4 folders, not 5 branches
│   ├── materials/
│   ├── fea/
│   └── dev/
│
├── studies/                  # Numbered campaigns (not 03-studies/)
│   ├── 01_doe_landscape/
│   └── 02_tpe_refinement/
│
├── reports/                  # Client deliverables (not 04-reports/)
├── images/                   # Screenshots, plots
└── tools/                    # Custom scripts (optional, not 05-tools/)

Total: 3 files + 6 folders = 9 items (vs. spec's 13-15)

COMPARISON: SPEC vs. MVS vs. HYDROTECH

Feature	Spec	MVS	Hydrotech Today
Entry point	PROJECT.md + AGENT.md + STATUS.md	README.md	README.md ✅
Context docs	00-context/ (4 files)	CONTEXT.md	CONTEXT.md ✅
Decisions	IBIS format (5 sections)	Simple format (4 fields)	Simple format ✅
Top folders	Numbered (00-, 01-, 02-)	Simple names	Simple names ✅
KB structure	5 branches	4 folders	4 folders ✅
Studies	03-studies/ (numbered)	studies/ (numbered)	studies/ (numbered) ✅
Changelog	CHANGELOG.md	(skip)	(none) ✅
Agent ops	AGENT.md	(in README)	USER_GUIDE.md ≈
Metadata	.atomizer/	(skip)	(none) ✅

Conclusion: Hydrotech Beam is already 90% compliant with MVS. Just formalize it.

ALIGNMENT WITH REAL PROJECTS

M1 Mirror

Current: Flat, unnumbered studies. Knowledge scattered. No decision log.
Spec alignment: ❌ Poor (doesn't follow ANY of the spec)
Recommendation: Leave as-is (completed project). Use MVS for NEW projects only.

Hydrotech Beam

Current: README, CONTEXT, DECISIONS, kb/, models/, numbered studies, playbooks/
Spec alignment: ⚠️ Partial (simpler versions of most elements)
Recommendation: Hydrotech IS the standard — codify what it does.

KEY QUESTIONS ANSWERED

Q: Is the 7-stage study lifecycle practical?

A: ❌ No. Too rigid. Use 3 phases: Setup → Execute → Review.

Q: Are numbered folders better than simple names?

A: ❌ No. Cognitive overhead. Keep numbering ONLY for studies (01_, 02_).

Q: Is the 5-branch KB too complex?

A: ✅ Yes. Use 4 folders: components/, materials/, fea/, dev/ (Hydrotech pattern).

Q: Is DECISIONS.md realistic to maintain?

A: ✅ Yes, IF format is simple (Date, By, Decision, Rationale, Status). Hydrotech proves this works.

Q: What's the minimum viable version?

A: See MVS above — 9 items total (3 files + 6 folders).

WHAT'S MISSING

The spec missed some practical needs:

Missing Feature	Why Needed	Suggestion
➕ Client comms log	Track emails, meetings, changes	Add COMMUNICATIONS.md
➕ Time tracking	Billable hours	Add HOURS.md or integrate tool
➕ Quick wins checklist	Getting started	Add CHECKLIST.md
➕ Design alternatives matrix	Early-stage exploration	Add ALTERNATIVES.md
➕ BREAKDOWN.md	Technical analysis	Hydrotech has this — spec missed it!

ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS

Do This Now

✅ Adopt MVS — Use Hydrotech's structure as the template
✅ Single README.md — Merge PROJECT + AGENT + STATUS into one file
✅ Drop folder numbering — Use models/, kb/, studies/ (not 00-, 01-, 02-)
✅ Keep simple KB — 4 folders (components/, materials/, fea/, dev/), not 5 branches
✅ Keep simple DECISIONS.md — Hydrotech format works

Add Later (If Needed)

⏳ COMMUNICATIONS.md (client interaction log)
⏳ HOURS.md (time tracking)
⏳ playbooks/ (only for complex projects)
⏳ .atomizer/ metadata (when CLI tooling exists)

Skip Entirely

❌ AGENT.md (use README)
❌ STATUS.md (use README)
❌ CHANGELOG.md (use Git log)
❌ Numbered top-level folders
❌ 5-branch KB architecture
❌ IBIS decision format
❌ 9-step instantiation protocol

BOTTOM LINE

The spec is well-researched but over-engineered.

You need a pragmatic standard for a solo consultant, not enterprise design rationale capture.

Recommendation: Formalize Hydrotech Beam's structure — it's already 90% there and PROVEN to work.

Next step: Approve MVS → I'll create a lightweight project template based on Hydrotech.

Full audit: /home/papa/atomizer/workspaces/auditor/memory/2026-02-19-spec-audit.md

7.2 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape