Files

Billy D. 832cda34bd feat: add comprehensive architecture documentation

- Add AGENT-ONBOARDING.md for AI agents
- Add ARCHITECTURE.md with full system overview
- Add TECH-STACK.md with complete technology inventory
- Add DOMAIN-MODEL.md with entities and bounded contexts
- Add CODING-CONVENTIONS.md with patterns and practices
- Add GLOSSARY.md with terminology reference
- Add C4 diagrams (Context and Container levels)
- Add 10 ADRs documenting key decisions:
  - Talos Linux, NATS, MessagePack, Multi-GPU strategy
  - GitOps with Flux, KServe, Milvus, Dual workflow engines
  - Envoy Gateway
- Add specs directory with JetStream configuration
- Add diagrams for GPU allocation and data flows

Based on analysis of homelab-k8s2 and llm-workflows repositories
and kubectl cluster-info dump data.

2026-02-01 14:30:05 -05:00

2.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

Record Architecture Decisions

Status: accepted
Date: 2025-11-30
Deciders: Billy Davies
Technical Story: Initial setup of homelab documentation

Context and Problem Statement

As the homelab infrastructure grows in complexity with AI/ML services, multi-GPU configurations, and event-driven architectures, we need a way to document and communicate significant architectural decisions. Without documentation, the rationale behind choices gets lost, making future changes risky and onboarding difficult.

Decision Drivers

Need to preserve context for why decisions were made
Enable future maintainers (including AI agents) to understand the system
Provide a structured way to evaluate alternatives
Support the wiki/design process for iterative improvements

Considered Options

Informal documentation in README files
Wiki pages without structure
Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
No documentation (rely on code)

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)", because they provide a structured format that captures context, alternatives, and consequences. They're lightweight, version-controlled, and well-suited for technical decisions.

Positive Consequences

Clear historical record of decisions
Structured format makes decisions searchable
Forces consideration of alternatives
Git-versioned alongside code
AI agents can parse and understand decisions

Negative Consequences

Requires discipline to create ADRs
May accumulate outdated decisions over time
Additional overhead for simple decisions

Pros and Cons of the Options

Informal README documentation

Good, because low friction
Good, because close to code
Bad, because no structure for alternatives
Bad, because decisions get buried in prose

Wiki pages

Good, because easy to edit
Good, because supports rich formatting
Bad, because separate from code repository
Bad, because no enforced structure

ADRs

Good, because structured format
Good, because version controlled
Good, because captures alternatives considered
Good, because industry-standard practice
Bad, because requires creating new files
Bad, because may seem bureaucratic for small decisions

No documentation

Good, because no overhead
Bad, because context is lost
Bad, because makes onboarding difficult
Bad, because risky for future changes

2.5 KiB Raw Blame History