Mission Rebuild the capability of Phase 00 without following the exact code line-by-line. The goal is transfer: can you use the ideas when the variable names, UI, or route shape changes?
Required outcome Explain the complete TaskFlow request path and identify which layer owns presentation, transport, business rules, persistence, identity, and operations.
Required artifact A one-page architecture map plus an ADR-style note describing the responsibilities of Next.js, NestJS, Prisma, PostgreSQL/Supabase, and supporting infrastructure.
Constraints • Start from the previous phase checkpoint or a fresh branch. • Use the course architecture boundaries, but do not copy the reference implementation until after your first attempt. • Keep changes scoped to the capability. • Preserve validation, authorization, error handling, and observability expectations already earned in earlier phases. • Record any design decision where more than one implementation is reasonable.
Acceptance criteria • Can trace a request without skipping a layer. • Can explain why the API owns rules. • Can distinguish authentication from authorization. • Can name which concerns are deployment concerns rather than business logic.
Independent build sequence 1. Draw TaskFlow as boxes and arrows before opening an IDE. 2. Label every arrow with what crosses it: props, HTTP JSON, verified identity, Prisma calls, SQL results. 3. Write one responsibility and one non-responsibility for each layer. 4. Trace create-task from click to database commit and back to the screen. 5. Trace one failure: invalid input, missing authentication, forbidden action, database outage. 6. Record the architecture decisions that should remain stable through later phases.
Self-review Compare your implementation to the reference only after the acceptance criteria pass. Differences are not automatically mistakes. For each difference, ask: does it preserve the same contract, security boundary, correctness, maintainability, and operational behavior? Keep the alternative when you can justify it with evidence.
Stretch challenge Change one assumption: more users, a second tenant, a slow network, an expired session, a concurrent mutation, a deployment restart, or a failed dependency. Predict whether your design still behaves correctly. If not, document the next architectural improvement rather than adding complexity blindly.
Phase exit Run the relevant checks, inspect Git diff, and write a three-sentence summary: what the system can do now, which boundary owns the new responsibility, and which failure you now know how to diagnose. Only then mark the phase complete.
Phase Synthesis & Independent Challenge matters because it changes a real boundary in TaskFlow. The goal is to understand the inputs, owner, observable output, and failure modes before adding more abstraction.
Restate the goal of “Phase Synthesis & Independent Challenge” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: User intent → UI boundary → API contract → business rule → persistence → observable result. Mark the one boundary this lesson changes.
Inspect the current repository state and record the exact files, route, table, or runtime involved. Avoid creating an abstraction before you can name the existing owner.
Implement the smallest vertical slice. Add one coherent change, run the narrowest verification command, and read the output before continuing.
Connect the slice to TaskFlow’s phase artifact: A one-page architecture map plus an ADR-style note describing the responsibilities of Next.js, NestJS, Prisma, PostgreSQL/Supabase, and supporting infrastructure.. Verify behavior from the outside as a user or API client would.
Create one controlled failure that is safe to reproduce. Predict the symptom first, capture evidence, locate the earliest broken boundary, then fix only that cause.
Close the reference and rebuild or explain the core change from memory. Record what you would monitor or test before trusting the same change in production.
Input -> owner -> transformation -> observable output -> failure evidenceDo not copy this as a finished answer. Predict what each boundary does, type the smallest useful slice, run it, then compare the result with your prediction.
Return to the nearest observable boundary: input, network, process log, database, or rendered UI. Compare actual evidence with the predicted path.
Change one variable at a time and reproduce the original failure after the fix; otherwise you have correlation, not diagnosis.
Without copying the final source, create a second small scenario that applies “Phase Synthesis & Independent Challenge” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Write one responsibility and one non-responsibility for each layer.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Putting business rules in React components
Predict the symptom before causing the failure. Then locate the earliest boundary where reality diverges from expectation.Why does this responsibility live here, what input does it trust, what output proves success, and what would go wrong if another layer owned it?
If your explanation is vague, repeat the boundary trace before moving on.Close the reference. Reproduce the core idea from memory or explain the exact request/data flow aloud. Then check your diff or notes for accidental shortcuts that bypass validation, authorization, error handling, or verification earned in earlier phases.