Controller, Service, and Repository Responsibility Review Phase 24 introduced repositories only after persistence complexity earned the abstraction. Phase 35 reviews whether that boundary still helps or merely moved code into more files.
Controller HTTP mapping, validated transport input Business rules, Prisma queries
Service Business workflow, invariants, orchestration Fastify response objects, raw SQL
Repository Persistence query mechanics and mappings HTTP errors, UI behavior, role policy
Repository value test • Does it hide meaningful persistence mechanics rather than merely rename Prisma methods?
• Does it create a useful testing seam for service behavior?
• Do method names express application persistence intent such as listScoped rather than generic findAll?
• Can complex transaction requirements still be expressed without fighting the abstraction?
Service size test • A large service is not automatically wrong; look for multiple independent reasons to change.
• Extract policy/workflow helpers only when responsibility, reuse, or testability becomes clearer. The goal is not thin files. The goal is cohesive responsibilities. Source basis: integrated TaskFlow architecture and engineering decisions established in Phases 00-34; this chapter is an internal review/refactoring synthesis rather than a new framework feature.
Controller Service Repository Responsibility Review 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 “Controller Service Repository Responsibility Review” as one observable behavior. Write the success signal before touching code.
Trace the boundary map: service intent → repository contract → adapter → Prisma/Postgres → domain 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: Architecture review report plus one behavior-preserving refactor backed by tests and an ADR.. 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.
export interface TaskRepository {
findById(id: string): Promise<Task | null>;
listForWorkspace(input: TaskListQuery): Promise<TaskPage>;
save(task: Task): Promise<void>;
}Do 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 “Controller Service Repository Responsibility Review” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Create/strengthen tests around the behavior before moving code.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Adding layers because they look enterprise
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.