Hands-On Architecture Review Lab and Phase Exit The lab produces concrete review artifacts for TaskFlow and prepares the final phase. The learner should finish with a map, prioritized backlog, explicit dependency rules, and at least one safely completed refactor.
Lab 1 - inventory • Draw the current Browser -> Next.js -> NestJS -> Repository -> Prisma -> PostgreSQL path.
• Add Auth, Storage, Realtime, CI/CD, and observability boundaries.
• For each boundary, write owner, public contract, and dependencies.
Lab 2 - score pressure points • Choose five areas and classify: correctness risk, security risk, change frequency, test difficulty, operational pain.
• Do not rank by personal dislike of folder structure.
Lab 3 - execute one refactor • Pick one P1/P2 item that can be changed safely.
• Add/confirm regression coverage before change.
• Refactor, run tests, smoke the relevant path, and inspect telemetry/log behavior.
Phase exit • Architecture map matches current implementation.
• Dependency rules are explicit.
• Refactoring backlog is prioritized by evidence.
• Dead or misleading abstraction is removed or justified.
• At least one architecture decision is captured in an ADR. Phase 35 is complete when TaskFlow is easier to explain and change - not when every file matches a textbook pattern. 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.
Hands On Lab and Phase Exit 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 “Hands On Lab and Phase Exit” 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: 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.
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 “Hands On Lab and Phase Exit” to a different TaskFlow resource or input. Write the acceptance criteria first, implement it, and provide the evidence that each criterion is satisfied.
Write a short ADR recording context, decision, alternatives, consequences, and when to revisit.
Use the smallest change that demonstrates this lesson. Stop after it works and capture evidence.Confusing folder count with architecture quality
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.