eric/audita
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 6 Wiki Activity

Resolve backend concurrency ownership and plan redundant code removal

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Eric Rakestraw
2026-11-08 01:48:50 +00:00
parent ac86c77cfe
commit d4d510a520
2 changed files with 47 additions and 12 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

42
docs/roadmap/promptkit.md
View File

@@ -33,6 +33,27 @@ execution profile or make provider calls during construction.
## Agreed Direction and Migration Work
### Backend Concurrency Ownership — Resolved
Adopt PromptKit's native per-backend concurrency behavior, including backend
defaults and supported configuration and CLI overrides. The purpose is to keep
requests within the concurrency a backend can accommodate; no separate Audita
domain requirement has been identified for an additional limit.
Remove Audita-owned concurrency settings, default injection, validation, and
enforcement wherever they duplicate or override that native behavior. Do not
retain a second limiter or impose an Audita-specific finite-cap requirement on
otherwise valid PromptKit configuration. Use the shared PromptKit engine so
proposal and validation work for the same backend share its admission control.
Audita still owns cancellation and deterministic processing around model calls.
Verify the exact upstream override APIs while wiring the adopted configuration
and CLI integrations. Update the architecture policy's finite-admission wording,
runtime documentation, examples, and tests with implementation. Remove superseded
behavior directly in the major release, with hard-cutover guidance.
### Migration Work
1. Move to `go.maximumdirect.net/promptkit` together with ConfigKit's new types.
Remove the old external catalog dependencies when no longer incorporated;
retain PromptKit's built-in catalog rather than disabling it.
@@ -93,6 +114,12 @@ admission, retry/repair budgets, cancellation, and partial success. Standard
inspection must work without model calls; library presence alone does not prove
successful Audita integration.
Verify backend defaults and explicit concurrency overrides through the assembled
application, including shared admission across proposal and validation roles.
Check that Audita no longer injects an additional limit or rejects native settings
under its former finite-cap policy. Keep integration coverage for Audita's wiring;
remove tests that only preserve retired local concurrency behavior.
No upstream request is yet selected. PromptKit is mature but pre-v1: significant
blockers or awkward public boundaries can justify focused requests. Submit the
minimal reproducer, desired outcome, and domain justification before building
@@ -102,29 +129,24 @@ not a decision to retain Audita's old backend ownership model.
## Open Decisions
### Backend, Credential, and Admission Ownership
### Backend and Credential Ownership
**Recommendation:** make native PromptKit resources the authoritative backend
configuration and remove duplicate application registration/endpoint enforcement
unless a concrete processing requirement needs it. Keep Audita role selections
and operation budgets, and use native backend capacity settings for workloads.
and operation budgets. Concurrency ownership is resolved above.
This makes bundled profiles usable and avoids losing operator fields through a
highest-priority application replacement. Plan the existing backend/secret file
migration with the ConfigKit outline.
The current architecture policy requires finite shared admission. Determine
whether that remains a domain requirement and how native configuration satisfies
it for bundled and custom selections. Do not silently reject the bundle, impose
an arbitrary cap, or weaken the policy during implementation. Any selected
exception needs a documented reason and an explicit policy update.
**Alternative:** retain a narrow application capacity or credential policy and
**Alternative:** retain a narrow application credential policy and
express it through native derived backends/profiles. The probe shows this can
preserve provider fields while supplying application-owned fields. It is viable
if operational requirements demand it, but introduces naming/reference conventions
and can recreate duplicate ownership. Prefer an upstream facility if a justified
policy cannot be applied cleanly without replacing whole resources or resolver
logic. Blanket preservation of today's restrictions is not the selected default.
logic. Blanket preservation of today's restrictions is not the selected default;
this alternative does not reopen the resolved concurrency decision.
### Existing Curated Profile Summary