Essential session storage is required to sign in. Optional analytics remain off unless you allow them.
Produce a full architecture proposal for a realistic system (e.g. a multi-tenant SaaS, a ride-booking backend, an analytics platform). Deliver: (1) the driving quality attributes derived from requirements and constraints; (2) a chosen architectural STYLE with the trade-off reasoning (why not the alternatives); (3) a component/data decomposition with clear boundaries and data ownership; (4) 2-3 ADRs for the most significant decisions; (5) a C4 Context + Container view; (6) a lightweight EVALUATION — quality-attribute scenarios (ATAM-style) that surface the key risks and trade-off points; and (7) at least one FITNESS FUNCTION (an automated check) that guards a chosen characteristic as the system evolves. Stay at the architect-discipline level — justify decisions, don't just describe infrastructure.
Driving quality attributes correctly derived; a style chosen with explicit trade-off reasoning against alternatives (no maximize-everything claims).
Components with high cohesion/low coupling; sensible data ownership and consistency choices; ADRs capture the significant decisions with consequences.
ATAM-style scenarios surface real risks, sensitivity and trade-off points; architecture shown to meet (or knowingly trade off) its NFRs.
At least one concrete fitness function guarding a characteristic; C4 Context+Container views; coherent, decision-driven writeup.
Use this README structure to make the work reviewable.
DevPath fetches a read-only, size-capped snapshot. Submitted code is never executed.
# Architect a system end-to-end with evaluation & governance ## Goal Produce a full architecture proposal for a realistic system (e.g. a multi-tenant SaaS, a ride-booking backend, an analytics platform). Deliver: (1) the driving quality attributes derived from requirements and constraints; (2) a chosen architectural STYLE with the trade-off reasoning (why not the alternatives); (3) a component/data decomposition with clear boundaries and data ownership; (4) 2-3 ADRs for the most significant decisions; (5) a C4 Context + Container view; (6) a lightweight EVALUATION — quality-attribute scenarios (ATAM-style) that surface the key risks and trade-off points; and (7) at least one FITNESS FUNCTION (an automated check) that guards a chosen characteristic as the system evolves. Stay at the architect-discipline level — justify decisions, don't just describe infrastructure. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Driving attributes & style: Driving quality attributes correctly derived; a style chosen with explicit trade-off reasoning against alternatives (no maximize-everything claims). - [ ] Decomposition & data: Components with high cohesion/low coupling; sensible data ownership and consistency choices; ADRs capture the significant decisions with consequences. - [ ] Evaluation: ATAM-style scenarios surface real risks, sensitivity and trade-off points; architecture shown to meet (or knowingly trade off) its NFRs. - [ ] Governance & docs: At least one concrete fitness function guarding a characteristic; C4 Context+Container views; coherent, decision-driven writeup. ## Verification - [ ] Document installation and run commands. - [ ] Record automated checks and their exact commands. - [ ] Add representative output, screenshots, or a short demo where useful. - [ ] Confirm failure paths and known constraints. ## Decision log ### Decision title - Context: - Choice: - Alternatives considered: - Tradeoffs: ## Evidence - Link each rubric criterion to the file, test, or artifact that demonstrates it. ## Known limitations - List what is intentionally out of scope and what should be improved next.