0% read on this device
Browse the curriculum

Start Here

Vision

First Principles

Operating Model

Domain Model

Agent Factory

Runtime Architecture

AI Engineering

Autonomous Workflows

Verification & Delivery

Factory Platform

Quality Engineering

Security & Governance

Case Studies

Labs

Interview Practice

Research Journal

Reference

Curriculum/Start Here/A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.
Start Here14 min readchapterQuick Read

Software Factory Stack Boundaries

Give every component one clear responsibility and replacement boundary.

Status: Draft for studyRisk: variableLifecycle: intent · plan · execute · verify · deliver · learnContent reviewed 2026-08-30Maturity guide →
Claim boundaryThis is curriculum guidance. It does not by itself prove a production implementation.
architecture mode

A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.

Whiteboard exercise

Reconstruct and defend this chapter’s architecture.

Reconstruct the architecture, name each boundary, and defend the tradeoffs.

factory system14 min chapter
Open the source exercise

Draw a composed stack in which the organization owns the control plane and development environment, buys an inner harness, and uses managed compute. Mark every identity, contract, event stream, credential, policy decision, fallback, and failure owner. Then replace the inner harness without changing acceptance authority.

4. Tradeoffs and alternatives

A vertically integrated stack reduces integration work and can deliver a better initial experience. It also concentrates policy, telemetry, execution, and environment assumptions in one provider. A composed stack preserves choice but moves compatibility testing and failure ownership to the adopter.

The inner/outer harness split is a conceptual boundary, not a requirement for two deployable services. A small system may implement both in one process while retaining separate contracts. Conversely, calling every wrapper an outer harness can create abstraction for its own sake. Introduce the boundary only when it clarifies replacement, authority, testing, or operations.

5. Current Mission Control Implementation

At study commit d902fae, Mission Control has a clear control-plane and execution-plane doctrine. Convex owns durable authority and state, the Hono service hosts orchestration and provider boundaries, and provider-neutral harness lifecycle contracts describe execution through capability manifests and structured results.

The implementation has versioned agent records, skill discovery and linting, model routes, context packages, sandbox profiles, and evaluation mechanisms. Those capabilities resemble parts of an Agent Factory, but the studied product does not establish one canonical Agent Factory boundary with a unified capability publication, admission, compatibility, deprecation, and revocation lifecycle. Exact skill-version binding in the execution manifest also remained incomplete.

The production execution path remained blocked by operator configuration at the studied commit. The architecture and local qualification therefore support the boundary model; they do not prove a live, fleet-scale composed stack.

External review

Review this chapter.

Challenge a claim, boundary, missing failure mode, unclear term, or unsupported evidence statement.

  • Claim
  • Boundary
  • Failure
  • Evidence