Repository Onboarding and Codebase Intelligence
Establish the evidence required before an autonomous workflow may operate on a repository.
A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.
Reconstruct and defend this chapter’s architecture.
Reconstruct the architecture, name each boundary, and defend the tradeoffs.
Open the source exercise
Onboard a service with a shared schema repository, a generated client, an undocumented deployment job, and sensitive test data. Mark authoritative sources, derived indexes, owner decisions, blockers, and the first workflow you would safely admit.
4. Tradeoffs and alternatives
Deep onboarding costs time and becomes stale. Incremental discovery tied to changed areas reduces cost but must not skip critical global controls. Human-authored architecture is more intentional; generated maps are more current. Preserve both and surface conflicts.
Embedding every repository can improve semantic search and create privacy, cost, and freshness problems. Use hybrid retrieval only where evaluations show it improves target tasks.
5. Current Mission Control Implementation
The current domain includes repository registration, configuration, workspace manifests, multi-repository coordination, environments, preflight, policy, and context packages. These establish important authority and runtime boundaries.
The published curriculum does not yet demonstrate a complete repository onboarding pipeline, readiness record, codebase indexing lifecycle, owner attestation, drift detection, or workflow-specific admission based on discovered capabilities. This chapter defines that missing front door.
Review this chapter.
Challenge a claim, boundary, missing failure mode, unclear term, or unsupported evidence statement.
- Claim
- Boundary
- Failure
- Evidence