inkreachhub/inkreach-official-website
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(deploy): production deployment setup and fixes

Browse Source 
- Debian-based api image (bookworm-slim), docker/debian mirrors, prisma
  binaryTargets for openssl 3.0
- nginx: admin SPA under /admin, TLS via acme.sh (ZeroSSL) + auto-renewal
  cron, http->https redirect
- prisma: add origin_goods.delisted migration, sync missing schema
  (good_image/tag_font_color/good_tags), fix users.createdAt Timestamptz
- api: CORS wildcard reflection, helmet CORP cross-origin, price
  backfill in persistProductDetail, categoryIcon ancestor fallback,
  mediaByColor per-color gallery in public goods detail
- admin: /admin base path (vite + router)
- import-data.mjs: udt_name casting, serial sequence advance fix
This commit is contained in:
yeuimu
2026-08-26 14:23:09 +08:00
parent be0b90e68f
commit 6c61a4e871
982 changed files with 74156 additions and 179393 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.agents/skills/improve-codebase-architecture/INTERFACE-DESIGN.md
-44
View File
@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
# Interface Design
When the user wants to explore alternative interfaces for a chosen deepening candidate, use this parallel sub-agent pattern. Based on "Design It Twice" (Ousterhout) — your first idea is unlikely to be the best.
Uses the vocabulary in [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) — **module**, **interface**, **seam**, **adapter**, **leverage**.
## Process
### 1. Frame the problem space
Before spawning sub-agents, write a user-facing explanation of the problem space for the chosen candidate:
- The constraints any new interface would need to satisfy
- The dependencies it would rely on, and which category they fall into (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
- A rough illustrative code sketch to ground the constraints — not a proposal, just a way to make the constraints concrete
Show this to the user, then immediately proceed to Step 2. The user reads and thinks while the sub-agents work in parallel.
### 2. Spawn sub-agents
Spawn 3+ sub-agents in parallel using the Agent tool. Each must produce a **radically different** interface for the deepened module.
Prompt each sub-agent with a separate technical brief (file paths, coupling details, dependency category from [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md), what sits behind the seam). The brief is independent of the user-facing problem-space explanation in Step 1. Give each agent a different design constraint:
- Agent 1: "Minimize the interface — aim for 1–3 entry points max. Maximise leverage per entry point."
- Agent 2: "Maximise flexibility — support many use cases and extension."
- Agent 3: "Optimise for the most common caller — make the default case trivial."
- Agent 4 (if applicable): "Design around ports & adapters for cross-seam dependencies."
Include both [LANGUAGE.md](LANGUAGE.md) vocabulary and CONTEXT.md vocabulary in the brief so each sub-agent names things consistently with the architecture language and the project's domain language.
Each sub-agent outputs:
1. Interface (types, methods, params — plus invariants, ordering, error modes)
2. Usage example showing how callers use it
3. What the implementation hides behind the seam
4. Dependency strategy and adapters (see [DEEPENING.md](DEEPENING.md))
5. Trade-offs — where leverage is high, where it's thin
### 3. Present and compare
Present designs sequentially so the user can absorb each one, then compare them in prose. Contrast by **depth** (leverage at the interface), **locality** (where change concentrates), and **seam placement**.
After comparing, give your own recommendation: which design you think is strongest and why. If elements from different designs would combine well, propose a hybrid. Be opinionated — the user wants a strong read, not a menu.