cfec11bb46
Some checks failed
ci/woodpecker/push/woodpecker Pipeline failed
stop-slop, taste-skill, terrashark had embedded .git dirs causing Woodpecker clone to fail on submodule update.
77 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
1.8 KiB
Markdown
# Blast Radius
|
|
|
|
Use this guide to limit impact scope for changes, failures, and rollbacks.
|
|
|
|
## Symptoms
|
|
|
|
- tiny change triggers very large plan
|
|
- unrelated services share one state and fail together
|
|
- production and non-production are entangled
|
|
- review/approval ownership is unclear
|
|
|
|
## Boundary model
|
|
|
|
Split along:
|
|
- ownership boundaries
|
|
- change cadence boundaries
|
|
- recovery boundaries
|
|
|
|
If these differ, split stack/state.
|
|
|
|
## Architecture patterns
|
|
|
|
- platform foundation stack (network, identity, shared controls)
|
|
- service stack(s) per business workload
|
|
- bootstrap stack for backend/state prerequisites
|
|
|
|
Do not combine all of them in one root.
|
|
|
|
## State isolation rules
|
|
|
|
- one backend key per isolated stack/environment
|
|
- dedicated lock scope per stack
|
|
- backup/versioning required for production states
|
|
- no shared prod/non-prod state files
|
|
|
|
## Environment separation options
|
|
|
|
1. separate directories + separate backend keys
|
|
2. workspace per environment (only with strict governance)
|
|
3. separate repositories for hard regulatory segregation
|
|
|
|
## Apply governance
|
|
|
|
- serialize applies to shared foundations
|
|
- require explicit approval for production and destructive plans
|
|
- block auto-apply for high-impact stacks
|
|
|
|
## Example structure
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
infra/
|
|
bootstrap/
|
|
platform/
|
|
dev/
|
|
prod/
|
|
services/
|
|
billing/
|
|
dev/
|
|
prod/
|
|
catalog/
|
|
dev/
|
|
prod/
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## LLM mistake checklist
|
|
|
|
Common model mistakes to correct:
|
|
- proposes one monolithic root for convenience
|
|
- recommends workspace-only isolation without access controls
|
|
- mixes blast radius discussion with purely stylistic concerns
|
|
- omits rollback path for shared foundation changes
|
|
|
|
## Verification checks
|
|
|
|
- does plan only touch intended stack?
|
|
- does state key scope match ownership boundary?
|
|
- is rollback path documented for this apply?
|