Template Philosophy

This repository is a maximum template.

Its purpose is not flexibility. Its purpose is to define the strongest, cleanest and most opinionated baseline from which smaller templates can be derived.

Core Position

• strictness is intentional;
• validation is part of architecture, not auxiliary tooling;
• repository governance is part of the runtime contract;
• derived templates must remove scope deliberately instead of weakening rules in place.

How To Derive Templates

Derived templates are expected to:

• remove parts that do not apply to the target use case;
• keep the remaining rules internally consistent;
• preserve machine-enforced validation for every retained architectural decision;
• avoid “optional baseline” drift where the same rule exists in docs but not in automation.

Derived templates must not:

• keep the same scope but silently relax validation;
• replace explicit architectural rules with conventions-only documentation;
• treat CI, hooks, ADR checks or structure checks as optional.

Why The Repository Is So Strict

The template is designed to survive long-term reuse across projects. Without strict validation, repository drift appears quickly:

• documented architecture diverges from code layout;
• CI and local workflows stop matching;
• policy becomes tribal knowledge instead of versioned source of truth;
• new projects inherit inconsistencies instead of a real baseline.

The repository therefore treats:

• ADR validation,
• structure validation,
• architecture validation,
• CI symmetry,
• local hooks,
• and governance artifacts

as first-class architectural controls.

Self-Governance

This template is self-governed.

That means the repository validates its own assumptions:

• orchestration checks its own targets and scripts;
• CI validates that parallel implementations stay symmetric;
• repository structure is enforced, not merely suggested;
• ADRs are part of the executable governance model.

The expected maintenance model is simple:

1. strengthen consistency when weak spots are found;
2. remove duplication when drift risk appears;
3. never dilute rules indirectly while “cleaning up”.