# Akosha Comprehensive Architecture Review

**Date**: 2025-01-31
**Review Type**: Multi-Agent Critical Analysis
**Reviewers**: Architecture, Database, Integration, Performance, SRE specialists
**Overall Score**: 71/100 (Good - Critical gaps before production)

______________________________________________________________________

## Executive Summary

**Overall Assessment**: Akosha demonstrates **strong foundational architecture** with excellent documentation (ADR-001) and appropriate technology choices for the target scale. However, **critical implementation gaps** exist between architecture design and actual code, particularly in ingestion, sharding, and tier management.

**Production Readiness**: **NOT READY** - Estimated 3-4 weeks of focused engineering work required before Phase 1 production deployment.

**Critical Blockers**:

1. Ingestion worker not implemented (cannot pull data)
1. Sequential upload processing (3× slower than target)
1. Sharding layer missing (cannot distribute data)
1. Tier aging service missing (storage will bloat)

______________________________________________________________________

## Multi-Agent Review Scores

| Agent | Score | Key Findings |
|-------|-------|--------------|
| **Architecture Review** | 72/100 | Strong patterns, poor implementation alignment |
| **Database & Storage** | 72/100 | Sound tiering, vector search concerns at scale |
| **Integration Architecture** | 75/100 | Good service boundaries, critical dependencies |
| **Performance & Scalability** | 68/100 | Clear bottlenecks, scaling triggers unclear |
| **Reliability & Resilience** | 70/100 | Good circuit breakers, missing disaster recovery |

______________________________________________________________________

## Critical Issues (Must Fix Before Production)

### 1. Ingestion Worker Not Implemented 🔴

**Agent**: Architecture Review
**Severity**: CRITICAL - Blocks all data ingestion

**Problem**: `IngestionWorker._discover_uploads()` is completely empty (lines 74-81 in worker.py). Type hints suggest Oneiric integration exists, but runtime imports fail.

**Impact**:

- Cannot pull data from cloud storage
- Pull model architecture is non-functional
- System cannot ingest any Session-Buddy uploads

**Evidence**:

```python
# akosha/ingestion/worker.py:74-81
async def _discover_uploads(self) -> list[SystemMemoryUpload]:
    uploads = []

    # List all system prefixes
    async for system_prefix in self.storage.list_prefixes("system_id="):
        # TODO: Implement
        pass
    return uploads  # Always returns empty list
```

**Fix**: Implement upload discovery (2-3 days)

```python
async def _discover_uploads(self) -> list[SystemMemoryUpload]:
    uploads = []
    async for system_prefix in self.storage.list("systems/"):
        system_id = system_prefix.split("/")[-1]
        async for upload_prefix in self.storage.list(f"systems/{system_id}/"):
            uploads.append(SystemMemoryUpload(...))
    return uploads
```

______________________________________________________________________

### 2. Sequential Upload Processing Bottleneck 🔴

**Agent**: Performance Review
**Severity**: CRITICAL - Cannot meet scale targets

**Problem**: Ingestion worker processes uploads sequentially in a for-loop, limiting throughput to ~3 uploads/second.

**Impact**:

- At 1,000 systems uploading daily: 4-hour backlog
- Cannot meet Phase 2 target of 1,000 uploads/minute
- Adding workers doesn't help (sequential bottleneck)

**Evidence**:

```python
# akosha/ingestion/worker.py:54-55
for upload in uploads:
    await self._process_upload(upload)  # Sequential processing
```

**Fix**: Concurrent processing with semaphore (1 day)

```python
async def run(self) -> None:
    semaphore = asyncio.Semaphore(self.max_concurrent_ingests)
    tasks = [
        self._process_with_semaphore(upload, semaphore)
        for upload in uploads
    ]
    await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
```

______________________________________________________________________

### 3. Sharding Layer Missing 🔴

**Agent**: Architecture + Database Reviews
**Severity**: CRITICAL - Cannot scale beyond single node

**Problem**: ADR-001 Decision 4 documents system-based sharding, but `akosha/storage/sharding.py` doesn't exist.

**Impact**:

- System cannot distribute data across nodes
- Single-node DuckDB limitation hits at ~10M embeddings
- Hotspot risk: one heavy system affects all others

**Evidence**: No file exists at `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/akosha/storage/sharding.py`

**Fix**: Implement consistent hashing router (2-3 days)

```python
class ShardRouter:
    def __init__(self, num_shards: int = 256):
        self.num_shards = num_shards

    def get_shard(self, system_id: str) -> int:
        hash_val = int(hashlib.sha256(system_id.encode()).hexdigest(), 16)
        return hash_val % self.num_shards

    def get_shard_path(self, system_id: str) -> Path:
        shard_id = self.get_shard(system_id)
        return Path(f"/data/shard_{shard_id:03d}/{system_id}.duckdb")
```

______________________________________________________________________

### 4. Tier Aging Service Missing 🔴

**Agent**: Database + SRE Reviews
**Severity**: HIGH - Storage bloat and cost explosion

**Problem**: ADR-001 Decision 2 documents Hot→Warm→Cold aging, but `akosha/storage/aging.py` doesn't exist.

**Impact**:

- Hot tier grows indefinitely (will exceed RAM in 30 days)
- Storage costs 10× higher than designed
- Query performance degrades as hot tier bloats

**Evidence**: No file exists at `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/akosha/storage/aging.py`

**Fix**: Implement aging service (3-4 days)

```python
class AgingService:
    async def migrate_hot_to_warm(self, cutoff_date: datetime) -> MigrationStats:
        # Find hot records older than 7 days
        # Compress embeddings FLOAT[384] → INT8[384]
        # Generate 3-sentence summaries
        # Insert into warm tier
        # Delete from hot tier

    async def migrate_warm_to_cold(self, cutoff_date: datetime) -> MigrationStats:
        # Generate single-sentence ultra-summary
        # Compute MinHash fingerprint
        # Export to Parquet
        # Upload to S3
        # Delete from warm tier
```

______________________________________________________________________

## High-Priority Concerns

### 5. Vector Search Performance at Scale 🟠

**Agent**: Database Review
**Severity**: HIGH - SLA violations at Phase 3

**Problem**: DuckDB HNSW may not handle 100M embeddings efficiently. 100M FLOAT[384] embeddings = 144GB RAM minimum.

**Impact**:

- Hot tier search latency could degrade from \<100ms to >1s
- SLA violations (p99 \<200ms target)
- User experience degradation

**Evidence**:

```python
# hot_store.py:54-59
self.conn.execute("""
    CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS embedding_hnsw_index
    ON conversations USING HNSW (embedding)
    WITH (m = 16, ef_construction = 200)
""")
# HNSW parameters may be suboptimal for 384D vectors
```

**Fix**:

1. Benchmark DuckDB HNSW with 10M embeddings this week
1. Tune HNSW parameters: `m=32, ef_construction=400, ef_search=200`
1. **Earlier Milvus migration**: Move to Milvus at 10M embeddings (not 100M)

______________________________________________________________________

### 6. Mahavishnu Single Point of Failure 🟠

**Agent**: Integration Review
**Severity**: HIGH - No orchestration if Mahavishnu down

**Problem**: Akosha fully depends on Mahavishnu for workflow triggering, pod scaling, and health reporting. No documented bootstrap mode.

**Impact**:

- If Mahavishnu down: Akosha stops ingesting, no scaling, no health checks
- No fallback mechanism for autonomous operation
- Violates isolation principles

**Fix**: Implement "bootstrap mode" with local cron fallback

```python
class BootstrapOrchestrator:
    def __init__(self):
        self.mahavishnu_client = MahavishnuMCPClient()
        self.fallback_mode = False

    async def trigger_ingestion(self) -> bool:
        try:
            await self.mahavishnu_client.trigger_workflow("akosha-ingest")
            return True
        except MahavishnuUnavailable:
            logger.warning("Mahavishnu unavailable, using fallback cron")
            self.fallback_mode = True
            return True  # Continue with local scheduling
```

______________________________________________________________________

### 7. No Distributed Query Engine 🟠

**Agent**: Architecture Review
**Severity**: HIGH - Cross-system queries broken

**Problem**: With 256 shards, queries need to fan out concurrently, but `akosha/query/distributed.py` doesn't exist.

**Impact**:

- Cannot query across all systems
- Sequential shard queries = 256× latency
- Cross-system analytics feature non-functional

**Fix**: Implement fan-out query pattern (3-4 days)

```python
class DistributedQueryEngine:
    async def search_all_shards(
        self, query_embedding: list[float], limit: int = 10
    ) -> list[dict]:
        # Fan-out to all shards concurrently
        tasks = [
            self.search_shard(shard_id, query_embedding, limit)
            for shard_id in range(self.num_shards)
        ]
        shard_results = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)

        # Merge and re-rank
        all_results = []
        for results in shard_results:
            all_results.extend(results)

        all_results.sort(key=lambda r: r["similarity"], reverse=True)
        return all_results[:limit]
```

______________________________________________________________________

### 8. Tier Migration Data Loss Risk 🟠

**Agent**: Database + SRE Reviews
**Severity**: HIGH - Permanent data loss possible

**Problem**: Hot→Warm→Cold aging has no atomic guarantees. Copy-then-delete pattern without verification.

**Impact**:

- Data loss during tier transition
- No rollback mechanism if migration fails
- No checksum validation

**Fix**: Implement dual-phase commit with verification

```python
async def migrate_hot_to_warm(self, record_id: str) -> None:
    # Phase 1: Mark as migrating
    await self.hot_store.mark_migrating(record_id)

    # Phase 2: Copy to warm (with retries)
    await self.warm_store.insert(compressed_record)

    # Phase 3: Verify checksum
    warm_hash = await self.warm_store.get_checksum(record_id)
    hot_hash = await self.hot_store.get_checksum(record_id)
    assert warm_hash == hot_hash, "Checksum mismatch"

    # Phase 4: Delete from hot (only after verification)
    await self.hot_store.delete(record_id)
```

______________________________________________________________________

## Medium-Priority Concerns

### 9. Missing Caching Layer 🟡

**Agent**: Performance Review
**Severity**: MEDIUM - Performance optimization

**Problem**: ADR-001 Decision 2 documents L1+L2 caching, but `akosha/cache/layered_cache.py` doesn't exist.

**Impact**:

- Repeated queries hit DuckDB every time
- No query embedding caching
- Higher resource usage

**Fix**: Implement two-tier caching (2-3 days)

______________________________________________________________________

### 10. Vector Quantization Accuracy Loss 🟡

**Agent**: Database Review
**Severity**: MEDIUM - Search quality degradation

**Problem**: FLOAT[384] → INT8[384] quantization loses 2-5% search accuracy. No product quantization.

**Impact**:

- Users searching warm/cold tiers get lower quality results
- Reducing trust in system
- No accuracy monitoring

**Fix**:

1. Implement product quantization (PQ) for 95% accuracy with 256x compression
1. Add accuracy monitoring (recall@k metrics)
1. Re-ranking strategy: Use INT8 for retrieval, re-rank top-100 with FLOAT

______________________________________________________________________

### 11. MinHash Implementation Incomplete 🟡

**Agent**: Architecture + Database Reviews
**Severity**: MEDIUM - Fuzzy deduplication doesn't work

**Problem**: `compute_fingerprint()` returns SHA-256 hash (not MinHash).

**Evidence**:

```python
# deduplication.py:62-64
# TODO: Implement proper MinHash
# For now, use SHA-256 as placeholder
return hashlib.sha256(content.encode("utf-8")).digest()
```

**Impact**: Cannot detect near-duplicates (typos, rewordings)

**Fix**: Implement MinHash LSH using `datasketch` library (1-2 days)

______________________________________________________________________

### 12. Hybrid Async/Sync Anti-Pattern 🟡

**Agent**: Architecture Review
**Severity**: MEDIUM - Event loop blocking

**Problem**: Async signatures with sync DuckDB operations block event loop.

**Evidence**:

```python
async def insert(self, record: HotRecord) -> None:
    async with self._lock:
        self.conn.execute(...)  # DuckDB is synchronous (blocks!)
```

**Impact**: At 1,000 concurrent requests, async benefits are lost

**Fix**: Run DuckDB in executor threads (2-3 days)

```python
async def insert(self, record: HotRecord) -> None:
    loop = asyncio.get_event_loop()
    await loop.run_in_executor(None, self._sync_insert, record)
```

______________________________________________________________________

## Architecture Strengths

### Excellent Decisions ✅

1. **Pull Model Architecture (9/10)** - Session-Buddy → S3 → Akosha provides excellent failure isolation
1. **Three-Tier Storage (8.5/10)** - Hot/Warm/Cold with 80% cost reduction is sound
1. **Circuit Breaker Implementation (9/10)** - Three-state system with 98.78% test coverage
1. **OpenTelemetry Observability (9/10)** - Comprehensive tracing and metrics
1. **ADR-001 Documentation (9/10)** - Excellent decision documentation with rationale

______________________________________________________________________

## Prioritized Action Plan

### Immediate (Before Phase 1 Production) - 3-4 weeks

**Week 1: Critical Path**

1. Implement ingestion worker upload discovery (2-3 days)
1. Add concurrent upload processing (1 day)
1. Implement sharding layer (2-3 days)

**Week 2: Data Management**
4\. Implement tier aging service (3-4 days)
5\. Add tier migration with atomic transactions (2-3 days)
6\. Complete Oneiric integration (2 days)

**Week 3: Query Layer**
7\. Implement distributed query engine (3-4 days)
8\. Add query result merging and re-ranking (1-2 days)

**Week 4: Resilience**
9\. Implement Mahavishnu bootstrap mode (2 days)
10\. Add graceful shutdown with drain period (1 day)
11\. Document runbooks for 6 failure scenarios (2 days)

### Short-Term (Phase 2 Preparation) - 4-6 weeks

12. Benchmark DuckDB HNSW with 10M embeddings
01. Implement layered caching (L1 + L2)
01. Fix async/sync pattern (run DuckDB in executor)
01. Implement MinHash fuzzy deduplication
01. Add backlog alerting to Prometheus
01. Complete Kubernetes manifests (PVC, ConfigMap, Secret)

### Long-Term (Phase 3+) - 8-12 weeks

18. Migrate to Milvus at 10M embeddings (earlier than planned)
01. Implement product quantization for better compression
01. Add shard rebalancing for hotspots
01. Document migration strategy (DuckDB → Milvus)
01. Implement backup and disaster recovery
01. Add multi-region replication

______________________________________________________________________

## Testing Recommendations

### Performance Benchmarks Required

1. **Vector Search Latency**:

   - 1M embeddings: Target p50 \<50ms, p99 \<200ms
   - 10M embeddings: Target p50 \<100ms, p99 \<500ms
   - 100M embeddings: Target p50 \<200ms, p99 \<1000ms

1. **Ingestion Throughput**:

   - Target: 1000 conversations/second (sustained)
   - Burst: 10,000 conversations/second (5-minute window)

1. **Tier Migration Speed**:

   - Hot→Warm: 1TB in \<1 hour
   - Warm→Cold: 10TB in \<6 hours

### Accuracy Validation

1. **Quantization Accuracy**: Compare INT8 vs FLOAT, target >95% recall@10
1. **Deduplication Effectiveness**: Target >90% detection, \<1% false positive
1. **Tier Consistency**: Target >98% result overlap across tiers

______________________________________________________________________

## Migration Complexity Assessment

### DuckDB → Milvus Migration

**Complexity**: HIGH (6-8 weeks)

**Challenges**:

1. Dual-write period: Maintain consistency during migration (2-4 weeks)
1. Data transformation: FLOAT[384] → Milvus collection schema
1. Index rebuilding: HNSW index construction (100M embeddings = 24-48 hours)
1. Query rewriting: All vector queries must use Milvus API
1. Validation: Verify search results match between DuckDB and Milvus

**Recommended Approach**:

```python
class HybridVectorStore:
    def __init__(self):
        self.duckdb = DuckDBVectorStore()
        self.milvus = MilvusClient()
        self.migration_progress = 0.0

    async def insert(self, embedding, metadata):
        # Always write to both during migration
        await asyncio.gather(
            self.duckdb.insert(embedding, metadata),
            self.milvus.insert(embedding, metadata)
        )

    async def search(self, query_embedding, limit):
        # Read from DuckDB until migration complete
        if self.migration_progress < 1.0:
            return await self.duckdb.search(query_embedding, limit)
        else:
            return await self.milvus.search(query_embedding, limit)
```

**Rollback Plan**:

- Keep DuckDB hot/warm stores online for 4 weeks after Milvus cutover
- Feature flag to revert to DuckDB if Milvus fails
- Automated data sync from Milvus back to DuckDB during rollback

______________________________________________________________________

## Operational Readiness

### Deployment: 60% Complete

**Strengths**: Kubernetes deployment.yaml exists
**Missing**: PVC, ConfigMap, Secret, NetworkPolicy, PodDisruptionBudget

### Monitoring: 80% Complete

**Strengths**: Prometheus metrics, Grafana dashboards, OpenTelemetry tracing
**Missing**: Log aggregation (ELK/Loki), SLO/SLI definitions, runbooks

### Disaster Recovery: 30% Complete

**Strengths**: S3 lifecycle policies documented
**Missing**: Backup strategy, replication, failover procedures, RPO/RTO defined

### Security: 40% Complete

**Strengths**: Circuit breakers prevent DDoS, non-root user, seccomp profiles
**Missing**: Authentication/authorization, secrets management, TLS/mTLS, audit logging

______________________________________________________________________

## Final Verdict

### Overall Impression

The Akosha architecture demonstrates **strong foundational design** with excellent documentation and appropriate technology choices. However, there is a **significant gap between architecture documentation and implementation**. Several critical components are documented but not implemented.

### Production Readiness: **NOT READY**

**Estimated Time to Production**: 3-4 weeks of focused engineering work

**Critical Path**:

1. Implement ingestion worker (concurrent processing)
1. Add sharding layer with consistent hashing
1. Implement tier aging service
1. Add distributed query engine
1. Complete Oneiric integration
1. Fix async/sync pattern

### Recommended Deployment Path

**Phase 1A**: Staging deployment (3-4 weeks)

- Complete critical path items above
- Deploy to staging with 10 systems
- Validate architecture assumptions

**Phase 1B**: Production pilot (4-6 weeks)

- Deploy to production with 100 systems
- Monitor for 4 weeks
- Fix production issues

**Phase 2**: Scale to 1,000 systems (8-12 weeks)

- Add Milvus for warm tier (earlier than planned)
- Implement layered caching
- Add TimescaleDB for time-series

**Phase 3**: Scale to 10,000 systems (12-16 weeks)

- Migrate to Milvus cluster
- Add Neo4j for knowledge graph
- Implement multi-region DR

______________________________________________________________________

## Key Documents Referenced

- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/docs/ADR_001_ARCHITECTURE_DECISIONS.md` - Architecture decisions
- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/akosha/storage/hot_store.py` - Hot tier implementation
- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/akosha/ingestion/worker.py` - Ingestion worker (incomplete)
- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/akosha/resilience/circuit_breaker.py` - Circuit breaker (excellent)
- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/akosha/observability/tracing.py` - OpenTelemetry (excellent)
- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/docs/CURRENT_STATUS.md` - Implementation status
- `/Users/les/Projects/akosha/docs/ROADMAP.md` - Development roadmap

______________________________________________________________________

**Review Date**: 2025-01-31
**Next Review**: After critical path completion (estimated 2025-02-28)
**Reviewers**: Architecture, Database, Integration, Performance, SRE specialists

______________________________________________________________________
