## Summary

Configuration Management helps us keep all our project artifacts in sync—code, prompts, LLM configs, analytics docs, sprint notes, backlog, and releases—as we build our AI-powered diff summarization tool.

**Sub-components to improve:**

1. **Product Context Documentation** – Put all product context in one place and review it each sprint to keep it up to date.
2. **Release Process** – Write down our release policy: how we version releases, when we release, and what to check before releasing.
3. **Prompt Evolution Tracking** – Keep track of how we change prompts, document A/B test results, and link these changes to commits in `app/services/summarize_service.py`.
4. **Requirement Versioning** – Add version numbers or status tags to requirements (like "v1.0 - Done" or "v2.0 - Planned") and connect them to sprint goals and code commits.
5. **Communication Policy** – Create one document that explains how we document meetings and track action items.
6. **Commit Traceability** – Make sure all commits reference issue IDs by adding checks in CI/CD, so we can trace requirements to code.

## Traceability

We can trace connections between different parts of our project in several ways:

- **Requirements → Backlog → Code**: When customers give feedback in [meeting notes](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-1/meeting-1.md), it goes to our [GitHub Projects backlog](https://github.com/orgs/AutoRepoReviewITPD/projects/1), then to code commits that reference issue IDs, and finally to tests and [CHANGELOG.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md).
- **Plan → Sprint Backlog → Commits → Release**: Our [strategic plan](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/plan.md) guides sprint planning. Tasks link to commits (see [sprint-3 TDD log](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-3/tdd-log.md) showing task #12 → commits → workflow runs), and we tag releases with version numbers.
- **Architecture Decisions → Code → Observability**: Architecture docs like [observability.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/architecture/observability.md) and [analytics.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/architecture/analytics.md) guide our code, and [QA tests](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/tests/qas_tests/test_qas001.py) check that we meet quality requirements.
- **Retrospectives → Process Changes**: [Sprint retrospectives](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-5/retrospective.md) capture what we learned, and we write it down in [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) (branching rules, commit conventions, review policies).

**Real example**: Customer asked for "summarize diffs instead of reading raw diffs" in [sprint-1 meeting](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-1/meeting-1.md#functional-requirements) → We created a backlog issue → Code changes in [app/services/summarize_service.py](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/app/services/summarize_service.py) → Tests in [tests/unit/services/test_summarize_service.py](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/tests/unit/services/test_summarize_service.py) → Entry in [CHANGELOG.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md#sprint-3-22-11-2025).

## Review

### Product Context

#### Context Documentation  
We document product context in several places: [README.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/README.md#project-goals) (project goals, success criteria), [strategic plan](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/plan.md) (vision, roadmap), and [customer meeting notes](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-1/meeting-1.md) (requirements, constraints). The [documentation site](https://autoreporeviewitpd.github.io/AutoRepoReview/) gives a central view.

- **Visibility**: Present – we have context docs, but they're spread across different files. No single place to find everything. *Plan: Put it all in `docs/product-context.md` or improve README.md next sprint.*
- **Accessibility**: Strong – all docs are in the repo and easy to find on GitHub and our [documentation site](https://autoreporeviewitpd.github.io/AutoRepoReview/).
- **Accountability**: Present – we can see who wrote what in Git history, but we don't have a clear "product owner" role.
- **Traceability**: Present – customer meetings link to requirements, but we don't always link context changes back to decisions.
- **Evolvability**: Present – context updates happen in sprint docs, but we don't have a regular review process. *Plan: Add product context review to our sprint planning checklist.*

### Requirements

#### Functional and Quality Requirements  
We capture requirements in [docs/requirements/](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/docs/requirements) (functional, quality, constraints) and [customer meeting notes](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-1/meeting-1.md#requirements). Quality requirements like [QAS001 (response time)](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/requirements/quality-requirements.md#qas001-response-time) are tested in [QA test cases](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/tests/qas_tests/test_qas001.py) that reference requirement IDs.

- **Visibility**: Strong – requirements are written down and referenced in sprint docs and test files.
- **Accessibility**: Strong – stored in [docs/requirements/](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/docs/requirements) and everyone on the team can access them.
- **Accountability**: Present – Git history shows who added requirements, but we don't assign owners to individual requirements.
- **Traceability**: Present – QA tests link to quality requirements (like [test_qas001.py](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/tests/qas_tests/test_qas001.py) referencing QAST001-1), but not all functional requirements link to tasks and commits.
- **Evolvability**: Present – requirements change over sprints, but we track versions through Git history, not explicitly. *Plan: Add version numbers or status tags (like "v1.0 - Done" or "v2.0 - Planned") to requirements and link them to sprint goals.*

### Planning and Tracking

#### Strategic and Sprint Planning  
Our [strategic plan](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/plan.md) sets goals, roadmap, and how we track progress. [GitHub Projects](https://github.com/orgs/AutoRepoReviewITPD/projects/1) manages our Product and Sprint backlogs with Kanban boards. We document sprint planning in [sprint scripts](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/docs/sprints).

- **Visibility**: Strong – [GitHub Projects board](https://github.com/orgs/AutoRepoReviewITPD/projects/1) and [plan.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/plan.md) are public and easy to find.
- **Accessibility**: Strong – planning docs are in GitHub and the repo.
- **Accountability**: Strong – GitHub Projects assigns task owners, and sprint docs list who worked on what.
- **Traceability**: Strong – tasks link to commits (see [sprint-3 TDD log](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-3/tdd-log.md) showing task #12 → PR #31 → commits), so we can follow the path from plan to code.
- **Evolvability**: Strong – we update plans each sprint based on [retrospectives](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-5/retrospective.md) and [customer feedback](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-5/meeting-1.md).

### Architecture

#### Architecture and Observability/Analytics Docs  
Our [architecture overview](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/architecture/architecture.md) describes system layers (CLI, Git parser, LLM service). [Observability](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/architecture/observability.md) and [analytics](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/architecture/analytics.md) docs explain our telemetry approach. [Tech stack](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/architecture/tech-stack.md) lists what technologies we use.

- **Visibility**: Present – we have architecture docs, but we don't systematically document why we chose certain prompts or why we picked GigaChat over other LLM providers. *Plan: Create ADRs in `docs/architecture/decisions/` to document key decisions like "Why GigaChat over OpenAI?" and "Our prompt engineering strategy".*
- **Accessibility**: Strong – architecture docs are in [docs/architecture/](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/docs/architecture) and everyone can access them.
- **Accountability**: Present – Git history shows who wrote what, but we don't have formal Architecture Decision Records (ADRs). *Plan: Write down architectural decisions in ADR format explaining context, what we decided, consequences, and links to code/requirements.*
- **Traceability**: Present – some decisions link to requirements (like observability docs mentioning customer needs), but not all architecture choices are traced back.
- **Evolvability**: Present – architecture changes over time (we added telemetry in sprint-3), but we don't write down the story of how it evolved. *Plan: Create `docs/prompts/evolution.md` to track prompt changes, A/B test results, and link them to commits.*

### Implementation (Code)

#### Source Code and Tests  
Code is organized in [app/](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/app) (CLI, services), [tests/](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/tests) (unit, QA), and [CI workflows](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci-cd.yml) (linting, testing, coverage). [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) explains our branching rules and commit conventions.

- **Visibility**: Strong – [GitHub Actions](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/actions) show CI runs, PRs show what changed, and [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview) tracks test coverage.
- **Accessibility**: Strong – repo is public, all developers can access it.
- **Accountability**: Strong – commits show who made them, and [branch protection](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#branch-protection-rules-main) requires signed commits.
- **Traceability**: Present – some commits reference issues (see [sprint-3 TDD log](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-3/tdd-log.md) showing task #12 → commits), but not all commits include issue IDs. *Plan: Add CI/CD checks to make sure commit messages include issue IDs.*
- **Evolvability**: Strong – code is modular ([summarize_service.py](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/app/services/summarize_service.py), [git_service.py](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/app/services/git_service.py)) and we have good tests, so refactoring is safe.

### Communication

#### Meetings, Retrospectives, and AI Usage  
We document [customer meetings](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/docs/sprints) (scripts, meeting notes), [sprint retrospectives](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/sprints/sprint-5/retrospective.md), and [AI usage reports](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/docs/ai-usage.md). [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) captures process decisions from retrospectives.

- **Visibility**: Strong – meeting notes and retrospectives are in [docs/sprints/](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/tree/main/docs/sprints) and easy to find.
- **Accessibility**: Strong – everyone on the team can access them via Git and our [documentation site](https://autoreporeviewitpd.github.io/AutoRepoReview/).
- **Accountability**: Strong – meeting notes list who was there, and Git history shows who wrote what.
- **Traceability**: Present – action items from meetings go into the backlog, but we don't always link decisions back to requirements/tasks.
- **Evolvability**: Strong – retrospectives drive process changes (like branching rules in [CONTRIBUTING.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md)).

### Releases

#### Release Process  
We manage releases using [Git tags](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/releases) and [CHANGELOG.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md). [README.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/README.md#releases-and-builds) explains how to create releases. [Build workflows](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/.github/workflows/build-binaries.yml) automatically build binaries.

- **Visibility**: Present – [GitHub Releases](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/releases) and [CHANGELOG.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) show versions, but we don't have a written release policy. *Plan: Create `docs/release-policy.md` explaining semantic versioning rules, when we release, and what to check before releasing.*
- **Accessibility**: Strong – releases and [installation instructions](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/README.md#quick-start) are on GitHub.
- **Accountability**: Present – we can see who created releases in Git history and GitHub release metadata.
- **Traceability**: Present – releases link to [CHANGELOG.md](https://github.com/AutoRepoReviewITPD/AutoRepoReview/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md) entries, but we don't enforce linking tasks to releases. *Plan: Write down how to map completed tasks to release versions in the release policy.*
- **Evolvability**: Absent – we don't have a plan for how the release process should change as the project grows (like semantic versioning policy, release schedule, pre-release testing). *Plan: Document how the release process should evolve in the release policy, including when to do major vs minor releases.*
