prepare design of persistance

Brain review

ADO work item#341654Task

prepare design of persistance

Synced just nowOpen in ADO

State: Done
Assigned: Stanislav Makhrov
Area: Diamant Entwicklung\Produkt\Projektteams\Cross Functional Services\Mathildenhoehe\ITP
Project: Diamant Entwicklung
Freshness: Synced just now

Parent

#340340Upload a PDF incoming document and create a transaction(Committed)

Children

No child work items.

Siblings

Linked PRs

docs#62805PR 62805(unknown)

Plan review. The agent proposed a plan. Review it below, then approve so it can start coding — or request changes.

Azure DevOps

Human review

Create an inspection-first documentation-only plan in the ITP-Agent-Runtime repository to add a short architecture note that records the agreed persistence design: task/instruction/session schema split, S3-backed document persistence, and explicit ownership boundaries per component. Because codegraph context failed and no detector evidence or review discussion is available, the coding agent should first locate the existing docs/design area and any current persistence-related source or ADRs, then add the smallest possible note in the most relevant existing documentation location rather than introducing broad repo changes.

medium risk

Human review is always required by the dashboard gate before any code/doc changes or PR creation.The work packet lacks acceptance criteria, so reviewers must confirm the planned note actually satisfies stakeholder intent.Detector evidence is empty, leaving no attached acceptance details or source references for the architecture decision.SocratiCode/codegraph context failed due to uncommitted local changes, so repository-specific placement and naming must be validated manually during inspection.The requested design includes ownership boundaries, which may require product/architecture confirmation if repository evidence does not clearly identify responsible components.There is a risk of documenting an outdated or partially agreed persistence split unless a reviewer confirms the note matches the current team decision.

Expected files

Existing documentation location to be discovered during inspection, likely one of: README.md, docs/architecture/*.md, docs/*.md, or adr/*.md

Implementation steps

1.Inspect the ITP-Agent-Runtime repository structure to identify the established location and format for architecture/design documentation, preferring an existing docs or ADR folder over creating a new documentation structure.
2.Search for existing persistence-related material using terms such as persistence, schema, session, task, instruction, document storage, S3, runtime, ownership, architecture, and ADR to avoid duplicating an existing note or conflicting with documented decisions.
3.Inspect relevant runtime components and configuration references to confirm whether task, instruction, and session persistence concepts already appear in code, configs, interfaces, or package/module names; only gather evidence, do not change code.
4.Map the smallest documentation surface that can capture the decision: ideally one short architecture note in an existing docs location; if the repo uses ADRs, prefer a concise ADR; if the repo keeps architecture notes in README or docs/architecture, update that location instead.
5.Draft the note content to include: scope of agent persistence in ITP-Agent-Runtime; separation of persistence concerns into task, instruction, and session schemas; statement that document persistence is S3-backed; ownership boundaries naming which component or layer owns each schema and which component owns document persistence integration; any explicitly known non-goals or out-of-scope areas to prevent future ambiguity.
6.If ownership cannot be fully derived from repository evidence alone, document the structure as 'agreed design pending final naming confirmation' and include clearly marked assumptions/questions rather than inventing ownership details.
7.Cross-check the note against nearby docs and code terminology so schema/component names exactly match repository language, minimizing future drift and avoiding contradictions.
8.If the chosen documentation area has local navigation, index, or table-of-contents files, plan only the minimal companion update needed so the new note is discoverable.
9.Keep the change documentation-only unless inspection reveals an existing broken link or mandatory docs metadata file that must be updated for the note to render or be indexed.
10.Prepare a concise change summary for reviewers describing why this is a documentation-only architecture clarification and explicitly stating that it records ownership boundaries before further persistence work lands.

Test plan

·Verify the selected documentation path follows repository conventions by comparing with existing docs/ADR patterns in ITP-Agent-Runtime.
·Review the note for explicit coverage of all required topics from the work packet: task schema, instruction schema, session schema, S3-backed document persistence, and ownership per component.
·Confirm terminology consistency between the note and any existing source/config/docs references discovered during inspection.
·If the repository has markdown linting or docs validation commands, run only the repo-local read-only validation needed for the edited markdown files.
·Preview rendered markdown locally in the sandbox if possible to ensure headings, lists, and links are readable and any relative links resolve correctly.
·Check that no code behavior, infrastructure config, or persistence implementation files are modified as part of this work unless an unavoidable docs index/link update is required.

Repositories

·ITP-Agent-Runtime