Implementation Approach @shinpr

Implementation Strategy Selection Framework (Meta-cognitive Approach)

Meta-cognitive Strategy Selection Process

Phase 1: Comprehensive Current State Analysis

Core Question: "What does the existing implementation look like?"

Analysis Framework

Meta-cognitive Question List

• What is the true responsibility of this implementation?
• Which parts are business essence and which derive from technical constraints?
• What dependencies or implicit preconditions are unclear from the code?
• What benefits and constraints does the current design bring?

Phase 2: Strategy Exploration and Creation

Core Question: "When determining before -> after, what implementation patterns or strategies should be referenced?"

Strategy Discovery Process

Reference Strategy Patterns (Creative Combinations Encouraged)

Legacy Handling Strategies:

• Strangler Pattern: Gradual migration through phased replacement
• Facade Pattern: Complexity hiding through unified interface
• Adapter Pattern: Bridge with existing systems

New Development Strategies:

• Feature-driven Development: Vertical implementation prioritizing user value
• Foundation-driven Development: Foundation-first construction prioritizing stability
• Risk-driven Development: Prioritize addressing maximum risk elements

Integration/Migration Strategies:

• Proxy Pattern: Transparent feature extension
• Decorator Pattern: Phased enhancement of existing features
• Bridge Pattern: Flexibility through abstraction

Important: The optimal solution is discovered through creative thinking according to each project's context.

Phase 3: Risk Assessment and Control

Core Question: "What risks arise when applying this to existing implementation, and what's the best way to control them?"

Risk Analysis Matrix

Risk Control Strategies

Phase 4: Constraint Compatibility Verification

Core Question: "What are this project's constraints?"

Constraint Checklist

Phase 5: Implementation Approach Decision

Select optimal solution from basic implementation approaches (creative combinations encouraged):

Vertical Slice (Feature-driven)

Characteristics: Vertical implementation across all layers by feature unit Application Conditions: Low inter-feature dependencies, output in user-usable form, changes needed across all architecture layers Verification Method: End-user value delivery at each feature completion

Horizontal Slice (Foundation-driven)

Characteristics: Phased construction by architecture layer Application Conditions: Foundation system stability important, multiple features depend on common foundation, layer-by-layer verification effective Verification Method: Integrated operation verification when all foundation layers complete

Hybrid (Creative Combination)

Characteristics: Flexible combination according to project characteristics Application Conditions: Unclear requirements, need to change approach per phase, transition from prototyping to full implementation Verification Method: Verify at appropriate L1/L2/L3 levels according to each phase's goals

Phase 6: Decision Rationale Documentation

Design Doc Documentation: Clearly specify implementation strategy selection reasons and rationale.

Verification Level Definitions

Priority for completion verification of each task:

• L1: Functional Operation Verification - Operates as end-user feature (e.g., search executable)
• L2: Test Operation Verification - New tests added and passing (e.g., type definition tests)
• L3: Build Success Verification - No compile errors (e.g., interface definitions)

Priority: L1 > L2 > L3 in order of verifiability importance

Integration Point Definitions

Define integration points according to selected strategy:

• Strangler-based: When switching between old and new systems for each feature
• Feature-driven: When users can actually use the feature
• Foundation-driven: When all architecture layers are ready and E2E tests pass
• Hybrid: When individual goals defined for each phase are achieved

Anti-patterns

• Pattern Fixation: Selecting only from listed strategies without considering unique combinations
• Insufficient Analysis: Skipping Phase 1 analysis framework before strategy selection
• Risk Neglect: Starting implementation without Phase 3 risk analysis matrix
• Constraint Ignorance: Deciding strategy without checking Phase 4 constraint checklist
• Rationale Omission: Selecting strategy without using Phase 6 documentation template

Guidelines for Meta-cognitive Execution

1. Leverage Known Patterns: Use as starting point, explore creative combinations
2. Active WebSearch Use: Research implementation examples from similar tech stacks
3. Apply 5 Whys: Pursue root causes to grasp essence
4. Multi-perspective Evaluation: Comprehensively evaluate from each Phase 1-4 perspective
5. **C

• What is the true responsibility of this implementation?
• Which parts are business essence and which derive from technical constraints?
• What dependencies or implicit preconditions are unclear from the code?
• What benefits and constraints does the current design bring?
• Strangler Pattern: Gradual migration through phased replacement
• Facade Pattern: Complexity hiding through unified interface
• Adapter Pattern: Bridge with existing systems
• Feature-driven Development: Vertical implementation prioritizing user value
• Foundation-driven Development: Foundation-first construction prioritizing stability
• Risk-driven Development: Prioritize addressing maximum risk elements
• Proxy Pattern: Transparent feature extension
• Decorator Pattern: Phased enhancement of existing features
• Bridge Pattern: Flexibility through abstraction
• L1: Functional Operation Verification - Operates as end-user feature (e.g., search executable)
• L2: Test Operation Verification - New tests added and passing (e.g., type definition tests)