Compendium · Compositions · Worked Examples

Worked Examples

Items

of 1002 total

Full-featured composed scenes — one per row so each design has room to breathe. Click for the live render, the spec, and the source.

Featured 14 Atoms 762 Compositions 240

№ 1361

Greenfield: Notification Preference Service

Scene STA co

Worked Example Greenfield · 6 phases

Notification preferences,
from zero to governed.

A net-new service walked through every DoCoDeGo gate. Each phase produces a named artefact and an evidence ticket that unlocks the next.

Outcome

Shipped · ICS 94 · 0 drift

01
Spec Draft

Artefact

notif-prefs.spec.md

Owner

@author

Evidence

Intent + 8 ACs

ICS ≥ 60
02
Adversarial Grilling

Artefact

grill-round.md

Owner

@author + @peer

Evidence

12 questions answered

ICS ≥ 75
03
Plan Approval

Artefact

plan.md

Owner

@architect

Evidence

Decomposed task list

Sign-off
04
RED

Artefact

failing tests

Owner

@composer

Evidence

14 tests fail

Suite red
05
GREEN

Artefact

minimal impl

Owner

@composer

Evidence

14/14 pass

AC met
06
REFACTOR + Sign-off

Artefact

AAR + GTR delta

Owner

@governor

Evidence

No drift, no regress

Closed

№ 1362

Brownfield: Legacy Order Processing

Scene STA do

Worked Example Brownfield · archaeology-first

Legacy code,
spec-governed without rewrite.

Order processing entered the codebase before DoCoDeGo existed. We did not rewrite it. We brought it under intent.

01
Archaeology

Artefact

behaviour-notes.md

Owner

@archaeologist

Evidence

Code-paths mapped

Unknowns 42

REMOVES: Hidden behaviour
02
Characterisation

Artefact

pinning tests

Owner

@composer

Evidence

38 tests green

Unknowns 18

REMOVES: Silent regression
03
Provisional Spec

Artefact

orders.spec.md (prov)

Owner

@author

Evidence

Intent inferred

Unknowns 6

REMOVES: Unstated intent
04
Promotion

Artefact

orders.spec @ v1

Owner

@governor

Evidence

2 weeks no surprises

Unknowns 0

REMOVES: Drift undetected

№ 1363

Cookie Consent Flow

Scene STA co

Worked Example Feature lifecycle · 7 phases

Cookie consent,
traced phase by phase.

Small feature, every pillar engaged. A convention was discovered mid-flight and promoted before the PR closed.

01
Research

GDPR + ePrivacy survey · 3 prior art
02
Spec

11 ACs · 4 failure modes · 2 constraints
03
Assurance

Plan grilled · ICS 88 · threat model attached
04
Delivery

5 delivery units · all green

DU-1 bannerDU-2 storeDU-3 APIDU-4 auditDU-5 a11y
05
Composition

PR opened · 2 reviewers · 0 changes requested
06
Convention

Discovered: "no consent → strict default"
Promoted
07
Monitoring

SLO 99.97% · 14d live · 0 drift events

№ 1364

Cross-Domain: Legal Contract Amendment

Scene STA do

Cross-Domain Example Law · 6 phases

A legal amendment,
same gates as a service.

Intent, adversarial review, evidence, sign-off. The artefacts change. The discipline does not.

01
Brief

Artefact

amendment-intent.md

Owner

@counsel

Evidence

3 desired outcomes
02
Adversarial Review

Artefact

red-team-notes.md

Owner

@counsel + @peer

Evidence

9 attacks survived
03
Plan

Artefact

amendment-plan.md

Owner

@counsel

Evidence

Clause map + risks
04
Draft

Artefact

amendment-v0.docx

Owner

@counsel

Evidence

Clauses 1–14
05
Clause Coverage

Artefact

coverage-matrix.csv

Owner

@counsel

Evidence

14/14 mapped to intent
06
Partner Approval

Artefact

countersigned.pdf

Owner

@partner-counsel

Evidence

No outstanding red lines

Clause coverage matrix

14 / 14 mapped

C-01

C-02

C-03

C-04

C-05

C-06

C-07

C-08

C-09

C-10

C-11

C-12

C-13

C-14

№ 1365

Cross-Domain: Strategy Analysis Brief

Scene STA do

Cross-Domain Example Strategy · 5 phases

Opinions, traceable
back to evidence.

A strategy brief moves through five gates. Every recommendation owes its sources to the trail.

01
Brief

Artefact

analysis-brief.md

Owner

@analyst

Evidence

1 question · 3 hypotheses
02
Question Framing

Artefact

questions.md

Owner

@analyst

Evidence

7 sub-questions
03
Evidence Trail

Artefact

sources.csv

Owner

@analyst

Evidence

23 sources · 4 first-party
04
Recommendation

Artefact

recommendation.md

Owner

@analyst

Evidence

Each claim → 2+ sources
05
Review

Artefact

review-notes.md

Owner

@reviewer

Evidence

No unsourced claim

Evidence trail

Claim → Sources

Market is consolidating sources 3
Buyer power is rising sources 4
Pricing floor is at risk sources 2
New entrant is structural sources 5

№ 1366

Cross-Domain: Product Design Brief

Scene STA do

Cross-Domain Example Design · 4 phases

A design brief
is a spec.

Intent first. Constraints declared. Threats modelled. Only then do pixels move.

01
Design Intent

Artefact

design-brief.md

Owner

@designer

Evidence

Job-to-be-done + 5 ACs
02
Constraints

Artefact

constraints.md

Owner

@designer

Evidence

3 binding constraints
03
Threat Model

Artefact

design-threats.md

Owner

@designer

Evidence

3 attacks · mitigations
04
Handoff

Artefact

specs + tokens.json

Owner

@engineer

Evidence

AC mapped to code

Binding constraints

WCAG AA contrast — non-negotiable
Mobile-first — 360px floor
No new colour tokens — palette is sealed

Threats considered

Attack

Dark-pattern accusation

↳ Symmetric Accept / Reject buttons
Attack

Misclick on destructive

↳ Confirm-step on irreversible action
Attack

Screen-reader confusion

↳ Labelled groups + live region

№ 1367

Single Spec: Full Lifecycle

Scene STA do

Single Spec · 4 statuses SPEC-0247

One spec.
Four moments.

The header tells you what just happened. Watch the version climb, the ICS rise, the status earn its colour.

SPEC-0247 notification-preference-service draft

Version v0.1.0

ICS 42

Author drafting. ACs incomplete. No reviewer yet.
SPEC-0247 notification-preference-service review

Version v0.9.0

ICS 71

Peer review in flight. 4 questions, 2 revisions.
SPEC-0247 notification-preference-service in-progress

Version v1.0.0

ICS 88

Plan approved. Composer working from frozen spec.
SPEC-0247 notification-preference-service implemented

Version v1.0.1

ICS 94

Demonstrated, evidence attached. Patch records one truth-up.

№ 1368

Drift Response Walkthrough

Scene STA go

Worked Example Drift response · 5 phases

Drift happens.
The response is rehearsed.

Gap detected, classified, routed by size. Small drift is absorbed in a PR. Large drift earns ceremony.

01
Detected

Audit log flags ad-hoc change. Telemetry confirms divergence from spec.
02
Classified

Gap measured. Bucket assigned: small, medium, or large by AC impact.
03
Routed

Small

In-PR edit

@composer

< 1 hr

Medium

Spec amendment

@architect

< 1 day

Large

Full re-grilling

@governor

< 1 week

04
Spec Update

Author truths-up the spec. New version. Change log records cause and routing decision.
05
Recompose

Composer rebuilds against fresh spec. Tests gate the new green state. Parity ribbon restored.

№ 1369

Plan Approval Gate Workflow

Scene STA co

Worked Example Plan approval · 5 phases

Approval is a handshake.
Not a rubber stamp.

Sharp questions, written revisions, timestamped sign-off. Then — and only then — work begins.

01
Plan Submitted

Owner

@author

plan.md · 9 tasks · 3 risks
02
Reviewer Questions

Owner

@reviewer

3 sharp questions, scoped, evidence-bearing
03
Revision

Owner

@author

Plan v0.2 · all questions addressed in writing
04
Approval

Owner

@reviewer

Sign-off · timestamped · diff frozen
05
CO Begins

Owner

@composer

First failing test written within the hour

Reviewer's three questions

verbatim

Q1 What happens when the upstream queue is empty for > 30s?
Q2 Which AC fails first if the cache is cold?
Q3 Where is the rollback step in the plan?

№ 1370

Spec Grilling Round

Scene STA do

Spec Grilling 12 questions · 1 round

Twelve sharp questions.
The spec got stronger.

Adversarial review is not hostility. It is the cheapest way to surface what we don't yet know.

Before

After

Q01 What happens at exactly 23:59:59 UTC on a leap second? Accepted AC-13 added: leap-second behaviour
Q02 Does the API guarantee ordering when client retries? Accepted AC-04 rewritten with idempotency
Q03 What is the budget for cold-start latency? Clarified Constraint: P99 < 1.2s
Q04 Can two users hold the same preference token? Accepted AC-09: tokens are user-scoped
Q05 What if the downstream returns a 5xx for 10 minutes? Accepted Failure mode FM-2 added
Q06 Are we accepting offline-mode here? Rejected Out of scope · v1
Q07 Who pages on AC-08 breach? Accepted Owner field added to AC
Q08 Does redaction precede or follow audit log writes? Accepted AC-11 ordering pinned
Q09 Will the feature flag default to off in prod? Clarified Constraint: default-off
Q10 Is there a kill-switch? Accepted AC-12: kill-switch armed
Q11 How is consent revocation propagated? Accepted AC-06 expanded
Q12 What is the rollback time budget? Clarified Constraint: rollback < 5 min

№ 1371

Convention Extraction Story

Scene STA go

Convention CONV-009 · default-restrictive

Three specs agreed
by accident.

The observer noticed the agreement. The framework gave it a number.

The three specs

SPEC-0184

auth-tokens

default-deny on missing claim

SPEC-0212

feature-flags

default-off in production

SPEC-0247

notif-prefs

default-strict on no-consent

01
Pattern Observed

Three independent specs land on "default-restrictive". The observer notices.
02
Candidate Filed

A convention candidate is written, naming the pattern and citing the three.
03
Review

Governance reviews. Edge cases probed. Counter-examples sought.
04
Promotion

Convention CONV-009 published. Linked from every relevant template.
05
Default From Now

New specs inherit the decision. The next author does not relitigate.

Before

Each spec debates and re-decides the default for missing input.

After

Default-restrictive is inherited. Specs only declare deviations.

№ 1372

Bugfix Spec Walkthrough

Scene STA de

Bugfix Spec BUG-0418 · 5 phases

A bug is a
spec violation.

Minimal intent. The failing test is the headline AC. The fix is surgical. Absence is demonstrated, not asserted.

01
Bug Report

BUG-0418 · timezone offset off-by-one near DST boundary.
02
Minimal Intent

Render local times correctly across DST transitions.
03
Verification AC

Failing test pins the exact case the fix must satisfy.
04
Surgical Fix

6-line patch · no scope creep · linked to BUG-0418.
05
Demonstrated Absence

Suite green · monitoring shows zero occurrences for 7 days.

Verification AC

the test that pins it

test('DST fall-back renders correct local hour', () => {
  const t = renderLocal('2026-11-01T08:30:00Z', 'America/Los_Angeles');
  expect(t).toBe('01:30'); // not 02:30
});

Before

02:30 displayed on DST fall-back morning. Confusing.

After

01:30 displayed. Local clock and wall clock agree.

№ 1373

Refactor Spec Walkthrough

Scene STA co

Refactor Spec REF-0091 · 4 phases

Change how.
Never change what.

A refactor is a contract: same outputs, new internals. Characterisation tests are the receipt.

01
Characterisation Tests

42 tests pin current behaviour at the boundary.
02
Refactor Plan

Internals reshaped: orchestrator pattern → pipeline. No new behaviour.
03
Behaviour Preservation

42/42 still green. No new tests added — that would be a feature.
04
Review

Reviewer signs that diff is shape-only. AAR notes lessons.

Same outputs

Before

Orchestrator

After

Pipeline

↓ identical observable behaviour ↓

{ result, latency, telemetry }

Invariants (must not change)

Public API signatures
Error codes and messages
Latency distribution (P50/P99)
Emitted telemetry events
On-disk serialisation format

№ 1374

Hat Distribution: Solo Dev

Scene STA do

Hat Distribution @solo · 1 day

One person.
Four hats. One at a time.

DoCoDeGo runs on a solo desk too. The discipline is naming which hat you are wearing right now.

Spec drafting

AC truth-up

RED → GREEN

REFACTOR

Demo + evidence

Self-grilling

AAR + commit

08:0010:0012:0014:0016:0018:00

Time per hat

minutes

Author

120 min
Composer

270 min
Demonstrator

60 min
Governor

90 min

№ 1375

Hat Distribution: Enterprise

Scene STA go

Hat Distribution Enterprise · 4 teams

Four teams.
Four hats. Named handoffs.

At scale, the discipline is not who wears which hat. It is what crosses each boundary.

DO
Intent Team

Size

6 people

Owner

@intent-lead

Artefact

Approved specs

Metric

ICS median ≥ 80
CO
Composition Guild

Size

24 people

Owner

@guild-lead

Artefact

PRs + tests

Metric

CI green ≥ 98%
DE
Platform Team

Size

9 people

Owner

@platform-lead

Artefact

Runtime + telemetry

Metric

SLO 99.95%
GO
Governance Team

Size

4 people

Owner

@governor

Artefact

AAR + conventions

Metric

Drift events ↓

Handoff contracts

Intent → Guild Spec v1.x · ICS ≥ 80 · plan signed
Guild → Platform Built artefact · tests green · runbook attached
Platform → Gov Telemetry · AAR draft · 14d clean

№ 1376

Stage Gate Assessment

Scene STA go

Stage Gate Autonomy shift · re-baseline

Autonomy is earned.
And then re-priced.

Crossing a threshold unlocks freedoms — and installs new audit obligations. Both sides are explicit.

Supervised Autonomous · audited

01
Trigger Detected

60 days · zero drift events · ICS median 88 · all AARs delivered.
02
Assessment

Governor reviews evidence pack. Edge cases probed. Counter-evidence sought.
03
New Baseline

Practices re-baselined. Some unlocked, some newly required. Recorded.
04
Operating Mode

Team operates under new mode. Re-assessment scheduled in 90 days.

Unlocked

Self-approve specs at ICS ≥ 85
Direct merge without architect review on small gaps
Own convention proposals end-to-end

Newly required

Publish weekly AAR digest
Maintain public drift telemetry
90-day re-assessment cadence

— Full detail →

—

// source

Alpha · Honest about it

The framework is real.
The community is forming now.

DoCoDeGo is in Alpha. The framework is documented, the practices are battle-tested at small scale, and the next release is being shaped in public.

If it produces anything, it should produce engineers and teams who think more clearly about what they are building and why.

Two doors in

Join the Discord

Discord is where specs are debated, the framework gets sharper, and decisions land in writing. The conversation is the artefact.

Worked Examples

Research

Spec

Assurance

Delivery

Composition

Convention

Monitoring

Clause coverage matrix

Evidence trail

Binding constraints

Threats considered

The three specs

Time per hat

The framework is real.The community is forming now.

The framework is real.
The community is forming now.