Shared Artifact Tracking

Purpose

Shared artifacts are data values appearing in multiple places across a journey. Every ${variable} must have a single source of truth and documented consumers. Untracked artifacts are the primary cause of horizontal integration failures.

Artifact Registry Schema

shared_artifacts:
  {artifact_name}:
    source_of_truth: "{canonical file path}"
    consumers: ["{list of places this value appears}"]
    owner: "{responsible feature/component}"
    integration_risk: "HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW - {explanation}"
    validation: "{How to verify consistency}"

Common Artifact Patterns

Version

Source: pyproject.toml | Consumers: CLI --version, about command, README, install output Risk: HIGH -- version mismatch breaks user trust

Install Path

Source: config/paths.yaml or constants.py | Consumers: install script, uninstall script, documentation Risk: HIGH -- path mismatch breaks installation

Repository URL

Source: pyproject.toml or config | Consumers: README, error messages, install docs Risk: MEDIUM -- URL mismatch breaks external links

Configuration Values

Source: config file or environment variable | Consumers: runtime behavior, documentation, defaults display Risk: MEDIUM -- inconsistency causes confusion

Command Names

Source: CLI argument parser definition | Consumers: help text, documentation, error messages, tutorials Risk: HIGH -- name mismatch makes features undiscoverable

Integration Validation

Consistency Check Process

1. List all shared artifacts from journey schema
2. For each artifact, verify source of truth exists
3. For each consumer, verify it references correct source
4. Flag any artifact without documented source
5. Flag any consumer that hardcodes instead of referencing source

Validation Questions

• "Does every ${variable} in TUI mockups have a documented source?"
• "If the version changes, would all consumers automatically update?"
• "Are there hardcoded values that should reference a shared artifact?"
• "Do any two steps display the same data from different sources?"

Quality Gates

Journey completeness: all steps have clear goals | CLI commands/actions | emotional annotations | shared artifacts tracked | integration checkpoints defined

Emotional coherence: emotional arc defined (start/middle/end) | no jarring transitions | confidence builds progressively | error states guide to resolution

Horizontal integration: all shared artifacts have single source of truth | all consumers documented | integration checkpoints validate consistency | CLI vocabulary consistent

CLI UX compliance: command structure follows chosen pattern | help available on all commands | progressive disclosure implemented | error messages actionable

Handoff Specifications

To Requirements Crafting (internal handoff within Luna)

Artifacts: docs/feature/{feature-id}/discuss/journey-{name}.yaml (complete journey with emotional arc) | docs/feature/{feature-id}/discuss/shared-artifacts-registry.md (tracked artifacts with sources)

Validation: journey complete with all steps | emotional arc defined | shared artifacts documented | CLI vocabulary consistent

To Acceptance Designer (Quinn)

Deliverables: docs/feature/{feature-id}/discuss/journey-{name}.yaml (journey schema) | docs/feature/{feature-id}/discuss/journey-{name}.feature (Gherkin scenarios) | docs/feature/{feature-id}/discuss/shared-artifacts-registry.md (integration validation points)

Validation: all product-owner checks passed | Gherkin scenarios generated | integration checkpoints testable | peer review approved