Summary

Closed, Completed

Plan
Verify compose file and service names.
Plan
Build
Provide docker compose up command with build flag.
Build
Build
Provide command to run in background with -d flag.
Build
Build
Provide instructions to access the service via localhost.
Build
Build
Provide command to stop the services.
Build

please read docs/Architecture.md and poke holes in it and improve it for build

I’ll inspect the architecture doc and nearby repo context so the feedback is grounded in what’s actually buildable here. Since we’re in planning mode, I’ll avoid editing files and focus on a concrete improvement plan.

>sed -n '1,260p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 5e56d2
Wall time: 0.0662 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 59
Output:
This app will be Django-only (Django ORM and Templating, no React frontend)

For RBAC, we will use the Django Groups as roles and Permissions.

This app will be using SQLite as its database.

This app will be Dockerized for deployment.

The architecture doc is only four decisions right now, and this repo currently contains docs only. I’m going to read the requirements next because most architectural gaps will come from requirements that aren’t reflected in the build plan.

>sed -n '1,260p' docs/Requirements.md

Chunk ID: 0f9dd6
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 4277
Output:
# HR - Performance Evaluation Platform - Requirements

## Table of Contents

### Overview Documents
- [Business Problem](#business-problem)
- [Current State](#current-state)
- [Product Description](#product-description)
- [Personas](#personas)
- [Success Metrics](#success-metrics)
- [Technical Requirements](#technical-requirements)

### Feature Requirements
- [Authentication & Authorization](#authentication-authorization)
- [Evaluation Management](#evaluation-management)
- [Collaboration & Approval Workflow](#collaboration-approval-workflow)
- [Export & Import](#export-import)

---

# Overview Documents

## Business Problem

University of Waterloo's co-op program requires employers to provide structured, formal performance evaluations to students at the end of each work term. For organizations that hire several co-op students per term, managing this process internally creates real friction. Drafting evaluations, routing them to the right people for review, getting sign-off, and then submitting them to the university all require coordination that the evaluation form itself does not support.

The core problem is that the evaluation form and the internal collaboration process have never been unified in a single tool. Teams must work around this by passing annotated PDFs via email or converting evaluation content to plain text and sharing it through other channels. This introduces version confusion, increases administrative effort, and creates risk that evaluations are delayed, misfiled, or submitted without proper internal review.

## Current State

The current internal tool is a standalone HTML form with no server backend. It captures UW co-op evaluation data and stores drafts in the browser's local storage. For sharing, users export the evaluation as JSON and send the file to colleagues, who import it on their own machine to view or edit. A Markdown export feature helps users copy evaluation content into the official University of Waterloo co-op portal.

While this tool solved the immediate problem of capturing structured evaluation data, it was designed as a single-user utility, not a multi-user workflow system. There is no authentication, no role-based access control, no server-side persistence, and no mechanism for routing an evaluation through review and approval. All collaboration happens outside the tool — over email or messaging — and any state saved in local storage is invisible to other users and lost if the browser is cleared.

## Product Description

The Performance Evaluation Platform is a web-based enterprise HR application for managing UW co-op performance evaluations from creation to submission. It replaces the single-user HTML form with a multi-user system that supports the full lifecycle of an evaluation: creating and editing, saving drafts on the server, routing for internal review, collecting VP approval, and exporting for submission to the University of Waterloo.

Access is controlled by three roles — VP, Manager, and Employee — so that each user interacts with the system in a way appropriate to their function. The platform is intended for organizations that hire co-op students regularly and need a repeatable, auditable internal process in place of the current PDF-and-email approach.

## Personas

The **VP** manages both the platform and the evaluation process. They create and manage user accounts, assign roles, and assign co-op Employees to Managers. They have organization-wide visibility into all evaluations, review submissions from Managers, and provide final approval before evaluations are submitted to the University of Waterloo. They can return evaluations to Draft if corrections are needed.

The **Manager** is the primary author of performance evaluations. They supervise co-op students directly and are responsible for creating, editing, and submitting evaluations for the Employees assigned to them. They can only view and act on evaluations they created. They initiate the review process by submitting a completed draft for VP review.

The **Employee** represents a co-op student placed at the organization. They are the subject of the performance evaluations created by their assigned Manager. Their platform access is the most restricted of the three roles and will be defined as the product is implemented.

## Success Metrics

Success is measured primarily by whether the platform eliminates the coordination overhead of the current PDF-based process. Evaluations should be completed and submitted to the University of Waterloo on time without requiring email exchanges to share or route the document. The time Managers spend completing and routing evaluations should decrease relative to the previous process. All evaluations should pass through VP HR approval before submission. No evaluation data should be lost due to browser state issues or manual file management, as was a risk with the local-storage-based predecessor.

## Technical Requirements

All access to the platform requires authentication — no functionality is accessible without a valid session. Role-based access control enforces the four defined roles (Admin, VP HR, Manager, Employee) at the application level, server-side. The platform is accessible via web browser with no client-side installation required. Evaluation data is persisted server-side, not in browser local storage.

# Feature Requirements

## Authentication & Authorization

## Overview

The Authentication & Authorization feature controls who can access the platform and what each user is permitted to do. All users must authenticate before accessing any part of the system. Three roles — VP, Manager, and Employee — determine the actions each user can take throughout the platform.

## Terminology

* **Role**: A named set of permissions assigned to a user account that determines what actions they can perform.
* **RBAC**: Role-Based Access Control — permissions are granted based on a user's assigned role, not configured individually per user.
* **Session**: An authenticated state established after a successful login that persists for a defined period.

## Requirements

### REQ-AUTH-001: User Login

**User Story:** As a user, I want to log in with my credentials, so that I can access the platform.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-AUTH-001.1:** When a user submits valid credentials, the system shall grant access and establish an authenticated session.
* **AC-AUTH-001.2:** When a user submits invalid credentials, the system shall deny access and display an error message.
* **AC-AUTH-001.3:** When a user's session expires, the system shall require re-authentication before allowing further access.

### REQ-AUTH-002: User Account Management

**User Story:** As a VP, I want to create, edit, and deactivate user accounts, so that I can control who has access to the platform.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-AUTH-002.1:** When a VP creates a user account, the system shall require a name, email address, and role.
* **AC-AUTH-002.2:** When a VP deactivates a user account, the system shall prevent that user from logging in.
* **AC-AUTH-002.3:** When a deactivated user attempts to log in, the system shall deny access.
* **AC-AUTH-002.4:** When a VP edits a user account, the system shall allow updating the user's name, email, and role.

### REQ-AUTH-003: Role Assignment

**User Story:** As a VP, I want to assign a role to each user account, so that each user has the appropriate level of access.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-AUTH-003.1:** When a VP creates or edits a user account, the system shall require selection of exactly one role from: VP, Manager, Employee.
* **AC-AUTH-003.2:** When a user's role is changed, the system shall enforce the updated permissions on their next request.

### REQ-AUTH-004: Role-Based Access Enforcement

**User Story:** As a VP, I want all platform features and data to be access-controlled by role, so that users can only perform actions their role permits.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-AUTH-004.1:** When a user attempts an action not permitted by their role, the system shall deny the action.
* **AC-AUTH-004.2:** The system shall enforce role permissions server-side on all data access and actions.

### REQ-AUTH-005: Employee-Manager Assignment

**User Story:** As a VP, I want to assign co-op Employees to a Manager, so that the Manager can create evaluations for their assigned students.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-AUTH-005.1:** When a VP assigns an Employee to a Manager, the system shall record the assignment and permit that Manager to create evaluations for that Employee.
* **AC-AUTH-005.2:** When a VP removes an Employee assignment from a Manager, the system shall prevent the Manager from creating new evaluations for that Employee.
* **AC-AUTH-005.3:** When a Manager attempts to create an evaluation for an Employee not assigned to them, the system shall deny the action.

### REQ-AUTH-006: Manager Access Scope

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want my access scoped to my own evaluations and assigned Employees, so that I cannot view or act on data outside my responsibility.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-AUTH-006.1:** When a Manager views the evaluations list, the system shall display only evaluations that the Manager created.
* **AC-AUTH-006.2:** When a Manager attempts to access an evaluation they did not create, the system shall deny access.
* **AC-AUTH-006.3:** When a Manager selects an Employee to evaluate, the system shall display only Employees assigned to that Manager.

## Feature Behavior & Rules

All routes and API endpoints require an authenticated session. Role permissions are enforced server-side and cannot be bypassed through client-side manipulation. A VP cannot deactivate their own account. Each user holds exactly one role at a time. The three roles have distinct scopes: VP manages user accounts, assigns co-op Employees to Managers, and has full visibility and approval rights over all evaluations; Manager creates and submits evaluations only for their assigned Employees and can only view evaluations they own; Employee has the most restricted access in the system.

## Evaluation Management

## Overview

Evaluation Management is the core function of the platform. It allows Managers to create UW co-op performance evaluations for the students they supervise, save drafts at any point, and manage their evaluations through the review and approval lifecycle. Evaluations are persisted server-side, eliminating reliance on browser state.

## Terminology

* **Evaluation**: A formal performance assessment completed by a Manager for a co-op student, structured according to the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation format.
* **Draft**: An evaluation that has been saved but not yet submitted for review or approval.

## Requirements

### REQ-EVAL-001: Create Evaluation

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to create a new performance evaluation for a co-op student, so that I can document their performance for the term.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-EVAL-001.1:** When a Manager creates a new evaluation, the system shall create an evaluation record associated with that Manager's account.
* **AC-EVAL-001.2:** When an evaluation is created, the system shall present the UW co-op evaluation form fields for the Manager to complete.
* **AC-EVAL-001.3:** When a new evaluation is created, the system shall set its initial state to Draft.

### REQ-EVAL-002: Save Draft

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to save an evaluation as a draft, so that I can return to it and continue editing later.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-EVAL-002.1:** When a Manager saves a draft, the system shall persist the current state of all evaluation fields server-side.
* **AC-EVAL-002.2:** When a Manager opens a saved draft, the system shall restore all previously entered field values.
* **AC-EVAL-002.3:** When a draft is saved, the system shall not advance the evaluation in the workflow.

### REQ-EVAL-003: Edit Evaluation

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to edit an evaluation I created that is in Draft state, so that I can update the content before submitting it for review.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-EVAL-003.1:** When a Manager opens an evaluation they own that is in Draft state, the system shall allow editing of all form fields.
* **AC-EVAL-003.2:** When a Manager attempts to edit an evaluation that is not in Draft state, the system shall prevent editing.

### REQ-EVAL-004: View Evaluations

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to view all evaluations I have created, so that I can track their content and current status.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-EVAL-004.1:** When a Manager views the evaluations list, the system shall display all evaluations they own with their current workflow state.

### REQ-EVAL-005: VP Evaluation Visibility

**User Story:** As a VP, I want to view all evaluations in the system, so that I can monitor the process and review submissions.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-EVAL-005.1:** When a VP views the evaluations list, the system shall display all evaluations across all Managers and their current workflow states.

## Feature Behavior & Rules

Evaluations are owned by the Manager who created them. Only the owning Manager can edit an evaluation in Draft state. VP can view any evaluation but cannot edit evaluation content. A Manager can only view and act on evaluations they created, and can only create evaluations for Employees assigned to them by a VP. Draft evaluations are stored server-side and are not tied to browser state.

## Collaboration & Approval Workflow

## Overview

The Collaboration & Approval Workflow feature routes evaluations through an internal review and approval process before they are submitted to the University of Waterloo. It replaces the current practice of emailing PDFs or JSON files between colleagues by giving evaluations a defined lifecycle — Draft, In Review, and Approved — that all stakeholders can see and act on within the platform.

## Terminology

* **Workflow State**: The current stage of an evaluation in the review and approval process. Valid states are: Draft, In Review, and Approved.
* **Approval**: A formal sign-off by a VP indicating that an evaluation is ready for submission to the University of Waterloo.

## Requirements

### REQ-COLLAB-001: Submit for Review

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to submit a completed evaluation for internal review, so that it can be reviewed and approved by VP before submission to the university.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-COLLAB-001.1:** When a Manager submits a Draft evaluation for review, the system shall transition the evaluation's state to In Review.
* **AC-COLLAB-001.2:** When an evaluation is In Review, the system shall make it visible and accessible to VP users.
* **AC-COLLAB-001.3:** When an evaluation is In Review, the system shall prevent the owning Manager from editing the content.

### REQ-COLLAB-002: Return Evaluation to Draft

**User Story:** As a VP, I want to return an evaluation to Draft, so that the Manager can make corrections before resubmitting.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-COLLAB-002.1:** When a VP returns an In Review evaluation to Draft, the system shall transition the evaluation's state back to Draft.
* **AC-COLLAB-002.2:** When an evaluation is returned to Draft, the system shall allow the owning Manager to edit it again.

### REQ-COLLAB-003: Approve Evaluation

**User Story:** As a VP, I want to approve an evaluation, so that it is marked as ready for submission to the University of Waterloo.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

* **AC-COLLAB-003.1:** When a VP approves an In Review evaluation, the system shall transition the evaluation's state to Approved.
* **AC-COLLAB-003.2:** When an evaluation is Approved, the system shall prevent editing by any user.

## Feature Behavior & Rules

The evaluation workflow follows a linear progression: Draft → In Review → Approved. A Manager can only submit an evaluation that is in Draft state. Only a VP can approve an evaluation or return it to Draft. An Approved evaluation is locked — no edits are permitted by any role. If an Approved evaluation requires revision, a VP must return it to Draft first. The Admin role has no participation in the evaluation workflow.

## Export & Import

## Overview

The Export & Import feature allows evaluation data to be moved in and out of the platform in formats suited for different purposes. Markdown export supports submission to the University of Waterloo's official co-op portal. JSON export and import support migration from the previous tool and structured data sharing.

## Terminology

* **Markdown Export**: An export of evaluation content formatted as Markdown, structured to match the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation form for use in the official portal.

## Requirements

### REQ-EXPORT-001: Export Evaluation as Markdown

**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to export an evaluation as Markdown, so that I can use it to complete the official UW co-op evaluation form.

**Acceptance Criteria:**

>sed -n '261,560p' docs/Requirements.md

Chunk ID: 829d86
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 195
Output:
* **AC-EXPORT-001.1:** When a Manager exports an evaluation as Markdown, the system shall generate a Markdown-formatted file containing all evaluation fields and their values.
* **AC-EXPORT-001.2:** When generating the Markdown export, the system shall structure the output to match the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation form format.

## Feature Behavior & Rules

Export is available on any evaluation regardless of its current workflow state. Import always creates a new Draft evaluation — it never overwrites an existing record. The Markdown export format corresponds to the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation portal structure. JSON export and import use the same schema, ensuring that a file exported from this platform can be re-imported without modification.

Requirements introduce several things the architecture doesn’t yet account for: Admin vs VP role terminology, workflow invariants, import/export schema, assignment scoping, and deployment/runtime details. I’m checking line numbers now so the critique can point to exact spots.

>nl -ba docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: ebe491
Wall time: 0.0638 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 71
Output:
     1	This app will be Django-only (Django ORM and Templating, no React frontend)
     2	
     3	For RBAC, we will use the Django Groups as roles and Permissions.
     4	
     5	This app will be using SQLite as its database.
     6	
     7	This app will be Dockerized for deployment.

>nl -ba docs/Requirements.md

Chunk ID: 0d4edc
Wall time: 0.0646 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 4939
Output:
     1	# HR - Performance Evaluation Platform - Requirements
     2	
     3	## Table of Contents
     4	
     5	### Overview Documents
     6	- [Business Problem](#business-problem)
     7	- [Current State](#current-state)
     8	- [Product Description](#product-description)
     9	- [Personas](#personas)
    10	- [Success Metrics](#success-metrics)
    11	- [Technical Requirements](#technical-requirements)
    12	
    13	### Feature Requirements
    14	- [Authentication & Authorization](#authentication-authorization)
    15	- [Evaluation Management](#evaluation-management)
    16	- [Collaboration & Approval Workflow](#collaboration-approval-workflow)
    17	- [Export & Import](#export-import)
    18	
    19	---
    20	
    21	# Overview Documents
    22	
    23	## Business Problem
    24	
    25	University of Waterloo's co-op program requires employers to provide structured, formal performance evaluations to students at the end of each work term. For organizations that hire several co-op students per term, managing this process internally creates real friction. Drafting evaluations, routing them to the right people for review, getting sign-off, and then submitting them to the university all require coordination that the evaluation form itself does not support.
    26	
    27	The core problem is that the evaluation form and the internal collaboration process have never been unified in a single tool. Teams must work around this by passing annotated PDFs via email or converting evaluation content to plain text and sharing it through other channels. This introduces version confusion, increases administrative effort, and creates risk that evaluations are delayed, misfiled, or submitted without proper internal review.
    28	
    29	## Current State
    30	
    31	The current internal tool is a standalone HTML form with no server backend. It captures UW co-op evaluation data and stores drafts in the browser's local storage. For sharing, users export the evaluation as JSON and send the file to colleagues, who import it on their own machine to view or edit. A Markdown export feature helps users copy evaluation content into the official University of Waterloo co-op portal.
    32	
    33	While this tool solved the immediate problem of capturing structured evaluation data, it was designed as a single-user utility, not a multi-user workflow system. There is no authentication, no role-based access control, no server-side persistence, and no mechanism for routing an evaluation through review and approval. All collaboration happens outside the tool — over email or messaging — and any state saved in local storage is invisible to other users and lost if the browser is cleared.
    34	
    35	## Product Description
    36	
    37	The Performance Evaluation Platform is a web-based enterprise HR application for managing UW co-op performance evaluations from creation to submission. It replaces the single-user HTML form with a multi-user system that supports the full lifecycle of an evaluation: creating and editing, saving drafts on the server, routing for internal review, collecting VP approval, and exporting for submission to the University of Waterloo.
    38	
    39	Access is controlled by three roles — VP, Manager, and Employee — so that each user interacts with the system in a way appropriate to their function. The platform is intended for organizations that hire co-op students regularly and need a repeatable, auditable internal process in place of the current PDF-and-email approach.
    40	
    41	## Personas
    42	
    43	The **VP** manages both the platform and the evaluation process. They create and manage user accounts, assign roles, and assign co-op Employees to Managers. They have organization-wide visibility into all evaluations, review submissions from Managers, and provide final approval before evaluations are submitted to the University of Waterloo. They can return evaluations to Draft if corrections are needed.
    44	
    45	The **Manager** is the primary author of performance evaluations. They supervise co-op students directly and are responsible for creating, editing, and submitting evaluations for the Employees assigned to them. They can only view and act on evaluations they created. They initiate the review process by submitting a completed draft for VP review.
    46	
    47	The **Employee** represents a co-op student placed at the organization. They are the subject of the performance evaluations created by their assigned Manager. Their platform access is the most restricted of the three roles and will be defined as the product is implemented.
    48	
    49	## Success Metrics
    50	
    51	Success is measured primarily by whether the platform eliminates the coordination overhead of the current PDF-based process. Evaluations should be completed and submitted to the University of Waterloo on time without requiring email exchanges to share or route the document. The time Managers spend completing and routing evaluations should decrease relative to the previous process. All evaluations should pass through VP HR approval before submission. No evaluation data should be lost due to browser state issues or manual file management, as was a risk with the local-storage-based predecessor.
    52	
    53	## Technical Requirements
    54	
    55	All access to the platform requires authentication — no functionality is accessible without a valid session. Role-based access control enforces the four defined roles (Admin, VP HR, Manager, Employee) at the application level, server-side. The platform is accessible via web browser with no client-side installation required. Evaluation data is persisted server-side, not in browser local storage.
    56	
    57	# Feature Requirements
    58	
    59	## Authentication & Authorization
    60	
    61	## Overview
    62	
    63	The Authentication & Authorization feature controls who can access the platform and what each user is permitted to do. All users must authenticate before accessing any part of the system. Three roles — VP, Manager, and Employee — determine the actions each user can take throughout the platform.
    64	
    65	## Terminology
    66	
    67	* **Role**: A named set of permissions assigned to a user account that determines what actions they can perform.
    68	* **RBAC**: Role-Based Access Control — permissions are granted based on a user's assigned role, not configured individually per user.
    69	* **Session**: An authenticated state established after a successful login that persists for a defined period.
    70	
    71	## Requirements
    72	
    73	### REQ-AUTH-001: User Login
    74	
    75	**User Story:** As a user, I want to log in with my credentials, so that I can access the platform.
    76	
    77	**Acceptance Criteria:**
    78	
    79	* **AC-AUTH-001.1:** When a user submits valid credentials, the system shall grant access and establish an authenticated session.
    80	* **AC-AUTH-001.2:** When a user submits invalid credentials, the system shall deny access and display an error message.
    81	* **AC-AUTH-001.3:** When a user's session expires, the system shall require re-authentication before allowing further access.
    82	
    83	### REQ-AUTH-002: User Account Management
    84	
    85	**User Story:** As a VP, I want to create, edit, and deactivate user accounts, so that I can control who has access to the platform.
    86	
    87	**Acceptance Criteria:**
    88	
    89	* **AC-AUTH-002.1:** When a VP creates a user account, the system shall require a name, email address, and role.
    90	* **AC-AUTH-002.2:** When a VP deactivates a user account, the system shall prevent that user from logging in.
    91	* **AC-AUTH-002.3:** When a deactivated user attempts to log in, the system shall deny access.
    92	* **AC-AUTH-002.4:** When a VP edits a user account, the system shall allow updating the user's name, email, and role.
    93	
    94	### REQ-AUTH-003: Role Assignment
    95	
    96	**User Story:** As a VP, I want to assign a role to each user account, so that each user has the appropriate level of access.
    97	
    98	**Acceptance Criteria:**
    99	
   100	* **AC-AUTH-003.1:** When a VP creates or edits a user account, the system shall require selection of exactly one role from: VP, Manager, Employee.
   101	* **AC-AUTH-003.2:** When a user's role is changed, the system shall enforce the updated permissions on their next request.
   102	
   103	### REQ-AUTH-004: Role-Based Access Enforcement
   104	
   105	**User Story:** As a VP, I want all platform features and data to be access-controlled by role, so that users can only perform actions their role permits.
   106	
   107	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   108	
   109	* **AC-AUTH-004.1:** When a user attempts an action not permitted by their role, the system shall deny the action.
   110	* **AC-AUTH-004.2:** The system shall enforce role permissions server-side on all data access and actions.
   111	
   112	### REQ-AUTH-005: Employee-Manager Assignment
   113	
   114	**User Story:** As a VP, I want to assign co-op Employees to a Manager, so that the Manager can create evaluations for their assigned students.
   115	
   116	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   117	
   118	* **AC-AUTH-005.1:** When a VP assigns an Employee to a Manager, the system shall record the assignment and permit that Manager to create evaluations for that Employee.
   119	* **AC-AUTH-005.2:** When a VP removes an Employee assignment from a Manager, the system shall prevent the Manager from creating new evaluations for that Employee.
   120	* **AC-AUTH-005.3:** When a Manager attempts to create an evaluation for an Employee not assigned to them, the system shall deny the action.
   121	
   122	### REQ-AUTH-006: Manager Access Scope
   123	
   124	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want my access scoped to my own evaluations and assigned Employees, so that I cannot view or act on data outside my responsibility.
   125	
   126	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   127	
   128	* **AC-AUTH-006.1:** When a Manager views the evaluations list, the system shall display only evaluations that the Manager created.
   129	* **AC-AUTH-006.2:** When a Manager attempts to access an evaluation they did not create, the system shall deny access.
   130	* **AC-AUTH-006.3:** When a Manager selects an Employee to evaluate, the system shall display only Employees assigned to that Manager.
   131	
   132	## Feature Behavior & Rules
   133	
   134	All routes and API endpoints require an authenticated session. Role permissions are enforced server-side and cannot be bypassed through client-side manipulation. A VP cannot deactivate their own account. Each user holds exactly one role at a time. The three roles have distinct scopes: VP manages user accounts, assigns co-op Employees to Managers, and has full visibility and approval rights over all evaluations; Manager creates and submits evaluations only for their assigned Employees and can only view evaluations they own; Employee has the most restricted access in the system.
   135	
   136	## Evaluation Management
   137	
   138	## Overview
   139	
   140	Evaluation Management is the core function of the platform. It allows Managers to create UW co-op performance evaluations for the students they supervise, save drafts at any point, and manage their evaluations through the review and approval lifecycle. Evaluations are persisted server-side, eliminating reliance on browser state.
   141	
   142	## Terminology
   143	
   144	* **Evaluation**: A formal performance assessment completed by a Manager for a co-op student, structured according to the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation format.
   145	* **Draft**: An evaluation that has been saved but not yet submitted for review or approval.
   146	
   147	## Requirements
   148	
   149	### REQ-EVAL-001: Create Evaluation
   150	
   151	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to create a new performance evaluation for a co-op student, so that I can document their performance for the term.
   152	
   153	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   154	
   155	* **AC-EVAL-001.1:** When a Manager creates a new evaluation, the system shall create an evaluation record associated with that Manager's account.
   156	* **AC-EVAL-001.2:** When an evaluation is created, the system shall present the UW co-op evaluation form fields for the Manager to complete.
   157	* **AC-EVAL-001.3:** When a new evaluation is created, the system shall set its initial state to Draft.
   158	
   159	### REQ-EVAL-002: Save Draft
   160	
   161	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to save an evaluation as a draft, so that I can return to it and continue editing later.
   162	
   163	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   164	
   165	* **AC-EVAL-002.1:** When a Manager saves a draft, the system shall persist the current state of all evaluation fields server-side.
   166	* **AC-EVAL-002.2:** When a Manager opens a saved draft, the system shall restore all previously entered field values.
   167	* **AC-EVAL-002.3:** When a draft is saved, the system shall not advance the evaluation in the workflow.
   168	
   169	### REQ-EVAL-003: Edit Evaluation
   170	
   171	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to edit an evaluation I created that is in Draft state, so that I can update the content before submitting it for review.
   172	
   173	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   174	
   175	* **AC-EVAL-003.1:** When a Manager opens an evaluation they own that is in Draft state, the system shall allow editing of all form fields.
   176	* **AC-EVAL-003.2:** When a Manager attempts to edit an evaluation that is not in Draft state, the system shall prevent editing.
   177	
   178	### REQ-EVAL-004: View Evaluations
   179	
   180	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to view all evaluations I have created, so that I can track their content and current status.
   181	
   182	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   183	
   184	* **AC-EVAL-004.1:** When a Manager views the evaluations list, the system shall display all evaluations they own with their current workflow state.
   185	
   186	### REQ-EVAL-005: VP Evaluation Visibility
   187	
   188	**User Story:** As a VP, I want to view all evaluations in the system, so that I can monitor the process and review submissions.
   189	
   190	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   191	
   192	* **AC-EVAL-005.1:** When a VP views the evaluations list, the system shall display all evaluations across all Managers and their current workflow states.
   193	
   194	## Feature Behavior & Rules
   195	
   196	Evaluations are owned by the Manager who created them. Only the owning Manager can edit an evaluation in Draft state. VP can view any evaluation but cannot edit evaluation content. A Manager can only view and act on evaluations they created, and can only create evaluations for Employees assigned to them by a VP. Draft evaluations are stored server-side and are not tied to browser state.
   197	
   198	## Collaboration & Approval Workflow
   199	
   200	## Overview
   201	
   202	The Collaboration & Approval Workflow feature routes evaluations through an internal review and approval process before they are submitted to the University of Waterloo. It replaces the current practice of emailing PDFs or JSON files between colleagues by giving evaluations a defined lifecycle — Draft, In Review, and Approved — that all stakeholders can see and act on within the platform.
   203	
   204	## Terminology
   205	
   206	* **Workflow State**: The current stage of an evaluation in the review and approval process. Valid states are: Draft, In Review, and Approved.
   207	* **Approval**: A formal sign-off by a VP indicating that an evaluation is ready for submission to the University of Waterloo.
   208	
   209	## Requirements
   210	
   211	### REQ-COLLAB-001: Submit for Review
   212	
   213	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to submit a completed evaluation for internal review, so that it can be reviewed and approved by VP before submission to the university.
   214	
   215	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   216	
   217	* **AC-COLLAB-001.1:** When a Manager submits a Draft evaluation for review, the system shall transition the evaluation's state to In Review.
   218	* **AC-COLLAB-001.2:** When an evaluation is In Review, the system shall make it visible and accessible to VP users.
   219	* **AC-COLLAB-001.3:** When an evaluation is In Review, the system shall prevent the owning Manager from editing the content.
   220	
   221	### REQ-COLLAB-002: Return Evaluation to Draft
   222	
   223	**User Story:** As a VP, I want to return an evaluation to Draft, so that the Manager can make corrections before resubmitting.
   224	
   225	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   226	
   227	* **AC-COLLAB-002.1:** When a VP returns an In Review evaluation to Draft, the system shall transition the evaluation's state back to Draft.
   228	* **AC-COLLAB-002.2:** When an evaluation is returned to Draft, the system shall allow the owning Manager to edit it again.
   229	
   230	### REQ-COLLAB-003: Approve Evaluation
   231	
   232	**User Story:** As a VP, I want to approve an evaluation, so that it is marked as ready for submission to the University of Waterloo.
   233	
   234	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   235	
   236	* **AC-COLLAB-003.1:** When a VP approves an In Review evaluation, the system shall transition the evaluation's state to Approved.
   237	* **AC-COLLAB-003.2:** When an evaluation is Approved, the system shall prevent editing by any user.
   238	
   239	## Feature Behavior & Rules
   240	
   241	The evaluation workflow follows a linear progression: Draft → In Review → Approved. A Manager can only submit an evaluation that is in Draft state. Only a VP can approve an evaluation or return it to Draft. An Approved evaluation is locked — no edits are permitted by any role. If an Approved evaluation requires revision, a VP must return it to Draft first. The Admin role has no participation in the evaluation workflow.
   242	
   243	## Export & Import
   244	
   245	## Overview
   246	
   247	The Export & Import feature allows evaluation data to be moved in and out of the platform in formats suited for different purposes. Markdown export supports submission to the University of Waterloo's official co-op portal. JSON export and import support migration from the previous tool and structured data sharing.
   248	
   249	## Terminology
   250	
   251	* **Markdown Export**: An export of evaluation content formatted as Markdown, structured to match the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation form for use in the official portal.
   252	
   253	## Requirements
   254	
   255	### REQ-EXPORT-001: Export Evaluation as Markdown
   256	
   257	**User Story:** As a Manager, I want to export an evaluation as Markdown, so that I can use it to complete the official UW co-op evaluation form.
   258	
   259	**Acceptance Criteria:**
   260	
   261	* **AC-EXPORT-001.1:** When a Manager exports an evaluation as Markdown, the system shall generate a Markdown-formatted file containing all evaluation fields and their values.
   262	* **AC-EXPORT-001.2:** When generating the Markdown export, the system shall structure the output to match the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation form format.
   263	
   264	## Feature Behavior & Rules
   265	
   266	Export is available on any evaluation regardless of its current workflow state. Import always creates a new Draft evaluation — it never overwrites an existing record. The Markdown export format corresponds to the University of Waterloo co-op evaluation portal structure. JSON export and import use the same schema, ensuring that a file exported from this platform can be re-imported without modification.
   267

{
  "answers": {
    "db_target": {
      "answers": [
        "SQLite only"
      ]
    },
    "employee_access": {
      "answers": [
        "No login v1 (Recommended)"
      ]
    },
    "admin_model": {
      "answers": [
        "VP only (Recommended)"
      ]
    }
  }
}

<proposed_plan>

Build-Ready Architecture Revision Plan

Summary

Revise docs/Architecture.md from four loose technology notes into a build-ready architecture document for a Django-only HR performance evaluation platform.

The revised architecture should explicitly lock these decisions:

Django server-rendered app using Django ORM, templates, forms, auth, sessions, permissions, and class/function-based views.
SQLite as the only database target for v1, with deployment guidance for persistent volume backups and single-instance operation.
VP, Manager, and Employee as the only business roles; Employees are evaluation subjects only in v1 and do not log in.
Django superusers are technical operators, not a product-facing Admin role.
Dockerized single-service deployment for the Django app, with static files collected into the image or served by the app/container stack.

Holes To Fix

Architecture.md:1 says Django-only but does not define app boundaries, view strategy, forms, templates, static assets, or whether any API surface exists.
Architecture.md:3 mentions Django Groups/Permissions but does not resolve the requirements conflict between “three roles” and “four roles” in Requirements.md:55.
Architecture.md:5 chooses SQLite without constraints: no persistence volume, backup strategy, concurrency warning, migration policy, or production suitability note.
Architecture.md:7 says Dockerized but omits runtime shape: container command, environment variables, static files, migrations, secrets, health checks, and data volume.
The architecture does not cover the core domain model: users, manager-employee assignments, evaluations, workflow state, timestamps, imports, exports, or audit-relevant transitions.
The architecture does not define authorization enforcement points, which is risky because Manager scoping and VP-only workflow actions are central requirements.
Import/export is required but not architected: JSON schema ownership, validation, Markdown rendering, and import-created Draft behavior are missing.
Workflow rules are requirements-only today; architecture should specify they live in model/service methods rather than being scattered across views.

Key Changes

Replace the current architecture doc with sections for:
- System style: Django monolith, server-rendered UI, no React, authenticated session-only access.
- Domain model: User, Profile or role membership, EmployeeProfile/employee subject records, ManagerAssignment, Evaluation, workflow state enum, and optional transition metadata.
- RBAC: one Django Group per business role, exactly one business role per active user, VP manages users and assignments, Manager owns evaluations, Employee has no login access in v1.
- Authorization: enforce permissions in views/forms/querysets and centralize object checks for manager ownership, employee assignment, and VP workflow actions.
- Evaluation workflow: Draft, In Review, Approved; transitions through explicit domain methods that validate actor role and current state.
- Persistence: SQLite database file stored on a mounted Docker volume; migrations are mandatory; backup/restore procedure documented; single-instance deployment assumed.
- Import/export: JSON import creates a new Draft evaluation for the current Manager and assigned Employee; Markdown export renders from stored evaluation fields for any accessible evaluation.
- Deployment: Docker image, env vars, collectstatic, migrations on deploy, persistent volume for SQLite/media, and health/readiness endpoint.

Implementation Guidance

Use Django’s built-in User, Group, Permission, login/logout/session machinery, and admin for technical maintenance.
Do not expose REST APIs unless needed later; all v1 user workflows should be normal Django views and forms.
Store evaluation content in structured model fields if the UW form is stable; use a JSON field only for form sections that are likely to change or are imported from the legacy tool.
Keep workflow transitions out of templates and thin views; implement them as model/service-layer methods such as submit, return to draft, and approve.
Make all list/detail querysets role-aware:
- VP sees all evaluations.
- Manager sees only evaluations they created.
- Employee sees nothing in v1 because Employee login is out of scope.
Use SQLite deliberately:
- one app container writing to one database file;
- no horizontal scaling;
- database file on durable volume;
- regular file-level backups;
- documented future migration path to PostgreSQL if concurrency or availability needs grow.

Test Plan

Unit tests for role assignment rules, exactly-one-role enforcement, and VP self-deactivation prevention.
Authorization tests for Manager list/detail scoping, unassigned Employee evaluation creation denial, VP global visibility, and unauthorized workflow actions.
Workflow tests for valid and invalid Draft → In Review → Approved transitions, including return to Draft.
Import/export tests for JSON round trip, import-as-new-Draft behavior, malformed JSON rejection, and Markdown output containing all required fields.
Deployment checks for Docker build, migrations, static files, SQLite volume persistence, and basic authenticated route protection.

Assumptions

SQLite remains the v1 deployment database by user choice.
Employee users do not log in for v1; “Employee” means the co-op student subject of an evaluation.
There is no separate product Admin role; VP handles business administration, while Django superusers are technical operators.
This repo is currently docs-only, so the immediate improvement is to rewrite docs/Architecture.md into the build-ready architecture above. </proposed_plan>

Implement the plan.

I’ll turn the proposed architecture into the actual docs/Architecture.md now, keeping it build-oriented and aligned with the choices you locked: Django-only, SQLite v1, VP-only business admin, and no Employee login in v1.

>sed -n '1,260p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: df1b5e
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 59
Output:
This app will be Django-only (Django ORM and Templating, no React frontend)

For RBAC, we will use the Django Groups as roles and Permissions.

This app will be using SQLite as its database.

This app will be Dockerized for deployment.

I’m replacing the placeholder notes with a full architecture document that names the domain model, authorization checks, workflow rules, import/export approach, deployment shape, and test expectations.

The architecture rewrite is in place. I’ll do a quick read-through for formatting and consistency, then check the diff so I can catch any accidental ambiguity before wrapping up.

>sed -n '1,320p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: c9fca3
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 2335
Output:
# HR Performance Evaluation Platform - Architecture

## Overview

The platform is a Django monolith for managing University of Waterloo co-op
performance evaluations. It uses Django's ORM, templates, forms, auth,
sessions, groups, permissions, migrations, and static file handling. There is no
React frontend and no separate API application in v1.

The v1 deployment target is a single Dockerized Django service backed by SQLite.
SQLite is an intentional v1 choice for a small internal workflow application.
The deployment must run as a single app instance with the database file stored
on durable mounted storage.

## Application Shape

The app should be built as a server-rendered Django application:

- Django views render HTML templates and process standard Django forms.
- All routes require an authenticated session unless they are part of login,
  logout, password reset, or static asset delivery.
- Form submissions use Django CSRF protection.
- There is no public REST API in v1. JSON import/export are file operations
  exposed through authenticated views.
- Business rules live in model methods, form validation, queryset scoping, or
  small domain services rather than in templates.

Suggested Django apps:

- `accounts`: user profile, role helpers, user management, and manager-employee
  assignment.
- `evaluations`: evaluation records, UW form fields, workflow transitions, and
  import/export.
- `core`: shared layout, dashboard routing, health check, and common utilities.

This split is not mandatory, but the implementation should preserve the same
ownership boundaries.

## Roles And Authorization

The only product-facing business roles in v1 are:

- `VP`: manages users, assigns Employees to Managers, sees all evaluations, and
  performs review/approval workflow actions.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: represents the co-op student being evaluated. Employees do not log
  in or access product workflows in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators for deployment and emergency
maintenance. They are not a product-facing Admin role.

RBAC should use Django `Group` records as business roles and Django
`Permission` records where they are useful for coarse-grained access. Every
active product user must belong to exactly one business role group. The
application must enforce this invariant when VPs create or edit users.

Authorization must be enforced server-side at every access point:

- Managers may list and open only evaluations they created.
- Managers may create evaluations only for Employees assigned to them.
- Managers may edit only their own Draft evaluations.
- VPs may list and open all evaluations.
- VPs may not edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs may approve evaluations or return them to Draft.
- A VP may not deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no login or route access in v1.

Do not rely on template hiding for security. Templates may hide unavailable
actions for usability, but views, forms, and querysets must perform the actual
checks.

## Domain Model

Use Django's built-in `User` model unless there is a concrete reason to replace
it before the first migration. Add profile or related domain models for
business-specific data.

Core records:

- `User`: Django auth user for VPs and Managers.
- `Employee`: co-op student subject of an evaluation. This may be a separate
  model instead of an auth user because Employees do not log in in v1.
- `ManagerAssignment`: records that a Manager is allowed to evaluate a specific
  Employee.
- `Evaluation`: stores the Manager owner, Employee subject, UW form fields,
  workflow state, timestamps, and optional workflow metadata.

Evaluation ownership belongs to the Manager who created the record. Removing a
ManagerAssignment prevents new evaluations for that Employee, but does not
change ownership of existing evaluations.

The UW evaluation form should be represented as structured database fields when
the fields are stable. If parts of the legacy JSON payload are variable, use a
validated JSON field for those variable sections and keep stable metadata such
as owner, employee, workflow state, and timestamps as normal relational fields.

Recommended `Evaluation` metadata:

- `manager`
- `employee`
- `state`
- `created_at`
- `updated_at`
- `submitted_at`
- `approved_at`
- `approved_by`
- `returned_at`
- `returned_by`

## Workflow

The evaluation workflow states are:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Valid transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft` evaluation: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns an `In Review` evaluation: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves an `In Review` evaluation: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

An `Approved` evaluation is locked. No user may edit its content. If revision is
needed after approval, a VP must first return it to `Draft` through an explicit
workflow action.

Workflow transitions should be implemented through explicit methods or a small
service layer, not by directly assigning state from arbitrary views. Transition
code must validate:

- actor role;
- current state;
- evaluation ownership when the actor is a Manager;
- required timestamps and reviewer fields.

## Import And Export

Markdown export and JSON import/export are authenticated file operations.

Markdown export:

- Available to any user who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all stored evaluation fields and values.
- Uses a deterministic renderer that matches the UW co-op evaluation portal
  structure.
- Does not mutate the evaluation or advance workflow state.

JSON export:

- Available to any user who can view the evaluation.
- Uses the same schema accepted by JSON import.
- Includes evaluation content, but should not grant access or preserve original
  workflow state when imported.

JSON import:

- Available to Managers.
- Always creates a new `Draft` evaluation.
- Never overwrites an existing evaluation.
- Requires the selected Employee to be currently assigned to the importing
  Manager.
- Validates the payload before creating the record and reports malformed or
  unsupported files as form errors.

The import/export schema should be versioned so future UW form changes can be
handled without guessing which shape a file uses.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database for local development and deployment.

Deployment requirements:

- The SQLite database file must live on a durable mounted volume, not inside an
  ephemeral container filesystem.
- The app must run as a single writer instance. Do not horizontally scale the
  Django container while using SQLite.
- Database migrations are the only supported schema change mechanism.
- Backups must copy the SQLite database file from the mounted volume while the
  app is stopped or by using SQLite's backup-safe tooling.
- The deployment docs should include restore instructions before production use.

If usage grows beyond SQLite's practical limits, migrate to PostgreSQL. Signals
for that migration include frequent write contention, need for horizontal app
scaling, stricter availability requirements, or managed backup/restore needs.

## Docker Deployment

The Docker deployment should package the Django app and run it with production
settings supplied by environment variables.

Required configuration:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- database file path on the mounted SQLite volume
- static files path or storage configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when deployed behind HTTPS or a reverse proxy

Container startup should:

- apply database migrations;
- collect static files during build or release;
- start the Django app through a production WSGI/ASGI server;
- expose a health check route that does not require authentication and does not
  reveal sensitive data.

The Docker setup must mount persistent storage for the SQLite database and any
uploaded import files if uploads are retained. If uploaded files are processed
immediately and discarded, they do not need durable storage.

## Security And Operational Notes

- Password storage uses Django's built-in password hashing.
- Sessions use Django's session framework with secure cookie settings in
  production.
- CSRF protection remains enabled for all form submissions.
- User deactivation sets `is_active=false` and prevents login.
- Audit-relevant fields should be recorded for submission, approval, return to
  Draft, and user deactivation.
- Server logs must not include evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

## Test Strategy

The build should include tests for:

- login, logout, inactive users, and session-required routes;
- exactly-one-business-role enforcement;
- VP user management and self-deactivation prevention;
- Manager queryset scoping for evaluation lists and details;
- assigned Employee enforcement during create and import;
- valid and invalid workflow transitions;
- edit locking outside Draft state;
- VP visibility without content edit permission;
- Markdown export content and access checks;
- JSON export/import round trip;
- malformed JSON import errors;
- Docker build and migration startup path.

These tests are part of the architecture because the highest-risk behavior is
authorization and workflow enforcement. Those rules should be proven at the
view/form/service layer, not just by model unit tests.

>git diff -- docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 9fc73c
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 129
Original token count: 1846
Output:
warning: Not a git repository. Use --no-index to compare two paths outside a working tree
usage: git diff --no-index [<options>] <path> <path> [<pathspec>...]

Diff output format options
    -p, --patch           generate patch
    -s, --no-patch        suppress diff output
    -u                    generate patch
    -U, --unified[=<n>]   generate diffs with <n> lines context
    -W, --[no-]function-context
                          generate diffs with <n> lines context
    --raw                 generate the diff in raw format
    --patch-with-raw      synonym for '-p --raw'
    --patch-with-stat     synonym for '-p --stat'
    --numstat             machine friendly --stat
    --shortstat           output only the last line of --stat
    -X, --dirstat[=<param1>,<param2>...]
                          output the distribution of relative amount of changes for each sub-directory
    --cumulative          synonym for --dirstat=cumulative
    --dirstat-by-file[=<param1>,<param2>...]
                          synonym for --dirstat=files,<param1>,<param2>...
    --check               warn if changes introduce conflict markers or whitespace errors
    --summary             condensed summary such as creations, renames and mode changes
    --name-only           show only names of changed files
    --name-status         show only names and status of changed files
    --stat[=<width>[,<name-width>[,<count>]]]
                          generate diffstat
    --stat-width <width>  generate diffstat with a given width
    --stat-name-width <width>
                          generate diffstat with a given name width
    --stat-graph-width <width>
                          generate diffstat with a given graph width
    --stat-count <count>  generate diffstat with limited lines
    --[no-]compact-summary
                          generate compact summary in diffstat
    --binary              output a binary diff that can be applied
    --[no-]full-index     show full pre- and post-image object names on the "index" lines
    --[no-]color[=<when>] show colored diff
    --ws-error-highlight <kind>
                          highlight whitespace errors in the 'context', 'old' or 'new' lines in the diff
    -z                    do not munge pathnames and use NULs as output field terminators in --raw or --numstat
    --[no-]abbrev[=<n>]   use <n> digits to display object names
    --src-prefix <prefix> show the given source prefix instead of "a/"
    --dst-prefix <prefix> show the given destination prefix instead of "b/"
    --line-prefix <prefix>
                          prepend an additional prefix to every line of output
    --no-prefix           do not show any source or destination prefix
    --default-prefix      use default prefixes a/ and b/
    --inter-hunk-context <n>
                          show context between diff hunks up to the specified number of lines
    --output-indicator-new <char>
                          specify the character to indicate a new line instead of '+'
    --output-indicator-old <char>
                          specify the character to indicate an old line instead of '-'
    --output-indicator-context <char>
                          specify the character to indicate a context instead of ' '

Diff rename options
    -B, --break-rewrites[=<n>[/<m>]]
                          break complete rewrite changes into pairs of delete and create
    -M, --find-renames[=<n>]
                          detect renames
    -D, --irreversible-delete
                          omit the preimage for deletes
    -C, --find-copies[=<n>]
                          detect copies
    --[no-]find-copies-harder
                          use unmodified files as source to find copies
    --no-renames          disable rename detection
    --[no-]rename-empty   use empty blobs as rename source
    --[no-]follow         continue listing the history of a file beyond renames
    -l <n>                prevent rename/copy detection if the number of rename/copy targets exceeds given limit

Diff algorithm options
    --minimal             produce the smallest possible diff
    -w, --ignore-all-space
                          ignore whitespace when comparing lines
    -b, --ignore-space-change
                          ignore changes in amount of whitespace
    --ignore-space-at-eol ignore changes in whitespace at EOL
    --ignore-cr-at-eol    ignore carrier-return at the end of line
    --ignore-blank-lines  ignore changes whose lines are all blank
    -I, --[no-]ignore-matching-lines <regex>
                          ignore changes whose all lines match <regex>
    --[no-]indent-heuristic
                          heuristic to shift diff hunk boundaries for easy reading
    --patience            generate diff using the "patience diff" algorithm
    --histogram           generate diff using the "histogram diff" algorithm
    --diff-algorithm <algorithm>
                          choose a diff algorithm
    --anchored <text>     generate diff using the "anchored diff" algorithm
    --word-diff[=<mode>]  show word diff, using <mode> to delimit changed words
    --word-diff-regex <regex>
                          use <regex> to decide what a word is
    --color-words[=<regex>]
                          equivalent to --word-diff=color --word-diff-regex=<regex>
    --[no-]color-moved[=<mode>]
                          moved lines of code are colored differently
    --[no-]color-moved-ws <mode>
                          how white spaces are ignored in --color-moved

Other diff options
    --[no-]relative[=<prefix>]
                          when run from subdir, exclude changes outside and show relative paths
    -a, --[no-]text       treat all files as text
    -R                    swap two inputs, reverse the diff
    --[no-]exit-code      exit with 1 if there were differences, 0 otherwise
    --[no-]quiet          disable all output of the program
    --[no-]ext-diff       allow an external diff helper to be executed
    --[no-]textconv       run external text conversion filters when comparing binary files
    --ignore-submodules[=<when>]
                          ignore changes to submodules in the diff generation
    --submodule[=<format>]
                          specify how differences in submodules are shown
    --ita-invisible-in-index
                          hide 'git add -N' entries from the index
    --ita-visible-in-index
                          treat 'git add -N' entries as real in the index
    -S <string>           look for differences that change the number of occurrences of the specified string
    -G <regex>            look for differences that change the number of occurrences of the specified regex
    --pickaxe-all         show all changes in the changeset with -S or -G
    --pickaxe-regex       treat <string> in -S as extended POSIX regular expression
    -O <file>             control the order in which files appear in the output
    --rotate-to <path>    show the change in the specified path first
    --skip-to <path>      skip the output to the specified path
    --find-object <object-id>
                          look for differences that change the number of occurrences of the specified object
    --diff-filter [(A|C|D|M|R|T|U|X|B)...[*]]
                          select files by diff type
    --output <file>       output to a specific file

Implemented the architecture rewrite in docs/Architecture.md.

It now covers the build-critical gaps: Django monolith shape, role model, Employee-as-subject v1 decision, server-side authorization, domain model, workflow transitions, import/export behavior, SQLite deployment constraints, Docker runtime expectations, security notes, and test strategy.

Verification: read the updated file end to end. git diff was not available because this directory is not a git repository.

remove the 3-app structure, we want to keep this as one simple Django app

I’ll adjust the architecture doc to remove the suggested multi-app split and make the intended implementation a single simple Django app.

>rg -n "Suggested Django apps|accounts|evaluations|core|ownership boundaries|Django apps|app" docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: c33654
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 505
Output:
6:performance evaluations. It uses Django's ORM, templates, forms, auth,
8:React frontend and no separate API application in v1.
11:SQLite is an intentional v1 choice for a small internal workflow application.
12:The deployment must run as a single app instance with the database file stored
17:The app should be built as a server-rendered Django application:
28:Suggested Django apps:
30:- `accounts`: user profile, role helpers, user management, and manager-employee
32:- `evaluations`: evaluation records, UW form fields, workflow transitions, and
34:- `core`: shared layout, dashboard routing, health check, and common utilities.
37:ownership boundaries.
43:- `VP`: manages users, assigns Employees to Managers, sees all evaluations, and
44:  performs review/approval workflow actions.
46:  evaluations for assigned Employees.
56:application must enforce this invariant when VPs create or edit users.
60:- Managers may list and open only evaluations they created.
61:- Managers may create evaluations only for Employees assigned to them.
62:- Managers may edit only their own Draft evaluations.
63:- VPs may list and open all evaluations.
65:- Only VPs may approve evaluations or return them to Draft.
90:ManagerAssignment prevents new evaluations for that Employee, but does not
91:change ownership of existing evaluations.
106:- `approved_at`
107:- `approved_by`
123:- VP approves an `In Review` evaluation: `In Review` -> `Approved`.
126:needed after approval, a VP must first return it to `Draft` through an explicit
178:- The app must run as a single writer instance. Do not horizontally scale the
182:  app is stopped or by using SQLite's backup-safe tooling.
186:for that migration include frequent write contention, need for horizontal app
191:The Docker deployment should package the Django app and run it with production
205:- apply database migrations;
207:- start the Django app through a production WSGI/ASGI server;
222:- Audit-relevant fields should be recorded for submission, approval, return to

The only place that still pushes a three-app layout is the “Suggested Django apps” subsection. I’m replacing that with a single-app structure and keeping the internal module boundaries lightweight.

The doc now says to use a single Django app. I’ll quickly scan the affected section to make sure it doesn’t still imply separate apps elsewhere.

>sed -n '15,55p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: df44ee
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 458
Output:
## Application Shape

The app should be built as a server-rendered Django application:

- Django views render HTML templates and process standard Django forms.
- All routes require an authenticated session unless they are part of login,
  logout, password reset, or static asset delivery.
- Form submissions use Django CSRF protection.
- There is no public REST API in v1. JSON import/export are file operations
  exposed through authenticated views.
- Business rules live in model methods, form validation, queryset scoping, or
  small domain services rather than in templates.

Use one Django project app for the v1 product rather than splitting the domain
across multiple Django apps. Keep the code simple, but separate concerns inside
that app with conventional modules:

- `models.py` for users' business profile data, Employees, ManagerAssignments,
  and Evaluations.
- `forms.py` for login-adjacent user management, assignments, evaluations, and
  import validation.
- `views.py` for authenticated page handlers and workflow actions.
- `services.py` or focused helper modules for workflow transitions and
  import/export logic when that logic would otherwise make views or forms hard
  to read.
- `templates/` and `static/` for the server-rendered UI.

## Roles And Authorization

The only product-facing business roles in v1 are:

- `VP`: manages users, assigns Employees to Managers, sees all evaluations, and
  performs review/approval workflow actions.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: represents the co-op student being evaluated. Employees do not log
  in or access product workflows in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators for deployment and emergency
maintenance. They are not a product-facing Admin role.

>rg -n "Suggested Django apps|accounts|evaluations|core|multiple Django apps|single Django app|one Django project app" docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 630551
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 217
Output:
6:performance evaluations. It uses Django's ORM, templates, forms, auth,
28:Use one Django project app for the v1 product rather than splitting the domain
29:across multiple Django apps. Keep the code simple, but separate concerns inside
34:- `forms.py` for login-adjacent user management, assignments, evaluations, and
46:- `VP`: manages users, assigns Employees to Managers, sees all evaluations, and
49:  evaluations for assigned Employees.
63:- Managers may list and open only evaluations they created.
64:- Managers may create evaluations only for Employees assigned to them.
65:- Managers may edit only their own Draft evaluations.
66:- VPs may list and open all evaluations.
68:- Only VPs may approve evaluations or return them to Draft.
93:ManagerAssignment prevents new evaluations for that Employee, but does not
94:change ownership of existing evaluations.

Updated docs/Architecture.md to remove the three-app structure.

It now specifies one simple Django project app for v1, with separation handled through normal modules like models.py, forms.py, views.py, optional services.py, templates/, and static/.

can you please remove the fluff and unnecessary details from docs/Architecture.md

I’ll tighten the architecture doc into a lean build guide: keep decisions and constraints, remove explanatory padding, and avoid repeating the requirements doc.

>sed -n '1,280p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: ba632b
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 1697
Output:
# HR Performance Evaluation Platform - Architecture

## Overview

The platform is a Django monolith for managing University of Waterloo co-op
performance evaluations. It uses Django's ORM, templates, forms, auth,
sessions, groups, permissions, migrations, and static file handling. There is no
React frontend and no separate API application in v1.

The v1 deployment target is a single Dockerized Django service backed by SQLite.
SQLite is an intentional v1 choice for a small internal workflow application.
The deployment must run as a single app instance with the database file stored
on durable mounted storage.

## Application Shape

The app should be built as a server-rendered Django application:

- Django views render HTML templates and process standard Django forms.
- All routes require an authenticated session unless they are part of login,
  logout, password reset, or static asset delivery.
- Form submissions use Django CSRF protection.
- There is no public REST API in v1. JSON import/export are file operations
  exposed through authenticated views.
- Business rules live in model methods, form validation, queryset scoping, or
  small domain services rather than in templates.

Use one Django project app for the v1 product rather than splitting the domain
across multiple Django apps. Keep the code simple, but separate concerns inside
that app with conventional modules:

- `models.py` for users' business profile data, Employees, ManagerAssignments,
  and Evaluations.
- `forms.py` for login-adjacent user management, assignments, evaluations, and
  import validation.
- `views.py` for authenticated page handlers and workflow actions.
- `services.py` or focused helper modules for workflow transitions and
  import/export logic when that logic would otherwise make views or forms hard
  to read.
- `templates/` and `static/` for the server-rendered UI.

## Roles And Authorization

The only product-facing business roles in v1 are:

- `VP`: manages users, assigns Employees to Managers, sees all evaluations, and
  performs review/approval workflow actions.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: represents the co-op student being evaluated. Employees do not log
  in or access product workflows in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators for deployment and emergency
maintenance. They are not a product-facing Admin role.

RBAC should use Django `Group` records as business roles and Django
`Permission` records where they are useful for coarse-grained access. Every
active product user must belong to exactly one business role group. The
application must enforce this invariant when VPs create or edit users.

Authorization must be enforced server-side at every access point:

- Managers may list and open only evaluations they created.
- Managers may create evaluations only for Employees assigned to them.
- Managers may edit only their own Draft evaluations.
- VPs may list and open all evaluations.
- VPs may not edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs may approve evaluations or return them to Draft.
- A VP may not deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no login or route access in v1.

Do not rely on template hiding for security. Templates may hide unavailable
actions for usability, but views, forms, and querysets must perform the actual
checks.


## Workflow

The evaluation workflow states are:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Valid transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft` evaluation: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns an `In Review` evaluation: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves an `In Review` evaluation: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

An `Approved` evaluation is locked. No user may edit its content. If revision is
needed after approval, a VP must first return it to `Draft` through an explicit
workflow action.

Workflow transitions should be implemented through explicit methods or a small
service layer, not by directly assigning state from arbitrary views. Transition
code must validate:

- actor role;
- current state;
- evaluation ownership when the actor is a Manager;
- required timestamps and reviewer fields.

## Import And Export

Markdown export and JSON import/export are authenticated file operations.

Markdown export:

- Available to any user who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all stored evaluation fields and values.
- Uses a deterministic renderer that matches the UW co-op evaluation portal
  structure.
- Does not mutate the evaluation or advance workflow state.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database for local development and deployment.

Deployment requirements:

- The SQLite database file must live on a durable mounted volume, not inside an
  ephemeral container filesystem.
- The app must run as a single writer instance. Do not horizontally scale the
  Django container while using SQLite.
- Database migrations are the only supported schema change mechanism.
- Backups must copy the SQLite database file from the mounted volume while the
  app is stopped or by using SQLite's backup-safe tooling.
- The deployment docs should include restore instructions before production use.

If usage grows beyond SQLite's practical limits, migrate to PostgreSQL. Signals
for that migration include frequent write contention, need for horizontal app
scaling, stricter availability requirements, or managed backup/restore needs.

## Docker Deployment

The Docker deployment should package the Django app and run it with production
settings supplied by environment variables.

Required configuration:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- database file path on the mounted SQLite volume
- static files path or storage configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when deployed behind HTTPS or a reverse proxy

Container startup should:

- apply database migrations;
- collect static files during build or release;
- start the Django app through a production WSGI/ASGI server;
- expose a health check route that does not require authentication and does not
  reveal sensitive data.

The Docker setup must mount persistent storage for the SQLite database and any
uploaded import files if uploads are retained. If uploaded files are processed
immediately and discarded, they do not need durable storage.

## Security And Operational Notes

- Password storage uses Django's built-in password hashing.
- Sessions use Django's session framework with secure cookie settings in
  production.
- CSRF protection remains enabled for all form submissions.
- User deactivation sets `is_active=false` and prevents login.
- Audit-relevant fields should be recorded for submission, approval, return to
  Draft, and user deactivation.
- Server logs must not include evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

I’m going to replace the verbose sections with a shorter decision record. It will keep the architecture choices needed to build, but drop rationale and repeated acceptance criteria.

The doc is now condensed. I’ll scan it once to make sure the important build constraints survived and the wording is still direct.

>sed -n '1,240p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 1f7262
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 1096
Output:
# HR Performance Evaluation Platform - Architecture

## Stack

- Django monolith.
- Django ORM, templates, forms, auth, sessions, groups, permissions, and
  migrations.
- One Django project app for v1.
- No React.
- No public REST API in v1.
- SQLite for local development and deployment.
- Dockerized single-instance deployment.

## App Structure

Keep the app simple:

- `models.py`: Employees, ManagerAssignments, Evaluations, and profile data if
  needed.
- `forms.py`: user management, assignments, evaluations, and import validation.
- `views.py`: authenticated pages and workflow actions.
- `services.py`: workflow transitions and import/export logic if views become
  too large.
- `templates/` and `static/`: server-rendered UI.

## Roles

Business roles:

- `VP`: manages users and assignments; views all evaluations; approves or
  returns evaluations.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: evaluation subject only; no login in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators, not a product Admin role.

Use Django `Group` records for roles. Each active product user must have exactly
one business role.

## Authorization

Enforce authorization in views, forms, and querysets, not only in templates.

- All product routes require login.
- Managers see only evaluations they created.
- Managers create evaluations only for assigned Employees.
- Managers edit only their own `Draft` evaluations.
- VPs see all evaluations.
- VPs cannot edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs approve or return evaluations.
- VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no route access in v1.

## Core Models

- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated.
- `ManagerAssignment`: Manager-to-Employee assignment.
- `Evaluation`: Manager owner, Employee subject, UW form data, workflow state,
  timestamps, and reviewer metadata.

Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee. It
does not change ownership of existing evaluations.

Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields. Use a validated JSON field
only for form sections that are expected to change.

## Workflow

States:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft`: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

`Approved` evaluations are locked. Workflow state changes should go through
explicit methods or service functions that validate actor role, current state,
ownership, and timestamps.

## Import And Export

Markdown export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all evaluation fields.
- Does not change workflow state.

JSON export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Uses the same schema accepted by JSON import.

JSON import:

- Manager-only.
- Always creates a new `Draft` evaluation.
- Never overwrites an existing evaluation.
- Requires the selected Employee to be assigned to the importing Manager.
- Validates schema before saving.

Version the JSON schema.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database.

- Store the SQLite file on a mounted Docker volume.
- Run one app instance while using SQLite.
- Use Django migrations for all schema changes.
- Back up the SQLite database from the mounted volume.
- Move to PostgreSQL if write contention, horizontal scaling, or managed
  availability becomes necessary.

## Docker

Required environment:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- SQLite database path
- static files configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when behind HTTPS or a proxy

Container startup should run migrations, serve collected static files, and start
Django with a production WSGI/ASGI server.

## Security

- Use Django password hashing.
- Keep CSRF enabled.
- Set secure session/cookie settings in production.
- Deactivation sets `is_active=false`.
- Do not log evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

## Tests

Cover:

- login, logout, inactive users, and session-required routes;
- exactly-one-role enforcement;
- VP user management and self-deactivation prevention;
- Manager scoping and assignment checks;
- workflow transitions and edit locking;
- Markdown export access/content;
- JSON import/export round trip and malformed JSON handling;
- Docker build and migration startup.

Trimmed docs/Architecture.md down into a concise build-oriented architecture doc.

It keeps the key decisions: single Django app, role model, authorization rules, core models, workflow, import/export, SQLite/Docker constraints, security basics, and test coverage. Removed the longer rationale and repeated requirement-style detail.

Set up git repository and Agentic Engineering structures (i.e. AGENTS.md and .skills if needed) for a Dockerized Django app with SQLite as the backend. One thing to note, always consult, and if needed update, docs/Architecture.md

I’ll read the current architecture and repo state first, then initialize git and add the agent-facing project instructions around the Django/SQLite/Docker direction.

>sed -n '1,240p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: e32a4c
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 1096
Output:
# HR Performance Evaluation Platform - Architecture

## Stack

- Django monolith.
- Django ORM, templates, forms, auth, sessions, groups, permissions, and
  migrations.
- One Django project app for v1.
- No React.
- No public REST API in v1.
- SQLite for local development and deployment.
- Dockerized single-instance deployment.

## App Structure

Keep the app simple:

- `models.py`: Employees, ManagerAssignments, Evaluations, and profile data if
  needed.
- `forms.py`: user management, assignments, evaluations, and import validation.
- `views.py`: authenticated pages and workflow actions.
- `services.py`: workflow transitions and import/export logic if views become
  too large.
- `templates/` and `static/`: server-rendered UI.

## Roles

Business roles:

- `VP`: manages users and assignments; views all evaluations; approves or
  returns evaluations.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: evaluation subject only; no login in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators, not a product Admin role.

Use Django `Group` records for roles. Each active product user must have exactly
one business role.

## Authorization

Enforce authorization in views, forms, and querysets, not only in templates.

- All product routes require login.
- Managers see only evaluations they created.
- Managers create evaluations only for assigned Employees.
- Managers edit only their own `Draft` evaluations.
- VPs see all evaluations.
- VPs cannot edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs approve or return evaluations.
- VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no route access in v1.

## Core Models

- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated.
- `ManagerAssignment`: Manager-to-Employee assignment.
- `Evaluation`: Manager owner, Employee subject, UW form data, workflow state,
  timestamps, and reviewer metadata.

Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee. It
does not change ownership of existing evaluations.

Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields. Use a validated JSON field
only for form sections that are expected to change.

## Workflow

States:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft`: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

`Approved` evaluations are locked. Workflow state changes should go through
explicit methods or service functions that validate actor role, current state,
ownership, and timestamps.

## Import And Export

Markdown export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all evaluation fields.
- Does not change workflow state.

JSON export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Uses the same schema accepted by JSON import.

JSON import:

- Manager-only.
- Always creates a new `Draft` evaluation.
- Never overwrites an existing evaluation.
- Requires the selected Employee to be assigned to the importing Manager.
- Validates schema before saving.

Version the JSON schema.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database.

- Store the SQLite file on a mounted Docker volume.
- Run one app instance while using SQLite.
- Use Django migrations for all schema changes.
- Back up the SQLite database from the mounted volume.
- Move to PostgreSQL if write contention, horizontal scaling, or managed
  availability becomes necessary.

## Docker

Required environment:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- SQLite database path
- static files configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when behind HTTPS or a proxy

Container startup should run migrations, serve collected static files, and start
Django with a production WSGI/ASGI server.

## Security

- Use Django password hashing.
- Keep CSRF enabled.
- Set secure session/cookie settings in production.
- Deactivation sets `is_active=false`.
- Do not log evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

## Tests

Cover:

- login, logout, inactive users, and session-required routes;
- exactly-one-role enforcement;
- VP user management and self-deactivation prevention;
- Manager scoping and assignment checks;
- workflow transitions and edit locking;
- Markdown export access/content;
- JSON import/export round trip and malformed JSON handling;
- Docker build and migration startup.

>ls -la

Chunk ID: b09e99
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 40
Output:
total 0
drwxr-xr-x@  3 sahand  staff   96 May 20 12:37 .
drwxr-xr-x@ 26 sahand  staff  832 May 20 11:49 ..
drwxr-xr-x@  4 sahand  staff  128 May 20 14:33 docs

The repo is docs-only right now, and docs/Architecture.md already matches the requested stack. I’m going to initialize git, add a Django/Docker/SQLite .gitignore, and create AGENTS.md with the project rules, including the requirement to consult architecture before changes.

>git init

Chunk ID: 9d021d
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 1
Original token count: 23
Output:
/Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platform/.git: Operation not permitted

Request interrupted by user

use this as the repo: https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval

Understood. I’ll treat https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval as the Git remote for this working directory. I’ll first check whether that remote already has history, then initialize this directory and wire origin to it.

>git ls-remote https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval

Chunk ID: bd229a
Wall time: 0.1147 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 26
Output:
cfd3f9a9324aebe8f7e29ae6a07d2b3e8ce44181	HEAD
cfd3f9a9324aebe8f7e29ae6a07d2b3e8ce44181	refs/heads/main

The GitHub repo exists and has a main branch. I’m going to initialize this directory as a git repo, add that URL as origin, and fetch origin/main so we can see how the local docs relate to the remote history.

>git init

Chunk ID: f476fd
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 26
Output:
Initialized empty Git repository in /Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platform/.git/

>git remote add origin https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval

Chunk ID: 8134b1
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 128
Original token count: 42
Output:
error: could not lock config file .git/config: Operation not permitted
fatal: could not set 'remote.origin.url' to 'https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval'

The repo initialized, but updating .git/config is blocked by the sandbox, so I’m rerunning the remote setup with approval.

>git fetch origin main

Chunk ID: c695e9
Wall time: 0.1981 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 37
Output:
From https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval
 * branch            main       -> FETCH_HEAD
 * [new branch]      main       -> origin/main

origin/main is fetched. I’ll inspect the remote file list before adding agent structures so I don’t accidentally contradict existing repo content.

>git remote -v

Chunk ID: ed5106
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 32
Output:
origin	https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval (fetch)
origin	https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval (push)

The remote currently only has .gitignore and LICENSE. I’m going to put this working tree on main tracking origin/main, then add the local docs and agent guidance on top.

>git checkout -b main origin/main

Chunk ID: 9b8a4a
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 20
Output:
Switched to a new branch 'main'
branch 'main' set up to track 'origin/main'.

>find . -maxdepth 3 -type f -not -path './.git/*' -print

Chunk ID: 1c884d
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 18
Output:
./LICENSE
./docs/Requirements.md
./docs/Architecture.md
./.gitignore

>sed -n '1,200p' .gitignore

Chunk ID: 2a4380
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 1082
Output:
# Byte-compiled / optimized / DLL files
__pycache__/
*.py[codz]
*$py.class

# C extensions
*.so

# Distribution / packaging
.Python
build/
develop-eggs/
dist/
downloads/
eggs/
.eggs/
lib/
lib64/
parts/
sdist/
var/
wheels/
share/python-wheels/
*.egg-info/
.installed.cfg
*.egg
MANIFEST

# PyInstaller
#   Usually these files are written by a python script from a template
#   before PyInstaller builds the exe, so as to inject date/other infos into it.
*.manifest
*.spec

# Installer logs
pip-log.txt
pip-delete-this-directory.txt

# Unit test / coverage reports
htmlcov/
.tox/
.nox/
.coverage
.coverage.*
.cache
nosetests.xml
coverage.xml
*.cover
*.py.cover
.hypothesis/
.pytest_cache/
cover/

# Translations
*.mo
*.pot

# Django stuff:
*.log
local_settings.py
db.sqlite3
db.sqlite3-journal

# Flask stuff:
instance/
.webassets-cache

# Scrapy stuff:
.scrapy

# Sphinx documentation
docs/_build/

# PyBuilder
.pybuilder/
target/

# Jupyter Notebook
.ipynb_checkpoints

# IPython
profile_default/
ipython_config.py

# pyenv
#   For a library or package, you might want to ignore these files since the code is
#   intended to run in multiple environments; otherwise, check them in:
# .python-version

# pipenv
#   According to pypa/pipenv#598, it is recommended to include Pipfile.lock in version control.
#   However, in case of collaboration, if having platform-specific dependencies or dependencies
#   having no cross-platform support, pipenv may install dependencies that don't work, or not
#   install all needed dependencies.
# Pipfile.lock

# UV
#   Similar to Pipfile.lock, it is generally recommended to include uv.lock in version control.
#   This is especially recommended for binary packages to ensure reproducibility, and is more
#   commonly ignored for libraries.
# uv.lock

# poetry
#   Similar to Pipfile.lock, it is generally recommended to include poetry.lock in version control.
#   This is especially recommended for binary packages to ensure reproducibility, and is more
#   commonly ignored for libraries.
#   https://python-poetry.org/docs/basic-usage/#commit-your-poetrylock-file-to-version-control
# poetry.lock
# poetry.toml

# pdm
#   Similar to Pipfile.lock, it is generally recommended to include pdm.lock in version control.
#   pdm recommends including project-wide configuration in pdm.toml, but excluding .pdm-python.
#   https://pdm-project.org/en/latest/usage/project/#working-with-version-control
# pdm.lock
# pdm.toml
.pdm-python
.pdm-build/

# pixi
#   Similar to Pipfile.lock, it is generally recommended to include pixi.lock in version control.
# pixi.lock
#   Pixi creates a virtual environment in the .pixi directory, just like venv module creates one
#   in the .venv directory. It is recommended not to include this directory in version control.
.pixi

# PEP 582; used by e.g. github.com/David-OConnor/pyflow and github.com/pdm-project/pdm
__pypackages__/

# Celery stuff
celerybeat-schedule
celerybeat.pid

# Redis
*.rdb
*.aof
*.pid

# RabbitMQ
mnesia/
rabbitmq/
rabbitmq-data/

# ActiveMQ
activemq-data/

# SageMath parsed files
*.sage.py

# Environments
.env
.envrc
.venv
env/
venv/
ENV/
env.bak/
venv.bak/

# Spyder project settings
.spyderproject
.spyproject

# Rope project settings
.ropeproject

# mkdocs documentation
/site

# mypy
.mypy_cache/
.dmypy.json
dmypy.json

# Pyre type checker
.pyre/

# pytype static type analyzer
.pytype/

# Cython debug symbols
cython_debug/

# PyCharm
#   JetBrains specific template is maintained in a separate JetBrains.gitignore that can
#   be found at https://github.com/github/gitignore/blob/main/Global/JetBrains.gitignore
#   and can be added to the global gitignore or merged into this file.  For a more nuclear
#   option (not recommended) you can uncomment the following to ignore the entire idea folder.
# .idea/

# Abstra
#   Abstra is an AI-powered process automation framework.
#   Ignore directories containing user credentials, local state, and settings.
#   Learn more at https://abstra.io/docs
.abstra/

# Visual Studio Code
#   Visual Studio Code specific template is maintained in a separate VisualStudioCode.gitignore 
#   that can be found at https://github.com/github/gitignore/blob/main/Global/VisualStudioCode.gitignore
#   and can be added to the global gitignore or merged into this file. However, if you prefer,

I’ll use the skill-creator guidance for the project-specific .skills structure so the local skill is minimal and useful instead of decorative.

>sed -n '1,220p' /Users/sahand/.codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md

Chunk ID: 7b9108
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 2744
Output:
---
name: skill-creator
description: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations.
metadata:
  short-description: Create or update a skill
---

# Skill Creator

This skill provides guidance for creating effective skills.

## About Skills

Skills are modular, self-contained folders that extend Codex's capabilities by providing
specialized knowledge, workflows, and tools. Think of them as "onboarding guides" for specific
domains or tasks—they transform Codex from a general-purpose agent into a specialized agent
equipped with procedural knowledge that no model can fully possess.

### What Skills Provide

1. Specialized workflows - Multi-step procedures for specific domains
2. Tool integrations - Instructions for working with specific file formats or APIs
3. Domain expertise - Company-specific knowledge, schemas, business logic
4. Bundled resources - Scripts, references, and assets for complex and repetitive tasks

## Core Principles

### Concise is Key

The context window is a public good. Skills share the context window with everything else Codex needs: system prompt, conversation history, other Skills' metadata, and the actual user request.

**Default assumption: Codex is already very smart.** Only add context Codex doesn't already have. Challenge each piece of information: "Does Codex really need this explanation?" and "Does this paragraph justify its token cost?"

Prefer concise examples over verbose explanations.

### Set Appropriate Degrees of Freedom

Match the level of specificity to the task's fragility and variability:

**High freedom (text-based instructions)**: Use when multiple approaches are valid, decisions depend on context, or heuristics guide the approach.

**Medium freedom (pseudocode or scripts with parameters)**: Use when a preferred pattern exists, some variation is acceptable, or configuration affects behavior.

**Low freedom (specific scripts, few parameters)**: Use when operations are fragile and error-prone, consistency is critical, or a specific sequence must be followed.

Think of Codex as exploring a path: a narrow bridge with cliffs needs specific guardrails (low freedom), while an open field allows many routes (high freedom).

### Protect Validation Integrity

You may use subagents during iteration to validate whether a skill works on realistic tasks or whether a suspected problem is real. This is most useful when you want an independent pass on the skill's behavior, outputs, or failure modes after a revision.  Only do this when it is possible to start new subagents.

When using subagents for validation, treat that as an evaluation surface. The goal is to learn whether the skill generalizes, not whether another agent can reconstruct the answer from leaked context.

Prefer raw artifacts such as example prompts, outputs, diffs, logs, or traces. Give the minimum task-local context needed to perform the validation. Avoid passing the intended answer, suspected bug, intended fix, or your prior conclusions unless the validation explicitly requires them.

### Anatomy of a Skill

Every skill consists of a required SKILL.md file and optional bundled resources:

```
skill-name/
├── SKILL.md (required)
│   ├── YAML frontmatter metadata (required)
│   │   ├── name: (required)
│   │   └── description: (required)
│   └── Markdown instructions (required)
├── agents/ (recommended)
│   └── openai.yaml - UI metadata for skill lists and chips
└── Bundled Resources (optional)
    ├── scripts/          - Executable code (Python/Bash/etc.)
    ├── references/       - Documentation intended to be loaded into context as needed
    └── assets/           - Files used in output (templates, icons, fonts, etc.)
```

#### SKILL.md (required)

Every SKILL.md consists of:

- **Frontmatter** (YAML): Contains `name` and `description` fields. These are the only fields that Codex reads to determine when the skill gets used, thus it is very important to be clear and comprehensive in describing what the skill is, and when it should be used.
- **Body** (Markdown): Instructions and guidance for using the skill. Only loaded AFTER the skill triggers (if at all).

#### Agents metadata (recommended)

- UI-facing metadata for skill lists and chips
- Read references/openai_yaml.md before generating values and follow its descriptions and constraints
- Create: human-facing `display_name`, `short_description`, and `default_prompt` by reading the skill
- Generate deterministically by passing the values as `--interface key=value` to `scripts/generate_openai_yaml.py` or `scripts/init_skill.py`
- On updates: validate `agents/openai.yaml` still matches SKILL.md; regenerate if stale
- Only include other optional interface fields (icons, brand color) if explicitly provided
- See references/openai_yaml.md for field definitions and examples

#### Bundled Resources (optional)

##### Scripts (`scripts/`)

Executable code (Python/Bash/etc.) for tasks that require deterministic reliability or are repeatedly rewritten.

- **When to include**: When the same code is being rewritten repeatedly or deterministic reliability is needed
- **Example**: `scripts/rotate_pdf.py` for PDF rotation tasks
- **Benefits**: Token efficient, deterministic, may be executed without loading into context
- **Note**: Scripts may still need to be read by Codex for patching or environment-specific adjustments

##### References (`references/`)

Documentation and reference material intended to be loaded as needed into context to inform Codex's process and thinking.

- **When to include**: For documentation that Codex should reference while working
- **Examples**: `references/finance.md` for financial schemas, `references/mnda.md` for company NDA template, `references/policies.md` for company policies, `references/api_docs.md` for API specifications
- **Use cases**: Database schemas, API documentation, domain knowledge, company policies, detailed workflow guides
- **Benefits**: Keeps SKILL.md lean, loaded only when Codex determines it's needed
- **Best practice**: If files are large (>10k words), include grep search patterns in SKILL.md
- **Avoid duplication**: Information should live in either SKILL.md or references files, not both. Prefer references files for detailed information unless it's truly core to the skill—this keeps SKILL.md lean while making information discoverable without hogging the context window. Keep only essential procedural instructions and workflow guidance in SKILL.md; move detailed reference material, schemas, and examples to references files.

##### Assets (`assets/`)

Files not intended to be loaded into context, but rather used within the output Codex produces.

- **When to include**: When the skill needs files that will be used in the final output
- **Examples**: `assets/logo.png` for brand assets, `assets/slides.pptx` for PowerPoint templates, `assets/frontend-template/` for HTML/React boilerplate, `assets/font.ttf` for typography
- **Use cases**: Templates, images, icons, boilerplate code, fonts, sample documents that get copied or modified
- **Benefits**: Separates output resources from documentation, enables Codex to use files without loading them into context

#### What to Not Include in a Skill

A skill should only contain essential files that directly support its functionality. Do NOT create extraneous documentation or auxiliary files, including:

- README.md
- INSTALLATION_GUIDE.md
- QUICK_REFERENCE.md
- CHANGELOG.md
- etc.

The skill should only contain the information needed for an AI agent to do the job at hand. It should not contain auxiliary context about the process that went into creating it, setup and testing procedures, user-facing documentation, etc. Creating additional documentation files just adds clutter and confusion.

### Progressive Disclosure Design Principle

Skills use a three-level loading system to manage context efficiently:

1. **Metadata (name + description)** - Always in context (~100 words)
2. **SKILL.md body** - When skill triggers (<5k words)
3. **Bundled resources** - As needed by Codex (Unlimited because scripts can be executed without reading into context window)

#### Progressive Disclosure Patterns

Keep SKILL.md body to the essentials and under 500 lines to minimize context bloat. Split content into separate files when approaching this limit. When splitting out content into other files, it is very important to reference them from SKILL.md and describe clearly when to read them, to ensure the reader of the skill knows they exist and when to use them.

**Key principle:** When a skill supports multiple variations, frameworks, or options, keep only the core workflow and selection guidance in SKILL.md. Move variant-specific details (patterns, examples, configuration) into separate reference files.

**Pattern 1: High-level guide with references**

```markdown
# PDF Processing

## Quick start

Extract text with pdfplumber:
[code example]

## Advanced features

- **Form filling**: See [FORMS.md](FORMS.md) for complete guide
- **API reference**: See [REFERENCE.md](REFERENCE.md) for all methods
- **Examples**: See [EXAMPLES.md](EXAMPLES.md) for common patterns
```

Codex loads FORMS.md, REFERENCE.md, or EXAMPLES.md only when needed.

**Pattern 2: Domain-specific organization**

For Skills with multiple domains, organize content by domain to avoid loading irrelevant context:

```
bigquery-skill/
├── SKILL.md (overview and navigation)
└── reference/
    ├── finance.md (revenue, billing metrics)
    ├── sales.md (opportunities, pipeline)
    ├── product.md (API usage, features)
    └── marketing.md (campaigns, attribution)
```

When a user asks about sales metrics, Codex only reads sales.md.

Similarly, for skills supporting multiple frameworks or variants, organize by variant:

```
cloud-deploy/
├── SKILL.md (workflow + provider selection)
└── references/
    ├── aws.md (AWS deployment patterns)
    ├── gcp.md (GCP deployment patterns)
    └── azure.md (Azure deployment patterns)
```

When the user chooses AWS, Codex only reads aws.md.

**Pattern 3: Conditional details**

Show basic content, link to advanced content:

```markdown
# DOCX Processing

## Creating documents

Use docx-js for new documents. See [DOCX-JS.md](DOCX-JS.md).

## Editing documents

For simple edits, modify the XML directly.

**For tracked changes**: See [REDLINING.md](REDLINING.md)
**For OOXML details**: See [OOXML.md](OOXML.md)
```

Codex reads REDLINING.md or OOXML.md only when the user needs those features.

**Important guidelines:**

- **Avoid deeply nested references** - Keep references one level deep from SKILL.md. All reference files should link directly from SKILL.md.

I’m adding two lightweight structures: root AGENTS.md for always-on repo instructions, and a small .skills/architecture-first skill so future agents have a reusable workflow for Django changes in this project. I’ll also tighten .gitignore for the SQLite/Django/Docker runtime artifacts.

The agent files are in place. I’ll verify the final repo shape and git linkage now.

>find . -maxdepth 3 -type f -not -path './.git/*' -print

Chunk ID: ff258f
Wall time: 0.0091 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 30
Output:
./LICENSE
./docs/Requirements.md
./docs/Architecture.md
./.gitignore
./AGENTS.md
./.skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md

>git status --short --branch

Chunk ID: 9bb090
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 18
Output:
## main...origin/main
 M .gitignore
?? .skills/
?? AGENTS.md
?? docs/

>git remote -v

Chunk ID: cfb70f
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 32
Output:
origin	https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval (fetch)
origin	https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval (push)

>sed -n '1,220p' AGENTS.md

Chunk ID: 0ca070
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 319
Output:
# Agent Instructions

## Project Direction

- Build a Dockerized, server-rendered Django app.
- Use SQLite as the v1 backend.
- Keep the product in one simple Django project app.
- Do not add React or a public REST API unless `docs/Architecture.md` is updated
  first.

## Required Context

- Always read `docs/Architecture.md` before making implementation decisions.
- If a requested change conflicts with `docs/Architecture.md`, update the
  architecture doc in the same change or ask for clarification.
- Use `docs/Requirements.md` for product behavior and acceptance criteria.

## Build Constraints

- Use Django ORM, templates, forms, auth, sessions, groups, permissions, and
  migrations.
- Keep authorization server-side in views, forms, querysets, and workflow
  helpers.
- Employees are evaluation subjects only in v1; they do not log in.
- Django superusers are technical operators, not product Admin users.
- SQLite must run as a single app instance with the database file on durable
  mounted storage.

## Expected Validation

- Run relevant Django tests before finishing implementation changes.
- For Docker changes, verify the image/build path and migration startup path
  when practical.
- If validation cannot be run, state why and name the unverified risk.

Set up the local git repo against https://github.com/ssojoodi/uw-performance-eval.

What changed:

Initialized git locally and checked out main tracking origin/main.
Added AGENTS.md with project rules, including always consulting and updating docs/Architecture.md when needed.
Added .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md for architecture-first Django work.
Updated .gitignore for SQLite/runtime artifacts: *.sqlite3, journals, media/, staticfiles/, and data/.

Current git state is uncommitted:

I did not commit or push.

you can commit pls

I’ll stage the setup files and create a commit on main with the agent/architecture scaffolding.

>git diff -- .gitignore AGENTS.md .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md docs/Architecture.md docs/Requirements.md

Chunk ID: 63936f
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 67
Output:
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 83972fa..fd2b02a 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ cover/
 local_settings.py
 db.sqlite3
 db.sqlite3-journal
+*.sqlite3
+*.sqlite3-journal
+media/
+staticfiles/
+data/
 
 # Flask stuff:
 instance/

I verified the pending changes are the expected repo setup files. I’m staging them now; git metadata writes may need escalation in this sandbox.

>git add .gitignore AGENTS.md .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md docs/Architecture.md docs/Requirements.md

Chunk ID: fd80e1
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 128
Original token count: 32
Output:
fatal: Unable to create '/Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platform/.git/index.lock': Operation not permitted

>git add .gitignore AGENTS.md .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md docs/Architecture.md docs/Requirements.md

Chunk ID: 132921
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 0
Output:

>git status --short

Chunk ID: 2fcdfe
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 29
Output:
M  .gitignore
A  .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md
A  AGENTS.md
A  docs/Architecture.md
A  docs/Requirements.md

>git diff --cached --stat

Chunk ID: 920943
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 81
Output:
 .gitignore                          |   5 +
 .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md |  23 ++++
 AGENTS.md                           |  34 +++++
 docs/Architecture.md                | 153 +++++++++++++++++++++
 docs/Requirements.md                | 267 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 482 insertions(+)

The intended files are staged: docs, agent instructions, local skill, and .gitignore additions. I’m creating the commit now.

>git commit -m "Add architecture and agent setup"

Chunk ID: 9838e4
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 63
Output:
[main 4d6964c] Add architecture and agent setup
 5 files changed, 482 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 .skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md
 create mode 100644 AGENTS.md
 create mode 100644 docs/Architecture.md
 create mode 100644 docs/Requirements.md

Committed.

Commit:

Current state:

I did not push to GitHub.

Create a succinct Data Model for this application in the Arch file.

I’ll update the architecture doc directly, keeping the data model succinct and aligned with the existing single-app Django/SQLite direction.

>sed -n '1,240p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: c49a73
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 1096
Output:
# HR Performance Evaluation Platform - Architecture

## Stack

- Django monolith.
- Django ORM, templates, forms, auth, sessions, groups, permissions, and
  migrations.
- One Django project app for v1.
- No React.
- No public REST API in v1.
- SQLite for local development and deployment.
- Dockerized single-instance deployment.

## App Structure

Keep the app simple:

- `models.py`: Employees, ManagerAssignments, Evaluations, and profile data if
  needed.
- `forms.py`: user management, assignments, evaluations, and import validation.
- `views.py`: authenticated pages and workflow actions.
- `services.py`: workflow transitions and import/export logic if views become
  too large.
- `templates/` and `static/`: server-rendered UI.

## Roles

Business roles:

- `VP`: manages users and assignments; views all evaluations; approves or
  returns evaluations.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: evaluation subject only; no login in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators, not a product Admin role.

Use Django `Group` records for roles. Each active product user must have exactly
one business role.

## Authorization

Enforce authorization in views, forms, and querysets, not only in templates.

- All product routes require login.
- Managers see only evaluations they created.
- Managers create evaluations only for assigned Employees.
- Managers edit only their own `Draft` evaluations.
- VPs see all evaluations.
- VPs cannot edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs approve or return evaluations.
- VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no route access in v1.

## Core Models

- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated.
- `ManagerAssignment`: Manager-to-Employee assignment.
- `Evaluation`: Manager owner, Employee subject, UW form data, workflow state,
  timestamps, and reviewer metadata.

Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee. It
does not change ownership of existing evaluations.

Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields. Use a validated JSON field
only for form sections that are expected to change.

## Workflow

States:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft`: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

`Approved` evaluations are locked. Workflow state changes should go through
explicit methods or service functions that validate actor role, current state,
ownership, and timestamps.

## Import And Export

Markdown export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all evaluation fields.
- Does not change workflow state.

JSON export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Uses the same schema accepted by JSON import.

JSON import:

- Manager-only.
- Always creates a new `Draft` evaluation.
- Never overwrites an existing evaluation.
- Requires the selected Employee to be assigned to the importing Manager.
- Validates schema before saving.

Version the JSON schema.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database.

- Store the SQLite file on a mounted Docker volume.
- Run one app instance while using SQLite.
- Use Django migrations for all schema changes.
- Back up the SQLite database from the mounted volume.
- Move to PostgreSQL if write contention, horizontal scaling, or managed
  availability becomes necessary.

## Docker

Required environment:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- SQLite database path
- static files configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when behind HTTPS or a proxy

Container startup should run migrations, serve collected static files, and start
Django with a production WSGI/ASGI server.

## Security

- Use Django password hashing.
- Keep CSRF enabled.
- Set secure session/cookie settings in production.
- Deactivation sets `is_active=false`.
- Do not log evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

## Tests

Cover:

- login, logout, inactive users, and session-required routes;
- exactly-one-role enforcement;
- VP user management and self-deactivation prevention;
- Manager scoping and assignment checks;
- workflow transitions and edit locking;
- Markdown export access/content;
- JSON import/export round trip and malformed JSON handling;
- Docker build and migration startup.

I’m replacing the loose Core Models section with a compact data model that names entities, key fields, and relationships without turning it into a full schema dump.

The data model section is updated. I’ll scan the file and show the resulting diff so I can catch any over-detail or contradiction.

>sed -n '45,100p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 953c98
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 472
Output:
- All product routes require login.
- Managers see only evaluations they created.
- Managers create evaluations only for assigned Employees.
- Managers edit only their own `Draft` evaluations.
- VPs see all evaluations.
- VPs cannot edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs approve or return evaluations.
- VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no route access in v1.

## Data Model

- `User`: Django auth user for VPs and Managers. Role comes from exactly one
  Django `Group`.
- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated. Fields: name, email, student ID if
  available, active flag, timestamps.
- `ManagerAssignment`: links one Manager `User` to one `Employee`. Fields:
  manager, employee, active flag, timestamps. Unique active assignment per
  manager/employee pair.
- `Evaluation`: one performance evaluation. Fields: manager, employee, state,
  UW form data, submitted/approved/returned metadata, timestamps.

Relationships:

- A Manager can have many assigned Employees.
- An Employee can have many Evaluations over time.
- An Evaluation belongs to exactly one Manager and one Employee.
- VPs are not assigned to Employees; they access Evaluations by role.

Rules:

- Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee but
  does not change existing Evaluation ownership.
- Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields.
- Use a validated JSON field only for UW form sections expected to change.

## Workflow

States:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft`: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

`Approved` evaluations are locked. Workflow state changes should go through
explicit methods or service functions that validate actor role, current state,
ownership, and timestamps.

## Import And Export

>git diff -- docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 6e0bce
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 484
Output:
diff --git a/docs/Architecture.md b/docs/Architecture.md
index e6bedeb..76af2e0 100644
--- a/docs/Architecture.md
+++ b/docs/Architecture.md
@@ -52,18 +52,31 @@ Enforce authorization in views, forms, and querysets, not only in templates.
 - VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
 - Employees have no route access in v1.
 
-## Core Models
-
-- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated.
-- `ManagerAssignment`: Manager-to-Employee assignment.
-- `Evaluation`: Manager owner, Employee subject, UW form data, workflow state,
-  timestamps, and reviewer metadata.
-
-Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee. It
-does not change ownership of existing evaluations.
-
-Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields. Use a validated JSON field
-only for form sections that are expected to change.
+## Data Model
+
+- `User`: Django auth user for VPs and Managers. Role comes from exactly one
+  Django `Group`.
+- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated. Fields: name, email, student ID if
+  available, active flag, timestamps.
+- `ManagerAssignment`: links one Manager `User` to one `Employee`. Fields:
+  manager, employee, active flag, timestamps. Unique active assignment per
+  manager/employee pair.
+- `Evaluation`: one performance evaluation. Fields: manager, employee, state,
+  UW form data, submitted/approved/returned metadata, timestamps.
+
+Relationships:
+
+- A Manager can have many assigned Employees.
+- An Employee can have many Evaluations over time.
+- An Evaluation belongs to exactly one Manager and one Employee.
+- VPs are not assigned to Employees; they access Evaluations by role.
+
+Rules:
+
+- Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee but
+  does not change existing Evaluation ownership.
+- Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields.
+- Use a validated JSON field only for UW form sections expected to change.
 
 ## Workflow

Added a succinct Data Model section to docs/Architecture.md.

It now defines User, Employee, ManagerAssignment, and Evaluation, plus the key relationships and ownership rules. No commit was made.

creat the base Django app based on docs/Architecture.md, do not create any of the features yet, just the barebones app.

I’ll start by re-reading the architecture and current repo state, then scaffold only the Django/Docker skeleton: project config, one product app, dependency files, Docker entrypoint, and a smoke test.

>sed -n '1,220p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 58a9f0
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 1239
Output:
# HR Performance Evaluation Platform - Architecture

## Stack

- Django monolith.
- Django ORM, templates, forms, auth, sessions, groups, permissions, and
  migrations.
- One Django project app for v1.
- No React.
- No public REST API in v1.
- SQLite for local development and deployment.
- Dockerized single-instance deployment.

## App Structure

Keep the app simple:

- `models.py`: Employees, ManagerAssignments, Evaluations, and profile data if
  needed.
- `forms.py`: user management, assignments, evaluations, and import validation.
- `views.py`: authenticated pages and workflow actions.
- `services.py`: workflow transitions and import/export logic if views become
  too large.
- `templates/` and `static/`: server-rendered UI.

## Roles

Business roles:

- `VP`: manages users and assignments; views all evaluations; approves or
  returns evaluations.
- `Manager`: creates, edits, submits, imports, exports, and views only their own
  evaluations for assigned Employees.
- `Employee`: evaluation subject only; no login in v1.

Django superusers are technical operators, not a product Admin role.

Use Django `Group` records for roles. Each active product user must have exactly
one business role.

## Authorization

Enforce authorization in views, forms, and querysets, not only in templates.

- All product routes require login.
- Managers see only evaluations they created.
- Managers create evaluations only for assigned Employees.
- Managers edit only their own `Draft` evaluations.
- VPs see all evaluations.
- VPs cannot edit evaluation content.
- Only VPs approve or return evaluations.
- VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
- Employees have no route access in v1.

## Data Model

- `User`: Django auth user for VPs and Managers. Role comes from exactly one
  Django `Group`.
- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated. Fields: name, email, student ID if
  available, active flag, timestamps.
- `ManagerAssignment`: links one Manager `User` to one `Employee`. Fields:
  manager, employee, active flag, timestamps. Unique active assignment per
  manager/employee pair.
- `Evaluation`: one performance evaluation. Fields: manager, employee, state,
  UW form data, submitted/approved/returned metadata, timestamps.

Relationships:

- A Manager can have many assigned Employees.
- An Employee can have many Evaluations over time.
- An Evaluation belongs to exactly one Manager and one Employee.
- VPs are not assigned to Employees; they access Evaluations by role.

Rules:

- Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee but
  does not change existing Evaluation ownership.
- Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields.
- Use a validated JSON field only for UW form sections expected to change.

## Workflow

States:

- `Draft`
- `In Review`
- `Approved`

Transitions:

- Manager submits own `Draft`: `Draft` -> `In Review`.
- VP returns `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Draft`.
- VP approves `In Review`: `In Review` -> `Approved`.

`Approved` evaluations are locked. Workflow state changes should go through
explicit methods or service functions that validate actor role, current state,
ownership, and timestamps.

## Import And Export

Markdown export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all evaluation fields.
- Does not change workflow state.

JSON export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Uses the same schema accepted by JSON import.

JSON import:

- Manager-only.
- Always creates a new `Draft` evaluation.
- Never overwrites an existing evaluation.
- Requires the selected Employee to be assigned to the importing Manager.
- Validates schema before saving.

Version the JSON schema.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database.

- Store the SQLite file on a mounted Docker volume.
- Run one app instance while using SQLite.
- Use Django migrations for all schema changes.
- Back up the SQLite database from the mounted volume.
- Move to PostgreSQL if write contention, horizontal scaling, or managed
  availability becomes necessary.

## Docker

Required environment:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- SQLite database path
- static files configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when behind HTTPS or a proxy

Container startup should run migrations, serve collected static files, and start
Django with a production WSGI/ASGI server.

## Security

- Use Django password hashing.
- Keep CSRF enabled.
- Set secure session/cookie settings in production.
- Deactivation sets `is_active=false`.
- Do not log evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

## Tests

Cover:

- login, logout, inactive users, and session-required routes;
- exactly-one-role enforcement;
- VP user management and self-deactivation prevention;
- Manager scoping and assignment checks;
- workflow transitions and edit locking;
- Markdown export access/content;
- JSON import/export round trip and malformed JSON handling;
- Docker build and migration startup.

>find . -maxdepth 3 -type f -not -path './.git/*' -print

Chunk ID: 5160e0
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 30
Output:
./LICENSE
./docs/Requirements.md
./docs/Architecture.md
./.gitignore
./AGENTS.md
./.skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md

The architecture has one existing uncommitted change: the data model section from the prior request. I’ll leave it intact and add the barebones app around it.

>python3 -m django --version

Chunk ID: 06453a
Wall time: 0.4554 seconds
Process exited with code 1
Original token count: 18
Output:
/opt/homebrew/opt/python@3.14/bin/python3.14: No module named django

>git diff -- docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: 16e00e
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 484
Output:
diff --git a/docs/Architecture.md b/docs/Architecture.md
index e6bedeb..76af2e0 100644
--- a/docs/Architecture.md
+++ b/docs/Architecture.md
@@ -52,18 +52,31 @@ Enforce authorization in views, forms, and querysets, not only in templates.
 - VPs cannot deactivate their own account.
 - Employees have no route access in v1.
 
-## Core Models
-
-- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated.
-- `ManagerAssignment`: Manager-to-Employee assignment.
-- `Evaluation`: Manager owner, Employee subject, UW form data, workflow state,
-  timestamps, and reviewer metadata.
-
-Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee. It
-does not change ownership of existing evaluations.
-
-Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields. Use a validated JSON field
-only for form sections that are expected to change.
+## Data Model
+
+- `User`: Django auth user for VPs and Managers. Role comes from exactly one
+  Django `Group`.
+- `Employee`: co-op student being evaluated. Fields: name, email, student ID if
+  available, active flag, timestamps.
+- `ManagerAssignment`: links one Manager `User` to one `Employee`. Fields:
+  manager, employee, active flag, timestamps. Unique active assignment per
+  manager/employee pair.
+- `Evaluation`: one performance evaluation. Fields: manager, employee, state,
+  UW form data, submitted/approved/returned metadata, timestamps.
+
+Relationships:
+
+- A Manager can have many assigned Employees.
+- An Employee can have many Evaluations over time.
+- An Evaluation belongs to exactly one Manager and one Employee.
+- VPs are not assigned to Employees; they access Evaluations by role.
+
+Rules:
+
+- Removing a `ManagerAssignment` prevents new evaluations for that Employee but
+  does not change existing Evaluation ownership.
+- Store stable UW form fields as normal model fields.
+- Use a validated JSON field only for UW form sections expected to change.
 
 ## Workflow

Django is not installed locally, so I’m going to scaffold the files manually instead of relying on django-admin. I’ll keep it barebones: no domain models or workflows yet, just runnable Django configuration, one empty product app, login wiring, a health check, Docker files, and smoke tests.

The skeleton is now in place. I’ll run the Django tests through uv so dependencies are resolved in the project environment, then fix any scaffold issues that show up.

>uv run python manage.py test

Chunk ID: 9f1368
Wall time: 2.3167 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 100
Output:
Using CPython 3.14.0
Creating virtual environment at: .venv
Downloading django (7.9MiB)
 Downloading django
Installed 10 packages in 56ms
Creating test database for alias 'default'...
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 0.075s

OK
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
Found 3 test(s).
System check identified no issues (0 silenced).

Tests pass. I noticed the generated app config class name is too generic, so I’m tightening that small scaffold detail before the final check.

The scaffold cleanup is done. I’ll rerun tests and check the working tree, including any dependency lockfile created by uv.

>uv run python manage.py test

Chunk ID: 2bb556
Wall time: 0.2457 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 65
Output:
Creating test database for alias 'default'...
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 0.067s

OK
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
Found 3 test(s).
System check identified no issues (0 silenced).

>git status --short --branch

Chunk ID: 52eb4f
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 48
Output:
## main...origin/main [ahead 1]
 M docs/Architecture.md
?? .dockerignore
?? Dockerfile
?? app/
?? compose.yaml
?? config/
?? docker/
?? manage.py
?? pyproject.toml
?? templates/
?? uv.lock

>find . -maxdepth 3 -type f -not -path './.git/*' -not -path './.venv/*' -print

Chunk ID: 712eed
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 206
Output:
./docker/entrypoint.sh
./app/models.py
./app/__init__.py
./app/__pycache__/views.cpython-314.pyc
./app/__pycache__/models.cpython-314.pyc
./app/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc
./app/__pycache__/apps.cpython-314.pyc
./app/__pycache__/tests.cpython-314.pyc
./app/apps.py
./app/tests.py
./app/views.py
./LICENSE
./uv.lock
./config/asgi.py
./config/__init__.py
./config/__pycache__/urls.cpython-314.pyc
./config/__pycache__/settings.cpython-314.pyc
./config/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-314.pyc
./config/settings.py
./config/urls.py
./config/wsgi.py
./Dockerfile
./pyproject.toml
./docs/Requirements.md
./docs/Architecture.md
./.dockerignore
./.gitignore
./compose.yaml
./templates/registration/login.html
./templates/app/dashboard.html
./templates/base.html
./manage.py
./AGENTS.md
./.skills/architecture-first/SKILL.md

The Django smoke tests pass. I’m going to verify the Docker build path as well, since this scaffold includes the container setup.

>docker build -t uw-performance-eval:dev .

Chunk ID: 58ac4d
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 1
Original token count: 29
Output:
ERROR: permission denied while trying to connect to the docker API at unix:///Users/sahand/.docker/run/docker.sock

Request interrupted by user

Docker deployment should be set up through docker-compose.

Got it. I’ll make Docker Compose the explicit deployment path, update the architecture doc accordingly, and adjust the compose setup so it is suitable as the primary way to run the app.

>sed -n '100,155p' docs/Architecture.md

Chunk ID: ba6939
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 348
Output:

Markdown export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Includes all evaluation fields.
- Does not change workflow state.

JSON export:

- Available to users who can view the evaluation.
- Uses the same schema accepted by JSON import.

JSON import:

- Manager-only.
- Always creates a new `Draft` evaluation.
- Never overwrites an existing evaluation.
- Requires the selected Employee to be assigned to the importing Manager.
- Validates schema before saving.

Version the JSON schema.

## Persistence

SQLite is the v1 database.

- Store the SQLite file on a mounted Docker volume.
- Run one app instance while using SQLite.
- Use Django migrations for all schema changes.
- Back up the SQLite database from the mounted volume.
- Move to PostgreSQL if write contention, horizontal scaling, or managed
  availability becomes necessary.

## Docker

Required environment:

- `SECRET_KEY`
- `DEBUG=false`
- `ALLOWED_HOSTS`
- SQLite database path
- static files configuration
- CSRF trusted origins when behind HTTPS or a proxy

Container startup should run migrations, serve collected static files, and start
Django with a production WSGI/ASGI server.

## Security

- Use Django password hashing.
- Keep CSRF enabled.
- Set secure session/cookie settings in production.
- Deactivation sets `is_active=false`.
- Do not log evaluation content or uploaded JSON payloads.

## Tests

>sed -n '1,200p' compose.yaml

Chunk ID: 4b5f61
Wall time: 0.0105 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 74
Output:
services:
  web:
    build: .
    ports:
      - "8000:8000"
    environment:
      SECRET_KEY: "dev-only-secret-key-change-me"
      DEBUG: "false"
      ALLOWED_HOSTS: "localhost,127.0.0.1"
      SQLITE_PATH: "/data/db.sqlite3"
    volumes:
      - sqlite-data:/data

volumes:
  sqlite-data:

>sed -n '1,160p' Dockerfile

Chunk ID: 6df814
Wall time: 0.0000 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 76
Output:
FROM python:3.13-slim

ENV PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1
ENV PYTHONUNBUFFERED=1

WORKDIR /app

RUN pip install --no-cache-dir --upgrade pip

COPY pyproject.toml ./
RUN pip install --no-cache-dir .

COPY . .

RUN python manage.py collectstatic --noinput

EXPOSE 8000

CMD ["sh", "/app/docker/entrypoint.sh"]

>git status --short --branch

Chunk ID: e1586d
Wall time: 0.0016 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 48
Output:
## main...origin/main [ahead 1]
 M docs/Architecture.md
?? .dockerignore
?? Dockerfile
?? app/
?? compose.yaml
?? config/
?? docker/
?? manage.py
?? pyproject.toml
?? templates/
?? uv.lock

Compose is already present, but it is too minimal for a deployment path. I’m going to make Compose explicit in the architecture, add .env.example, add a healthcheck/restart policy, and wire static file serving through WhiteNoise so the Gunicorn container can serve collected static assets.

Compose is now the deployment contract, and the Django container can serve collected static files. I’ll refresh the Python lock/test environment with the new dependency and rerun the smoke tests.

>uv run python manage.py test

Chunk ID: 659895
Wall time: 0.3402 seconds
Process exited with code 0
Original token count: 142
Output:
Installed 1 package in 2ms
Creating test database for alias 'default'...
/Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platform/.venv/lib/python3.14t/site-packages/django/core/handlers/base.py:61: UserWarning: No directory at: /Users/sahand/src/tries/2026-05-20-performance-eval-platform/staticfiles/
  mw_instance = middleware(adapted_handler)
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 3 tests in 0.067s

OK
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
Found 3 test(s).
System check identified no issues (0 silenced).

The tests pass, but WhiteNoise emitted a local warning because staticfiles/ does not exist outside a built image. I’m tightening settings so WhiteNoise is active for production/Compose only, and making Compose use .env interpolation without requiring a checked-out .env file.

Provided docker-compose build and run commands

Provided docker-compose build and run commandsPublic

Summary

Build-Ready Architecture Revision Plan

Summary

Holes To Fix

Key Changes

Implementation Guidance

Test Plan

Assumptions