feat: add Residuality Theory semantic anchor (EN + DE) (#693) - #700
Conversation
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 16 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (13)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
c76127f to
d2c9e65
Compare
Barry M. O'Reilly's method: start from a deliberately inadequate naive
architecture, apply stressors (technical, regulatory, competitive,
organisational), identify the residue — what survives — and redesign so
failure happens in a controlled way. Contagion analysis then surfaces the
coupling that otherwise appears only in production.
The anchor inverts the design question from "what do we extract first?" to
"what survives every stressor?", which is why it is not a reframing of
strangler-fig.
Tier 2 rather than 3: the qualified form ("apply Residuality Theory: run a
stressor analysis") is needed. The proposal's own activation test shows the
failure mode — it diluted the Residuality-specific vocabulary into generic
complexity-science terms (antifragility/Taleb, constraints/Goldratt, fitness
landscapes/Kauffman). No weak-model check has been run.
Two corrections to the issue review, both fetch-verified:
- the theory does have peer-reviewed publications — three papers in Elsevier's
Procedia Computer Science (2020, 2021, 2022) plus a 2024 Springer chapter
- chaos-engineering and evolutionary-architecture are not in the catalog, so
:related: uses strangler-fig, cynefin-framework, domain-driven-design and
circuit-breaker
Criticism section sourced from the author himself ("the inclusion of case
studies is marketing rather than science"; a learning curve he compares to
learning OOP, via InfoQ 2025) plus the single-originator evidence base.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
d2c9e65 to
a9eee89
Compare
2 participants
Closes #693. Proposed by @dennissterzenbach, reviewed by @JensGrote — thanks to both; the review did most of the gate work.
The anchor
Start from a deliberately inadequate naive architecture. Apply stressors — not just technical failures, but regulatory change, a supplier collapsing, a competitor cutting prices. Identify the residue: what survives. Redesign so the failure happens in a controlled way. Repeat. Then run contagion analysis to surface the coupling that otherwise only shows up in production.
Its signature is the inverted design question: not "what do we extract first?" but "what survives every stressor?" That is what makes an unchangeable compliance module stop being "a thing to encapsulate" and start being a residue to design around. Not a reframing of
strangler-fig.Two corrections to the review
Both fetch-verified, both change what the anchor says:
1. It does have peer-reviewed publications. The review said "no peer-reviewed journal publication yet, Leanpub self-published". There are three papers in Elsevier's Procedia Computer Science:
plus a 2024 Springer chapter, "Embracing Residuality Theory in Software Architecture to Address Uncertainty". The Current Status section says "emerging, but genuinely published" rather than "self-published".
2.
chaos-engineeringandevolutionary-architectureare not in the catalog. The review suggested both as:related:.:related:usesstrangler-fig,cynefin-framework(Residuality is a method for the Complex domain),domain-driven-designandcircuit-breaker, all back-linked.The book itself is confirmed complete: Residues: Time, Change, and Uncertainty in Software Architecture, Leanpub, 100%, last updated 2 June 2024.
Tier 2, not 3 — and why
The review rated ★★★ on Sonnet 4.6 while flagging that no weak-model check had been run. I have set ★★☆, and the evidence is in the proposal itself.
The proposal's LLM Activation Test mixes Residuality-specific concepts (residues, stress) with generic complexity-science terms — antifragility is Taleb, theory of constraints is Goldratt, fitness landscapes are Kauffman. @JensGrote flagged this as a documentation issue. I read it as an activation result: that dilution into adjacent-domain vocabulary is exactly the failure mode tier 2 describes. On a frontier model with a rich prompt the specific method fires; the bare term drifts toward generic complexity talk.
So the "When to Use" section leads with the qualified form: "apply Residuality Theory: run a stressor analysis on this design." Happy to move it to ★★★ if someone runs a Haiku-class check that fires cleanly on the bare term.
Criticism section
The review expected none to be needed. Research turned up enough for a real one, and the strongest source is the author:
The
== Common Misunderstandingsblock also separates what is Residuality-specific from what it borrows, which is the precision @JensGrote asked for.Verification
npm run build→ 190 anchor pages (+190 German), no skips/anchor/residuality-theoryand/de/anchor/residuality-theorycontent-checked: English fragment in the EN page, German in the DE page, no cross-contaminationnpm test121/121,npm run lintcleanpublic/data/*.jsondeliberately not committedNote: CI's
Dependency Security Auditcurrently fails on every PR for unrelated reasons — see #698.🤖 Generated with Claude Code