Skip to content
BS
Technical leadership platformPortfolio reference implementation

Architecture Decision Intelligence Hub

A reference implementation for ADRs, RFCs, system boundaries, risk tracking, and operational learnings.

A tech-lead portfolio project that focuses on architectural judgment, decision records, and the organizational memory that helps engineering teams scale sanely.

Discuss this kind of workBack to projects

Project context

This is a portfolio reference implementation built to demonstrate technical-lead judgment, not a description of employer production work. The goal was to show how architecture decisions, RFCs, risks, and incident learnings can be treated as living operational knowledge rather than static documentation.

Knowledge domains

5

Primary workflows

ADR plus RFC plus risk

Primary value

Decision clarity

Role and positioning

Product strategy, architecture modeling, information design, backend plus UX direction

Strong evidence for staff-leaning senior roles and tech lead positions where judgment, communication, and delivery governance matter.

These projects are portfolio reference implementations created to demonstrate system design, backend depth, and technical judgment. Any dashboards, amounts, or operational figures shown in the UI are illustrative demo data, not employer production metrics.
Next.jsTypeScriptPostgreSQLSpring BootSearch indexingMarkdownDocker
Problem

Engineering organizations often lose architectural context the moment a migration or incident is over. Decisions live in documents no one can find, trade-offs are remembered informally, and system ownership becomes fuzzy just when scale starts to make that dangerous.

I wanted a platform that treated architecture as living operational knowledge: ADRs linked to systems, RFCs linked to risks, incident learnings linked to follow-up work, and a searchable map of boundaries and ownership.

Approach

The product combines structured records with flexible markdown authoring. ADRs, RFCs, risk items, and incident learnings each have their own workflow, but they are connected through shared metadata for ownership, affected systems, status, and review cadence.

Instead of stopping at documentation, the platform emphasizes discoverability and operational relevance. Search, filtering, system maps, and risk registers are built in so the knowledge can support real decisions rather than become archival clutter.

The project also shows leadership sensibility in its design choices: lightweight governance over bureaucracy, enough structure to create clarity, and interfaces that help teams keep context current.

Architecture

Structured to separate core domain responsibility from provider or workflow-specific complexity.

The platform separates authoring, search, governance workflows, and system mapping into modular capabilities so it can support both small teams and larger engineering organizations.

Illustrative demo dataReference UI for the case study, not employer production telemetry.

Illustrative decision feed

ADR plus RFC

ADR-041

Adopt event sourcing only for settlement stream

RFC-018

Rate limiting policy for partner APIs

Risk-007

Single-team ownership on payment gateway

Illustrative system boundaries map

Payments Core

Owned by Platform team

Risk Engine

Owned by Fraud squad

Ledger

Owned by Finance systems

Observability

Owned by Developer platform

The product links architecture decisions, risks, and incident learnings back to the systems they affect so context remains operationally useful.
Architecture layers
1

Workspace and Auth Layer

Handles team context, role-based permissions, review responsibilities, and workspace-specific filters.

2

Decision and Workflow Services

Manages ADRs, RFCs, risk items, incident learnings, and the lifecycle rules that connect them.

3

Search and Knowledge Index

Indexes markdown content and structured metadata for fast lookup across systems, domains, owners, and tags.

4

System Map and Ownership Graph

Represents boundaries, dependencies, and ownership relationships so context stays anchored to real systems.

5

Reporting and Leadership Surface

Provides views for review cadence, unresolved risks, aging RFCs, and recurring debt themes.

Key decisions

Structure plus narrative

Markdown alone is too loose for governance; rigid forms alone are too limiting. The project uses both so teams can write well without losing reportable metadata.

Search is a first-class feature

Knowledge that cannot be found is functionally absent, so indexing and filtering were treated as core product capability rather than a later enhancement.

Architecture linked to operations

Incident learnings and risk registers connect design choices to production reality, which is where tech lead judgment becomes most valuable.

Product Surface

Features and operational views that make the reference implementation feel credible beyond the API layer.

The point is to show backend depth alongside the operator-facing surfaces real teams need in order to diagnose and run a system well.

ADR and RFC workflows

Supports lightweight decision records, proposal review states, comments, ownership, and explicit outcome capture.

Risk and technical debt register

Tracks architectural risks, debt themes, mitigation plans, and review dates so issues stay visible after the meeting ends.

System boundaries map

Connects systems, teams, and decisions in a searchable surface that helps engineers understand ownership and integration seams.

Incident learnings

Captures operational lessons, follow-up actions, and links back to the decisions or assumptions that shaped the incident.

Collaborative markdown editing

Keeps authoring flexible while preserving structured metadata for reporting, search, and cross-linking.

Illustrative UI slice

Decision overview

A cross-team feed of ADRs, RFCs, risks, and incident learnings with status, ownership, and affected systems.

Illustrative UI slice

System map canvas

A service boundary view that links decisions and risks directly to the systems they influence.

Illustrative UI slice

Leadership review dashboard

A portfolio view of aging RFCs, unresolved risks, and technical debt themes that need deliberate follow-through.

Trade-offs
  • More structure improves governance, but too much workflow friction kills adoption. The product aims for low ceremony with enough metadata to remain useful.
  • Search and cross-linking increase complexity in the information model, yet that complexity is justified because discoverability is the feature that makes the hub valuable over time.
  • This project is less infrastructure-heavy than the payment systems work, but it demonstrates a different and equally important dimension of senior engineering: decision quality and organizational leverage.
Why it matters
  • Shows that Bruno can build productively as a senior backend engineer while also thinking like a technical lead responsible for system coherence.
  • Reinforces strength in architecture communication, documentation discipline, and operational follow-through.
  • Balances the portfolio with a project that speaks to engineering leadership rather than only service implementation.
What I'd improve next
  • Add dependency health overlays and service scorecards tied to ownership groups.
  • Integrate with issue trackers so ADR outcomes and risk mitigations can link directly to delivery work.
  • Introduce review reminders and stale-decision detection for long-lived platform areas.
Repository boundaries
  • apps/web for the primary collaborative UI
  • services/knowledge-api for ADR, RFC, risk, and incident models
  • services/search-index for indexing markdown and structured metadata
  • services/system-map for ownership and dependency graph queries
  • packages/content-schema for shared models and validation