Team Split Assessment
Plan Under Review
Section titled “Plan Under Review”- File:
../implementation-changes.md - Date: 2026-03-27
Complexity Analysis
Section titled “Complexity Analysis”| Factor | Value | Threshold | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total tasks | 20 | 15 | Over (borderline) |
| Distinct phases with sequential dependencies | 6 | 3 | Over |
| Distinct persona types needed | 2 (devops-engineer, back-end-engineer) | 5 | Under |
| Estimated working directories | 1 | 2 | Under |
| Cross-cutting concerns (handoffs, gates) | 1 (generated indexes feed into Worker source) | 2 | Under |
| Tasks with external validation (builds, tests) | 3 (npm test, wrangler deploy, manual smoke test) | 6 | Under |
Qualitative Factors
Section titled “Qualitative Factors”- Context window pressure: Low. 27 files but most are boilerplate config (package.json, tsconfig, eslint, prettier, vitest) that can be written quickly. The core logic (6 source files) is straightforward.
- Error blast radius: Low. Phases are sequential but failures are isolated — a broken test file doesn’t invalidate scaffolding, and CI config is independent of source code.
- Natural phase boundaries: Yes (scaffolding → source → scripts → tests → CI → post-deploy), but each phase is small (2-7 tasks). The boundaries add value as checkpoints, not as team handoff points.
Recommendation
Section titled “Recommendation”Single Team — Despite having 6 phases and 20 tasks, only 2 factors exceed thresholds and both are borderline. The project is a single-repo greenfield with one agent writing sequential files. Splitting into runs would add coordination overhead (entry/exit criteria, validation scripts, handoff artifacts) that exceeds the value gained. A single agent can write all 27 files in sequence with natural checkpoints at phase boundaries.
Proposed Runs
Section titled “Proposed Runs”Not applicable — single team execution recommended.
Artifact Flow
Section titled “Artifact Flow”Not applicable — no inter-run dependencies. All artifacts are produced in a single pass.
Risk Analysis
Section titled “Risk Analysis”| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
McpAgent API mismatch | Phase 2 (Task 2.6) may need rework if the agents npm package API differs from assumptions | Open Question #1 in implementation-changes.md. Mitigation: implement scaffolding and pure logic first, defer McpAgent integration to last source file. Test pure functions independently. |
| Cloudflare Durable Object config | wrangler.toml may need additional [durable_objects] bindings | Open Question #2. Mitigation: test with wrangler dev before committing CI pipeline. |
| Index generation script failures | Build scripts depend on source repo structure matching expectations | Test scripts locally against actual repo clones before wiring into CI. |
Open Questions and Decisions
Section titled “Open Questions and Decisions”| # | Question | Options | Recommendation | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Should the plan be executed by a team-lead with sub-agents, or a single agent? | (a) Team-lead + devops-engineer, (b) Single agent | (b) Single agent — the project is small enough and all tasks are sequential. Team orchestration overhead is not justified. | Single agent |
| 2 | Should Phase 4 (Tests) be written after Phase 2 (Source) or interleaved per-module? | (a) All source first, then all tests, (b) Write tests alongside each source module | (a) All source first — tests mock the source modules, so having stable interfaces first reduces test rewrite. Tests can reference actual types. | Source first |
Copyright: © Arda Systems 2025-2026, All rights reserved