cesnimda
f0f178d77e
Deep, code-grounded audit of Job Tracker producing the mission deliverables under docs/remaster/: system audit, bug report, architecture/data-model/AI/UX reviews, remaster proposal, migration plan, competitor research, and the gated REBUILD_DECISION. Verdict: Incremental Refactor (no full rebuild). Evidence: no Critical defects; hardened cookie/CSRF auth (token never in JS storage), real SSRF defence, enforced multi-tenancy via global query filters, decoupled provider-swappable AI service, 135 backend tests. Debt is localised (god controllers/entity, missing hot-path indexes, prompt-injection hardening, CRA build debt) and reachable by in-place, test-guarded refactors. Also harden .gitignore: exclude agent tooling (.claude/, .bg-shell/, .agent.md) and restore/broaden the runtime-secrets block (**/keys/, **/backups/, exports, CV artifacts) so nested DataProtection keys can't be committed accidentally. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
25 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
25 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
# Remaster Audit — July 2026
|
|
|
|
Full-system audit, bug hunt, and rebuild-vs-refactor assessment of Job Tracker (Jobbjakt).
|
|
|
|
**Bottom line:** ✅ **Incremental Refactor** — a full rebuild is *not* justified. See
|
|
[REBUILD_DECISION.md](REBUILD_DECISION.md) (the gate). No `JobTrackerV2` created; awaiting approval to
|
|
begin [MIGRATION_PLAN.md](MIGRATION_PLAN.md) Wave 1.
|
|
|
|
## Documents
|
|
1. [SYSTEM_AUDIT_REPORT.md](SYSTEM_AUDIT_REPORT.md) — executive synthesis + full audit
|
|
2. [BUG_REPORT.md](BUG_REPORT.md) — severity-rated defects (no Critical found)
|
|
3. [ARCHITECTURE_REVIEW.md](ARCHITECTURE_REVIEW.md)
|
|
4. [DATA_MODEL_REVIEW.md](DATA_MODEL_REVIEW.md)
|
|
5. [AI_SYSTEM_REVIEW.md](AI_SYSTEM_REVIEW.md)
|
|
6. [UX_REVIEW.md](UX_REVIEW.md)
|
|
7. [REMASTER_PROPOSAL.md](REMASTER_PROPOSAL.md)
|
|
8. [MIGRATION_PLAN.md](MIGRATION_PLAN.md)
|
|
9. [RESEARCH_COMPETITORS.md](RESEARCH_COMPETITORS.md)
|
|
10. [REBUILD_DECISION.md](REBUILD_DECISION.md)
|
|
|
|
## Method
|
|
Every finding is code-grounded (file/line) or explicitly labelled `[Speculative issue]`. Tags:
|
|
`[Bug] [Design flaw] [Architectural weakness] [Speculative issue]`. `.gsd` legacy cross-referenced as
|
|
historical design intent (it is git-ignored and stays out of the repo).
|