Files
atheos-blog-lxc/aidlc-docs/plans/execution-plan.md
hermes a6fb61d0ea feat: provision Alpine LXC 136 running Atheos, wired to Gitea
Provisions a LAN-only browser code editor (Atheos) in an Alpine 3.23 LXC on the
scotty PVE node, with armistace/blog cloned and ready to edit. Built via the
AI-DLC workflow; the full process trail is in aidlc-docs/.

Deliverables
- scripts/provision.sh          rebuild the guest from scratch (re-runnable)
- scripts/update-atheos.sh      move Atheos to latest upstream and RE-PIN
- scripts/build-and-test.sh     captures evidence for every acceptance criterion
- files/atheos.conf             nginx vhost (socket path byte-matches the FPM pool)
- files/ssh-config              ~atheos/.ssh/config deploy-key alias
- RUNBOOK.md                    operational guide (START AT STEP 1)
- docs/security-notes.md        credential model + wider-web hardening TODOs
- docs/resiliency-notes.md      what a non-PoC deployment would need

Design decisions
- D1 no git identity is configured by the agent; the operator sets it. Git will
  refuse the first commit until then, which is deliberate (requirement FR-11).
- D2 Atheos pinned to commit f90cd18 (build 611) with a verified tarball sha256,
  plus update-atheos.sh as the deliberate escape hatch.
- D3 nginx :80, web root /var/www/atheos, php-fpm over a unix socket.
- D6 git auth is a per-repository DEPLOY KEY scoped to armistace/blog, not a
  personal access token (a PAT's write:repository scope reaches every repo the
  account can write).

Verified on the live guest (40 checks, 0 failures)
- AC-2  Atheos served over HTTP 200 by nginx+php-fpm; socket paths byte-match
- AC-3  20 posts + themes/cleanblog present; owned by the php-fpm user
- AC-4  all five writable paths writable as the service user
- AC-5  remote targets armistace/blog; deploy key authenticates over SSH
- AC-6  survival proven with a real container restart, marker byte-identical
- AC-8  no python/pelican/pip/make and no DB engine - scope boundary enforced
- FR-11 git identity is empty; deploy key mode 600 owned by the service user

Traps documented in the RUNBOOK (each cost real debugging time)
- The Gitea SSH user is `gitea`, NOT `git` (app.ini SSH_USER=gitea). With `git`,
  sshd answers "Invalid user git" and rejects before reading authorized_keys,
  which is indistinguishable from a bad key.
- The Gitea SSH endpoint is the LAN address (:22 is not forwarded publicly).
- `uptime` and `free` report the PVE HOST inside an LXC without lxcfs, so a
  container that just restarted can claim days of uptime.
2026-09-29 15:50:34 +10:00

8.2 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

Execution Plan — atheos-blog-lxc

Stage: INCEPTION — Workflow Planning Date: 2026-09-29 Deploy Target: Proxmox LXC (Alpine 3.23) on node scotty (.69). No K3s flavour, no CI.


Detailed Analysis Summary

Change Impact Assessment

  • User-facing changes: Yes — a new web UI (Atheos) becomes reachable on the LAN.
  • Structural changes: Yes — one new Proxmox guest (VMID 136).
  • Data model changes: No — Atheos is database-less; it stores config in files.
  • API changes: No.
  • NFR impact: Low — a small single-purpose guest; NFRs already captured in requirements.md.
  • Existing systems touched: scotty gains a guest + a template download. armistace/blog is read (cloned) only — never pushed to by the agent.

Risk Assessment

  • Risk Level: Medium — the steps are well understood, but Atheos-on-Alpine is under-documented (C-1) and the install has a browser-driven first-run step.
  • Rollback Complexity: Easy — pct destroy 136 removes the guest; nothing else is mutated.
  • Testing Complexity: Simple-to-Moderate — all acceptance criteria are observable (served page, file on disk, git remote, survives reboot).

Component Relationships

  • Primary component: LXC 136 on scotty.
  • Internal: nginx → php-fpm (unix socket) → Atheos PHP app → workspace/ filesystem.
  • External (read-only): git.aridgwayweb.com/armistace/blog (public clone).
  • Operator-owned: SSH key, git identity, Atheos login — the agent creates none of these.

Workflow Visualization

flowchart TD
    Start(["User Request"])
    subgraph INCEPTION["🔵 INCEPTION PHASE"]
        WD["Workspace Detection<br/><b>COMPLETED</b>"]
        RE["Reverse Engineering<br/><b>SKIPPED</b>"]
        RA["Requirements Analysis<br/><b>COMPLETED</b>"]
        US["User Stories<br/><b>SKIPPED</b>"]
        WP["Workflow Planning<br/><b>IN PROGRESS</b>"]
        AD["Application Design<br/><b>EXECUTE</b>"]
        UG["Units Generation<br/><b>EXECUTE</b>"]
    end
    subgraph CONSTRUCTION["🟢 CONSTRUCTION PHASE"]
        FD["Functional Design<br/><b>SKIP</b>"]
        NFRA["NFR Requirements<br/><b>SKIP</b>"]
        NFRD["NFR Design<br/><b>SKIP</b>"]
        ID["Infrastructure Design<br/><b>EXECUTE</b>"]
        CG["Code Generation<br/><b>EXECUTE</b>"]
        BT["Build and Test<br/><b>EXECUTE</b>"]
    end
    subgraph OPERATIONS["🟡 OPERATIONS PHASE"]
        OPS["Operations<br/><b>PLACEHOLDER</b>"]
    end
    Start --> WD --> RA --> WP --> AD --> UG --> ID --> CG --> BT --> End(["Complete"])
style WD fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style RA fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style WP fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style CG fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style BT fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#1B5E20,stroke-width:3px,color:#fff
style RE fill:#BDBDBD,stroke:#424242,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style US fill:#BDBDBD,stroke:#424242,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style FD fill:#BDBDBD,stroke:#424242,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style NFRA fill:#BDBDBD,stroke:#424242,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style NFRD fill:#BDBDBD,stroke:#424242,stroke-width:2px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style AD fill:#FFA726,stroke:#E65100,stroke-width:3px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style UG fill:#FFA726,stroke:#E65100,stroke-width:3px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style ID fill:#FFA726,stroke:#E65100,stroke-width:3px,stroke-dasharray: 5 5,color:#000
style OPS fill:#FFF59D,stroke:#F9A825,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
linkStyle default stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

(Plain-text equivalent for Matrix: WD ✅ → RA ✅ → WP ✅ → AD ▶ → UG ▶ → ID ▶ → CG ▶ → BT ▶ → Done. Skipped: RE, US, FD, NFRA, NFRD.)


Phases to Execute

🔵 INCEPTION PHASE

  • Workspace Detection — COMPLETED
  • Reverse Engineering — SKIP (greenfield repo; the estate recon was folded into Workspace Detection and recorded in aidlc-state.md → Existing Estate Facts)
  • Requirements Analysis — COMPLETED
  • User Stories — SKIP (user-confirmed; single operator, no app code. A requirement→unit map substitutes for unit-of-work-story-map.md, per the skipped-stories rule)
  • Workflow Planning — COMPLETED
  • Application Design — EXECUTE (minimal depth)
    • Rationale: there are distinct components with real interfaces (nginx ↔ php-fpm socket, Atheos ↔ workspace, git ↔ remote). Recording them at minimal depth gives the handoff a component map and drives unit boundaries. Minimal, not comprehensive — no app code exists to design.
  • Units Generation — EXECUTE
    • Rationale: genuinely multi-unit work (guest, web stack, app, VCS, docs) with an ordering dependency.

🟢 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

  • Functional Design — SKIP
    • Rationale: no business logic to design; the "functions" are package installs and config files already specified in requirements.md.
  • NFR Requirements — SKIP
    • Rationale: all NFRs already captured (requirements.md §3); nothing new surfaces at construction.
  • NFR Design — SKIP
    • Rationale: same — NFRs here are simple resource/reboot-survival constraints, not a design problem.
  • Infrastructure Design — EXECUTE
    • Rationale: this is the real design work for an infra project — the guest spec, storage choice, template provenance, network mode, resource sizing, and the OpenRC service wiring. Getting this wrong is the main risk (C-1/C-2/C-3).
  • Code Generation — EXECUTE (always)
    • Rationale: the provisioning script + the docs are the deliverables.
  • Build and Test — EXECUTE (always)
    • Rationale: here "build and test" = apply against the live node and verify, plus the reboot-survival cycle (AC-6). Not a compiled artifact.

🟡 OPERATIONS PHASE

  • Operations — PLACEHOLDER (future deployment/monitoring workflows)

Unit Plan (provisional — finalised in Units Generation)

Unit Scope Depends on Primary ACs
U1 LXC creation: download Alpine 3.23 template on scotty, pct create 136 (20 GB root, 2 vCPU, 1 GB, onboot, unprivileged), base config, timezone, package index — AC-1
U2 Web stack: nginx + php83-fpm + php83-{session,zip,openssl,mbstring}, allow_url_fopen, php-fpm pool, nginx vhost U1 AC-2
U3 Atheos install: fetch pinned upstream commit into the web root, correct ownership/permissions on config.php, data/, workspace/, plugins/, themes/ U2 AC-2, AC-3
U4 Git + clone: install git, safe.directory, committer identity (non-armistace), clone armistace/blog into workspace/, leave remote HTTP U1, U3 AC-3, AC-4, AC-5
U5 Repo + docs: README.md, RUNBOOK.md (incl. SSH remote-switch + operator credential steps), docs/security-notes.md, docs/resiliency-notes.md, re-provision script U1–U4 AC-7

Estimated Timeline

No wall-clock estimate offered — fabricating one would be worse than omitting it. The work is 5 units, several of which are a handful of commands each; the only genuinely uncertain step is U3 (Atheos-on-Alpine, risk C-1). Each unit ends in a verifiable state, so progress is measurable even without a time estimate.


Success Criteria

  • Primary goal: a LAN-reachable Atheos on Alpine where armistace/blog is cloned and editable, with credentials owned entirely by the operator.
  • Key deliverables: LXC 136 on scotty; Atheos served by nginx/PHP; the blog clone in the workspace; README + RUNBOOK + re-provision script; security/resiliency TODO notes.
  • Quality gates:
    • AC-1…AC-8 all demonstrated with real command output (not assertions)
    • Atheos served (not 502/404) — verified over HTTP from the LAN
    • Reboot-survival verified (AC-6), not assumed
    • No Python/pelican present (AC-8) — proves scope was respected
    • No armistace credential or git identity created by the agent (FR-11)
    • Independent review of the generated provisioning script before the Build-and-Test gate
    • audit.md complete and append-only; aidlc-state.md current