Arch docs

[saengel]

Description

• A new sub-directory docs/arch_docs/ for storing sdd arch docs
• Moving other arch docs into this directory
• Moving the agent docs into docs - docs/agent_docs/
• The arch doc for search improvements, the deliverable after the POC phase - /docs/arch_docs/search_improvements_arch.md

(see: sc-44124 and sc-45372)

[gitvelocity-reviewer]

📊 Code Quality Score: 2/100

16 × 0.1 (Nano ESF) = 1.6, rounded to 2

Category	Score	Factors
🔭 Scope	4/20	50+ files touched but all pure renames with zero content changes; one new prose doc added; no logic, API, or subsystem changes
🏗️ Architecture	2/20	New arch doc describes future architecture but implements nothing; file reorganization has minimal structural impact
⚙️ Implementation	2/20	No code logic; arch doc is well-written prose with ASCII diagrams, tables, and structured sections
⚠️ Risk	3/20	Low risk overall; path renames could break tooling references to agent_docs/ if any scripts hardcode that path
✅ Quality	5/15	Architecture doc is thorough with limitations, open questions, sample requests/responses, and future enrichments sections; honest about known gaps
🔒 Perf / Security	0/5	Not applicable for documentation-only PR

Was this score accurate? 👍 Yes · 👎 No

_{Scored by GitVelocity · How are scores calculated?}

[stevekaplan123]

Left comments. Mostly this is great and it will be exciting to see Claude bring the code back to life from this arch doc.

[gitvelocity-reviewer]

📊 Code Quality Score: 1/100

Base Score 8 × ESF 0.1 = 0.8, floored to minimum 1

Category	Score	Factors
🔭 Scope	2/20	Pure file renames/moves across docs directories; new architecture prose document; no logic changes, no new APIs implemented
🏗️ Architecture	1/20	Document describes architectural decisions but implements nothing; file reorganization is purely organizational
⚙️ Implementation	1/20	No implementation code; architecture doc is well-written prose but not executable logic
⚠️ Risk	1/20	File renames are trivially reversible; documentation additions carry no operational risk
✅ Quality	3/15	Architecture document is thorough with diagrams, ES index schemas, sample requests/responses, limitations, and open questions; no tests applicable for documentation
🔒 Perf / Security	0/5	No production code changes; performance and security considerations are discussed in the doc but not implemented

Was this score accurate? 👍 Yes · 👎 No

_{Scored by GitVelocity · How are scores calculated?}