# ADR 0104: The project declaration ships from the framework > Source: https://github.com/max-listov/stitchkit/blob/master/docs/decisions/0104-the-project-declaration-ships-from-the-framework.md --- # ADR 0104 — The project declaration ships from the framework ## Context An application repository makes statements about itself that are not code: what it is called, what roles it runs, what it needs before it starts, which environment variables it expects. Today the starter template says some of this in `app.config.json`, some in two hand-written process files, and some in a Zod environment schema — three places, no single reader. The moment that becomes a contract rather than a convention is when something *outside* the repository reads it: a tool that builds a source into an artifact and binds that artifact into a deployment. That reader is not the project and not the scaffolder, and it cannot be assumed to sit in the same tree. The schema therefore has at least three readers that must never disagree: 1. the repository, which fills the declaration in and consumes it at runtime; 2. the scaffolder, which writes the first copy; 3. whatever builds a source and binds the artifact into a deployment. In this repository the schema was already duplicated between (1) and (2) — `ApplicationIdentitySchema` existed verbatim in `packages/create-stitchkit/src/` and in the template's `packages/config/src/`. Four fields made the duplication cheap; roles, requirements and environment do not. ## Decision The project declaration schema ships **from the framework** as `stitchkit/declaration`, and no reader keeps a copy of it. Three properties make that a contract rather than a shared file: - **It is versioned.** `PROJECT_DECLARATION_SCHEMA_VERSION` is part of the declaration, and `parseProjectDeclaration` checks it *before* reading any field. A reader that does not recognise the version refuses the repository. - **Refusal is fail-closed.** An unrecognised version is never assumed compatible. A partially understood declaration is the single failure mode that produces a running, wrong deployment instead of an error, and it is the one outcome the version field exists to make impossible. - **A project narrows, never restates.** A project that speaks exactly two locales extends the shipped schema; it does not write its own copy of the other fields. The schema carries a boundary rule, and the rule is the load-bearing part: > A declaration must be complete and meaningful **when no machine exists**. A > field that cannot be filled in without knowing where the code will run is a > binding supplied by the deployment, not a declaration made by the repository. So ports, hosts, absolute URLs, connection strings, machine paths, routing shape, supervision policy and secrets are never values in a declaration. A binding may be *named* — by the variable that will carry it — and never valued. The boundary rule splits the world in two — code, and the values of a place. There is a third thing that is neither, and leaving it unnamed makes the rule wrong rather than incomplete: **data read while building**. Pages prerendered from a database depend on bytes that are not in the source and are not a binding, so such a build cannot leave the machine that holds the data, and no rearrangement of environment variables changes that. Three answers are legitimate, chosen per route rather than per project: render at runtime, declare a frozen export whose digest is pinned (`build.inputs`), or generate the bytes as a release step — the same kind of step as a migration, not a new concept. A build that reads data it has not declared is the one case that announces nothing: it succeeds wherever the data happens to be. The declaration ships whole: `kind`, `identity`, `roles` (each with its own working directory, per-mode argv commands, optional listener and drain floor), `build` (its command, its artifacts and any declared data inputs), `requires`, `release` and `env`. The entrypoint is **evolving** (→ ADR 0103) because the shape is still being found, not because parts of it are missing. Two things hold the boundary, and they are not equally strong — saying so is part of the decision. **Structure** is the guarantee. There is nowhere in the declaration that a value of the place must go: a command is `executable` plus `args`, no part may be an absolute path or an assignment in any form, and a listener names variables that must exist in the env contract with the right shapes. `--port=8080` and `--config=/srv/app/config.json` are refused because an inline value has to be written as its own argument, where the same checks reach it. **Hygiene** is the filter. `namesAMachine` catches the known shapes of a machine name in every remaining free string, and a number after a port flag is refused. It is not a proof: a secret written as its own argument and a hostname written as a plain word are indistinguishable from any other argument. Stitchkit is not a secret scanner and this ADR does not claim it is one. Both versions of this rule were first written too strongly, and both times the correction came from someone else running shapes the author had not thought of. That is why the test file leads with a table of declarations that must be refused, and carries a second table of shapes it deliberately accepts. ## Consequences - A reader outside the repository validates a project with the same schema the project validates itself with, and a mismatch is an error rather than a divergence nobody notices. - **Declaring yourself stays optional, and that is part of the decision.** A project with no `project.json` is complete: no other core module imports this one, no build/test/start path looks for a declaration, and its absence is never an error or a warning. Two tests hold that shape (`packages/core/tests/project-declaration.test.ts`) because the alternative — a repository that only one tool can bring up — is a fork rather than a dependency, which is the outcome the whole surface exists to avoid. - The framework gains a surface that is not about serving requests. It stays generic (→ ADR 0002): the schema fixes no locale set, no role vocabulary and no deployment model — it fixes only what is true about code with no machine. - Adoption crosses a release boundary. The template resolves `stitchkit` from npm at the version its catalog targets, so it can only import a new entrypoint after that entrypoint is published — the template's migration is a starter release that follows the framework release, never the same one. - Extending the declaration is a breaking change to a published schema and moves the minor, with a migration section like any other. ## Alternatives considered - **Leave the schema in each project.** Rejected: it is already duplicated twice, and the reader that most needs it is the one that cannot see the tree. - **Ship it from the scaffolder.** Rejected: the scaffolder writes a project once and is then absent. A deployment reader would depend on a scaffolding tool to understand a repository it scaffolded years earlier. - **A JSON Schema file rather than a Zod module.** Rejected for now: the repo is Zod-first, types come from `z.infer`, and a JSON Schema can be generated from the Zod schema (`z.toJSONSchema`) when a non-TypeScript reader needs one. Generating is one source; hand-maintaining both is two.