AndersPier/neural-nexus-claude-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add comprehensive decision history tracking for development choices

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Anders Lehmann Pier
2025-06-13 10:31:25 +02:00
parent fe50b3279d
commit bed5138471
1 changed files with 266 additions and 278 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

544
knowledge-base/development/decision-history.md
View File

@@ -1,288 +1,276 @@
# Decision History Log # Development Decision History - Neural Nexus
## Project Foundation Decisions This document tracks all major development decisions made during the project lifecycle, providing context for future reference and team knowledge transfer.
### Technology Stack Selection ## Decision Log Format
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Use Vanilla HTML5/JavaScript instead of frameworks
**Rationale**:
- Maximum performance with minimal overhead
- No build system complexity for prototype stage
- Educational value in understanding core web technologies
- Easier deployment and debugging
- Future framework migration possible if needed
**Alternatives Considered**: React, Vue.js, Svelte Each entry includes:
**Trade-offs Accepted**: More manual DOM management, less component reusability - **Date**: When the decision was made
**Status**: ✅ Confirmed working well - **Context**: Situation that required the decision
- **Decision**: What was chosen
- **Rationale**: Why this choice was made
- **Alternatives**: Other options considered
- **Impact**: Effects on development and architecture
- **Status**: Current, Modified, or Superseded
### Graphics Technology Choice ## June 2025 Decisions
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Canvas 2D API for game rendering
**Rationale**:
- Excellent performance for 2D graphics
- Wide browser compatibility
- Precise control over rendering pipeline
- Suitable for particle effects and animations
- Simpler than WebGL for current scope
**Alternatives Considered**: WebGL, SVG, DOM manipulation ### Decision 001: Single-File Game Architecture
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Limited 3D capabilities, manual optimization needed **Date:** June 13, 2025
**Status**: ✅ Excellent performance achieved **Context:** Choosing development approach for HTML5 game
**Decision:** Build complete game in single index.html file
**Rationale:**
- Simplifies deployment (no build process)
- Easier for contributors to understand
- Immediate testing and iteration
- Perfect for GitHub Pages hosting
### Single-File Architecture **Alternatives Considered:**
**Date**: June 13, 2025 - Multi-file structure with build process
**Decision**: Keep entire game in single `index.html` file - Framework-based architecture (React, Vue)
**Rationale**: - Game engine approach (Phaser.js)
- Instant deployment to any static host
- No build process required
- Easy to share and debug
- Suitable for prototype/early development
- Can be refactored later if needed
**Alternatives Considered**: Modular file structure, bundler setup **Impact:** Enables rapid prototyping and simple deployment
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Harder to maintain as codebase grows **Status:** Current
**Status**: ✅ Working well for current scope, monitor for refactoring needs
## Game Design Decisions
### Neural Network Theme
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Neural network connectivity as core theme
**Rationale**:
- Contemporary and relevant to current AI trends
- Visually appealing with glowing nodes and connections
- Natural fit for puzzle mechanics
- Educational value about networks and connectivity
- Distinctive in puzzle game market
**Alternatives Considered**: Circuit boards, constellation patterns, molecule structures
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Theme might become dated, technical complexity in explanation
**Status**: ✅ Positive player feedback on theme
### Time-Based Challenges
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Include timer-based pressure in gameplay
**Rationale**:
- Creates urgency and excitement
- Encourages replay for better scores
- Natural difficulty progression (decreasing time limits)
- Prevents analysis paralysis
- Standard in successful puzzle games
**Alternatives Considered**: Move-limited puzzles, no time pressure
**Trade-offs Accepted**: May stress some players, could alienate casual audience
**Status**: ✅ Balancing seems appropriate, monitor feedback
### Progressive Difficulty Scaling
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Gradual increase in nodes and connections per level
**Rationale**:
- Maintains player engagement without overwhelming
- Natural learning curve
- Allows pattern recognition skills to develop
- Industry standard for puzzle games
- Accommodates different skill levels
**Alternatives Considered**: Fixed difficulty, random difficulty spikes
**Trade-offs Accepted**: May become predictable, skilled players might get bored
**Status**: ✅ Working well, consider adding difficulty options later
## Visual Design Decisions
### Glassmorphism UI Style
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Modern glassmorphism design with blur effects
**Rationale**:
- Contemporary and visually appealing
- Creates depth and sophistication
- Works well with neural network theme
- Distinctive from traditional game UIs
- Trending in modern web design
**Alternatives Considered**: Flat design, skeuomorphic, neon cyberpunk
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Performance cost of backdrop-filter, may not age well
**Status**: ✅ Performance acceptable, positive visual impact
### Color Palette Selection
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Cyan/magenta gradient with neural-themed colors
**Rationale**:
- High contrast for accessibility
- Futuristic feel appropriate for neural theme
- Good visibility on various screen types
- Distinctive brand identity
- Works in both light and dark environments
**Alternatives Considered**: Green/blue matrix theme, warm orange/red, monochrome
**Trade-offs Accepted**: May be too "sci-fi" for some players
**Status**: ✅ Good accessibility, positive feedback
### Particle Effects Implementation
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: DOM-based particles for connection feedback
**Rationale**:
- Simpler implementation than Canvas particles
- Good performance for small numbers
- CSS animations provide smooth effects
- Easy to modify and customize
- Adequate for current scope
**Alternatives Considered**: Canvas-based particles, no particle effects
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Limited scalability, potential DOM pollution
**Status**: ✅ Good performance, consider Canvas particles for complex effects
## Performance & Technical Decisions
### Target Frame Rate Strategy
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: 60fps desktop, 30fps+ mobile targets
**Rationale**:
- Smooth gameplay experience on primary platforms
- Realistic given hardware constraints
- Allows for visual effects without compromise
- Industry standard for web games
- Performance budget management
**Alternatives Considered**: Fixed 30fps, adaptive frame rate
**Trade-offs Accepted**: More complex optimization needed
**Status**: ✅ Targets achieved on test devices
### Object Pooling Strategy
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Implement object pooling for particles
**Rationale**:
- Prevents garbage collection hitches
- Better memory management
- Consistent performance during effects
- Standard practice for game development
- Scalable for future features
**Alternatives Considered**: Create/destroy on demand, pre-allocate fixed arrays
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Additional code complexity
**Status**: ✅ Smooth performance improvements observed
### Cross-Platform Input Handling
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Unified mouse/touch event system
**Rationale**:
- Single codebase for all platforms
- Consistent behavior across devices
- Easier maintenance and testing
- Future-proof for new input methods
- Industry best practice
**Alternatives Considered**: Separate mouse/touch handlers, input library
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Some platform-specific optimizations lost
**Status**: ✅ Working well across all test devices
## Deployment & Distribution Decisions
### GitHub Pages Hosting
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Use GitHub Pages for primary deployment
**Rationale**:
- Free and reliable hosting
- Automatic deployment from repository
- Good performance with CDN
- Easy domain setup if needed
- Integration with development workflow
**Alternatives Considered**: Netlify, Vercel, custom hosting
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Limited server-side capabilities
**Status**: ✅ Working perfectly, fast loading times
### Open Source License
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: MIT License for both game and documentation
**Rationale**:
- Permissive licensing encourages use
- Educational value for other developers
- Simple and well-understood terms
- Allows commercial adaptation
- Standard for web development projects
**Alternatives Considered**: GPL, Apache, proprietary
**Trade-offs Accepted**: No commercial protection
**Status**: ✅ Appropriate for project goals
## Development Workflow Decisions
### Dual Repository Strategy
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Separate repos for game and Claude Project documentation
**Rationale**:
- Clean separation of concerns
- Game repo focuses on product
- Documentation repo demonstrates methodology
- Different audiences for each repository
- Professional presentation
**Alternatives Considered**: Single repository, multiple branches
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Additional maintenance overhead
**Status**: ✅ Clear organization, positive feedback
### Claude Project Integration
**Date**: June 13, 2025
**Decision**: Use Claude Projects for persistent development context
**Rationale**:
- Maintains context across sessions
- Systematic knowledge accumulation
- Consistent development approach
- Documented decision making
- Efficient AI collaboration
**Alternatives Considered**: Regular chat sessions, external documentation
**Trade-offs Accepted**: Learning curve for new methodology
**Status**: ✅ Significant productivity improvements
## Future Decision Points
### Audio System Implementation (Pending)
**Decision Needed**: Web Audio API vs HTML5 Audio elements
**Considerations**: Performance, browser compatibility, feature requirements
**Timeline**: Phase 1 development
**Research Status**: Investigating options
### Save System Architecture (Pending)
**Decision Needed**: LocalStorage vs IndexedDB vs Cloud storage
**Considerations**: Data size, offline capability, sync requirements
**Timeline**: Phase 1 development
**Research Status**: LocalStorage preferred for MVP
### Framework Migration (Future)
**Decision Needed**: When to migrate from vanilla JS to framework
**Considerations**: Code complexity, team size, maintenance burden
**Timeline**: If codebase exceeds 2000 lines or team grows
**Research Status**: Monitor codebase growth
### Mobile App Distribution (Future)
**Decision Needed**: PWA vs Native app stores vs Hybrid approach
**Considerations**: Distribution channels, native features, development cost
**Timeline**: Phase 3 development
**Research Status**: PWA seems most appropriate
## Decision Review Process
### Monthly Review
- Assess whether past decisions are still valid
- Identify new decision points from development experience
- Update trade-off assessments based on real usage
- Plan upcoming decisions and research needed
### Decision Reversal Protocol
1. Document why original decision no longer optimal
2. Research alternatives with current constraints
3. Assess migration cost and timeline
4. Make new decision with full context
5. Update this log with reversal rationale
### Success Metrics for Decisions
- **Technical**: Performance targets met, no major refactoring needed
- **Process**: Development velocity maintained or improved
- **User**: Positive feedback, engagement metrics healthy
- **Business**: Goals achieved within time/resource constraints
--- ---
**This log should be updated after every major decision. Regular review helps ensure decisions remain optimal as the project evolves.** ### Decision 002: Vanilla JavaScript Over Frameworks
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Technology stack selection for game engine
**Decision:** Use vanilla ES6+ JavaScript without external frameworks
**Rationale:**
- Maximum performance control
- No external dependencies to manage
- Smaller bundle size
- Educational value for learning web technologies
**Alternatives Considered:**
- React for component structure
- Vue.js for simpler framework approach
- Game-specific frameworks like Phaser
**Impact:** Requires more manual implementation but provides full control
**Status:** Current
---
### Decision 003: Canvas 2D for Game Rendering
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Graphics rendering technology choice
**Decision:** HTML5 Canvas 2D API for all game graphics
**Rationale:**
- Excellent performance for 2D graphics
- Full control over rendering pipeline
- Wide browser compatibility
- Sufficient features for puzzle game needs
**Alternatives Considered:**
- WebGL for hardware acceleration
- DOM manipulation for game elements
- SVG for vector graphics
**Impact:** Enables 60fps performance with fine-grained control
**Status:** Current
---
### Decision 004: Glassmorphism UI Design
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Visual design direction for user interface
**Decision:** Modern glassmorphism design with blur effects
**Rationale:**
- Contemporary, premium appearance
- Fits neural network technological theme
- Creates visual depth without overwhelming gameplay
- Differentiates from basic web games
**Alternatives Considered:**
- Flat material design
- Skeuomorphic interface
- Minimalist approach
**Impact:** Defines entire visual language and CSS architecture
**Status:** Current
---
### Decision 005: Progressive Difficulty Algorithm
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Game balance and player engagement strategy
**Decision:** Algorithmic difficulty scaling based on level progression
**Rationale:**
- Maintains challenge as players improve
- Prevents frustration through gradual increase
- Allows fine-tuning based on player data
- Infinite content generation capability
**Implementation:**
```javascript
const nodeCount = Math.min(5 + Math.floor(level * 0.7), 12);
const timeLimit = Math.max(45, 60 - Math.floor(level / 3) * 2);
```
**Alternatives Considered:**
- Fixed difficulty levels
- Player-selected difficulty
- Adaptive difficulty based on performance
**Impact:** Core to long-term player engagement and retention
**Status:** Current
---
### Decision 006: Mobile-First Responsive Design
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Cross-platform compatibility requirements
**Decision:** Design primarily for mobile, enhance for desktop
**Rationale:**
- Puzzle games popular on mobile devices
- Touch interaction naturally translates to mouse
- Ensures excellent mobile experience
- Larger touch targets benefit accessibility
**Implementation Approach:**
- Base styles for mobile (320px+)
- Progressive enhancement for larger screens
- Touch target minimum 44px
- Gesture-based interactions
**Alternatives Considered:**
- Desktop-first with mobile adaptation
- Separate mobile and desktop versions
- Mobile-only approach
**Impact:** Influences all UI design and interaction patterns
**Status:** Current
---
### Decision 007: GitHub-Based Dual Repository Structure
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Project organization and documentation strategy
**Decision:** Separate repositories for game code and Claude Project methodology
**Rationale:**
- Clean separation of concerns
- Game repository showcases development skills
- Claude Project repository demonstrates systematic approach
- Both serve as templates for future projects
**Repository Structure:**
- `neural-nexus-game`: Game code and development documentation
- `neural-nexus-claude-project`: Claude Project workflow and methodology
**Alternatives Considered:**
- Single repository with folders
- Multiple repositories for different aspects
- Documentation-only repository
**Impact:** Creates reusable development methodology and clean portfolio pieces
**Status:** Current
---
### Decision 008: Session-Based Development Workflow
**Date:** June 13, 2025
**Context:** Claude Project context management and knowledge retention
**Decision:** Structured session start/end workflow with mandatory consolidation
**Rationale:**
- Prevents context loss between sessions
- Captures decisions and rationale systematically
- Builds knowledge base incrementally
- Maintains development momentum
**Workflow Components:**
- Session start prompt for context setting
- Mandatory session end consolidation
- Weekly progress reviews
- Stage transition assessments
**Alternatives Considered:**
- Ad-hoc development without structure
- Daily summary instead of session-based
- Automated context capture
**Impact:** Ensures consistent progress and knowledge retention
**Status:** Current
---
## Decision Review Process
### Monthly Reviews
- Assess whether decisions are achieving intended goals
- Identify decisions that may need modification
- Document lessons learned from implementation
- Plan updates based on new information or changing requirements
### Decision Modification Process
1. Document current status and why change is needed
2. Analyze impact on existing implementation
3. Consider alternatives within current constraints
4. Plan implementation strategy
5. Update related documentation
6. Communicate changes to team/stakeholders
### Decision Success Metrics
- **Technical Decisions**: Performance targets, maintainability, scalability
- **Design Decisions**: User satisfaction, engagement metrics, accessibility
- **Process Decisions**: Development velocity, knowledge retention, team efficiency
## Future Decisions to Track
### Upcoming Decision Points
- Audio system implementation approach
- Save game data structure and storage method
- Tutorial system design and implementation
- Achievement system architecture
- Level editor technical approach
### Decision Templates
#### Technical Decision Template
```markdown
### Decision XXX: [Title]
**Date:** [Date]
**Context:** [Situation requiring decision]
**Decision:** [What was chosen]
**Rationale:** [Why this choice]
**Alternatives:** [Other options considered]
**Implementation:** [How it will be built]
**Impact:** [Effects on project]
**Success Metrics:** [How to measure success]
**Status:** [Current/Modified/Superseded]
```
#### Design Decision Template
```markdown
### Decision XXX: [Title]
**Date:** [Date]
**Context:** [Design challenge or requirement]
**Decision:** [Design direction chosen]
**User Impact:** [How this affects player experience]
**Rationale:** [Why this approach]
**Design Alternatives:** [Other approaches considered]
**Implementation:** [How to achieve this design]
**Success Metrics:** [User satisfaction, engagement measures]
**Status:** [Current/Modified/Superseded]
```
## Knowledge Extraction
### Patterns for Future Projects
- Single-file architecture works well for simple games
- Vanilla JavaScript provides excellent performance control
- Mobile-first design ensures broad compatibility
- Structured development workflow prevents context loss
- Documentation-driven development improves long-term maintenance
### Anti-Patterns Identified
- Premature optimization before core mechanics proven
- Complex architecture before understanding requirements
- Neglecting mobile experience in favor of desktop polish
- Inconsistent development practices leading to context loss
Last Updated: June 2025
Next Review: July 2025 (Monthly decision review)