Documentation: How should we document the S227 sessions security unificatio...

Documentation for Sessions

📚 Documentation: How should we document the S227 sessions security unificatio...

Date: 2026-03-16
Time: 20:36:46 UTC
Session: gspace1-226.2
Agent: documentation
Confidence: 95%
Status: ✅ Documented

📋 Decision Context

Question:

How should we document the S227 sessions security unification for both technical and non-technical stakeholders?

Task: Document S227 security unification progress

🎯 Decision Made

Chosen:

Create a comprehensive session documentation file (S226.md) covering the full timeline, plus a non-technical progress report explaining what changed, why, and what's next in plain language. Both in docs/english/sessions/S226/.

Options Considered:

Single technical doc only
Technical doc + non-technical progress report (chosen)
Inline code comments only

💭 Reasoning

This was a massive cross-cutting change (100+ files across 4 backends). Documentation must serve two audiences: (1) future developers who need to understand the new auth architecture (UnifiedAuthGuard, @Public(), @ServiceOnly(), internal routes), and (2) non-technical stakeholders who need to understand the security improvements and remaining gaps. The session doc captures the technical decisions for MCP intelligence; the progress report makes the business impact accessible.

📁 Files Involved

docs/english/sessions/S226/
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-03-16-sessions-security-unification-design.md
docs/superpowers/plans/2026-03-16-sessions-security-unification.md

🔗 Related

Decision ID: dev_1773693406732_bzmvn6b
Session: 226
Workspace: gspace1

Auto-generated by MCP Smart Consolidation