- name
- archify-tuning
- description
- Improve Archify diagram accuracy, visual quality and complete authoring speed with fewer repairs. Use for generation experiments or evaluating changes to layout, routing, diagnostics, authoring instructions and acceptance rules against actual diagrams and agent traces.
- metadata
- internal: true
Archify Tuning
Users describe a system and an agent authors the diagram. Optimize that complete journey, from understanding the source to delivering a usable artifact. Keep this priority:
- Accurate: facts, relationships, directions, conditions, ownership and sources match the system.
- Readable and attractive: a clear reading path, distinguishable connections, legible text and balanced composition.
- Efficient: short complete delivery time, few failed repairs and little repeated work.
Tests and validators serve these outcomes and are themselves candidates for improvement. A passing check does not establish a good diagram; a failing check can expose an unsuitable rule. Judge the artifact and authoring experience before choosing what to change.
Product requirements and adjustable rules
- Protect source facts and supported user behavior. First drafts can be wrong: retain originals and record source-backed corrections or additions. Counts of deleted elements flag a semantic review; they do not decide whether an edit is correct.
- Treat spacing, preferred direction, bend counts and single-screen fit as design strategies to assess in context. An extra bend or readable scrolling can improve the whole diagram. Preserve explicit geometry and supported contracts unless an agreed change covers them.
- Before repairing a failed check, identify the user harm it is meant to prevent and whether that harm is present. For an unsuitable rule, revise its scope, threshold or severity; update or retire obsolete tests with the rationale and actual before/after evidence. Keep the original failure visible. Changing an expected value alone proves no benefit.
- Early diagnostics and browser checks should agree where they measure the same requirement and state their different scopes elsewhere. Neither is an unquestionable oracle. Taste that cannot be judged reliably can remain advice or visual review instead of a hard failure.