Reborn Architecture Review

Layer discipline here is enforced by machines, not vibes: cargo test -p ironclaw_architecture (38 boundary tests) and the per-crate contract tests are the real reviewers. Your job is the failures machines can't see: mass pooling inside a crate and speculative abstraction.

Checklist (run all six; each is checkable)

1. New trait? Demand the second implementation. A trait with one production impl is a ritual, not a boundary. Before accepting it, name the concrete second impl (a real backend, not a test fake) or the enforced boundary it serves (e.g. it keeps a forbidden dep out of a crate — verifiable in Cargo.toml). "So we can swap formatters later" / "so callers can hold Arc<dyn …>" is the exact rationalization to reject — later can add the trait when later arrives; extraction from a concrete type is mechanical. Justified counter-examples to copy: RootFilesystem, EmbeddingProvider, PolicySource, and dependency-inversion ports whose impl must live up-layer (SkillInferencePort, CapabilityDispatcher). Unjustified precedent to not repeat: the ironclaw_memory/ironclaw_memory_native split (one provider; on audit watch).
2. New code in ironclaw_reborn_composition? Prove it's assembly. The crate's charter is service-graph wiring. If your change adds behavior — delivery logic, auth flows, a domain service, a serve surface — it belongs in an owning crate; the host-side-of-a-product role is a real crate (ironclaw_webui is the model). Composition gets the build_*/with_* wiring only.
3. New dependency edge? Check both the rules and their shape. Run cargo test -p ironclaw_architecture. Know its blind spots: most rules are blocklists, so a new crate is unruled by default — if you add a crate, add its boundary rule in the same PR (crates/ironclaw_architecture/tests/reborn_dependency_boundaries.rs, boundary_rules()); never add a normal dep on the v1-only enclave (ironclaw_engine, ironclaw_tui, ironclaw_gateway, ironclaw_oauth, ironclaw_embeddings).
4. New pub use? Name the downstream consumer and the test that closes the direct path. The house pattern: composition's re-exports each carry a doc-comment citing consumer + boundary test. No glob re-exports of another crate at a crate root (the only sanctioned wildcard shapes: ironclaw_host_api's documented intra-crate prelude, and ironclaw_reborn_traces' re-namespaced modules).
5. New public surface? Copy the visibility kit: #![warn(unreachable_pub)], pub(crate) internals, sealed traits for strategy slots (ironclaw_agent_loop/src/planner.rs:15-26 is the template), directory-of-modules lib.rs (no re-export wall — a boundary test enforces this for internal crates).
6. File growing past 1,500 lines (3,000 = tracking issue)? The rule is real (.claude/rules/architecture.md §5), but verify whether the pre-commit check exists before relying on it: grep -n 'ARCH-SPRAWL' scripts/pre-commit-safety.sh. Same for #[allow(clippy::too_many_arguments)]: require an // arch-exempt: …, plan #NNNN line above it; don't add bare allows.

Rationalizations vs reality

Verify

cargo test -p ironclaw_architecture · bash scripts/check-boundaries.sh (legacy inventory; may be noisy on HEAD, don't treat as the Reborn architecture gate) · cargo clippy -p <crate> --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings · if routes changed: cargo test -p ironclaw_webui --test webui_v2_descriptors_contract.

Worked good/bad examples (before/after shapes, live exemplars, re-verify commands): references/worked-examples.md — the living curriculum; update it as the code evolves.