Nav Continuity Layer: Dependency Map
DEPENDENCY MAP
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
┌─────────┐
│ START │
└────┬────┘
│
┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
│ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼
┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐
│ Receipts│ │ Plans │ │ Issues │
│ Schema │ │ .json │ │ .md │
└────┬────┘ └────┬────┘ └────┬────┘
│ ═════╪══════ │
│ │ │
└──────────────┼────────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────┐
│ BriefGen│ (The Compiler Script)
└────┬────┘
│
▼
┌─────────┐
│ DONE │
└─────────┘
─────── = Soft (can mock or operate without)
═══════ = HARD (compile step requires Plan location known)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dependency Types
- Data (HARD): Location of active plans (
plan.jsonorindex.md), agent receipts, and open issues. - Infrastructure (HARD): The
skillsandhooksexecution environment to attach the compile script to session boot. - Decision (SOFT): The exact schema of
nav-memory.jsonl. Can iterate on this after MVP.
Parallelization Opportunities
- Context Reader (Dependencies): Can build the file readers (Plans, Issues, Receipts) in parallel.
- Formatter (Output): Can build the
/nav-briefing.mdcompiler layout independently of the readers.
Questions
Which dependency in the nav continuity layer map represents the highest systemic risk — and is there a path to eliminating it?
- If the most critical dependency failed, which capabilities would cascade and which could operate independently?
- Are any dependencies in this map bidirectional — and does that create circular risk that should be decomposed?
- Which dependency was added because of a constraint that no longer exists?