Beads-CODITECT Integration Architecture Assessment

Date: December 22, 2025 Evaluator: Senior Architect (Claude Sonnet 4.5) Status: ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION Integration Fit Score: 8.5/10

Executive Summary

Verdict: STRONG INTEGRATE - Beads complements CODITECT exceptionally well, addressing critical gaps in persistent task management while maintaining architectural coherence.

Key Finding: Beads and CODITECT's existing TodoWrite/Work Item systems operate at different architectural layers and timescales, creating synergistic integration rather than overlap. Beads already exists as a submodule and skill—integration is 60% complete.

Integration Architecture Score: 8.5/10

Breakdown:

Complementarity: 10/10 (Perfect fit - fills memory decay gap)
Architectural Alignment: 9/10 (Git-backed, distributed, CLI-first matches CODITECT)
Technical Fit: 8/10 (Go binary + Python wrapper pattern proven)
Integration Effort: 7/10 (Submodule exists, needs orchestration layer)
Maintenance Burden: 8/10 (Stable external tool with active community)

Current State Analysis

What Already Exists

Beads Integration Status: ~60% Complete

Submodule Installed: /submodules/beads/ (full source code)
Skill Defined: skills/beads/SKILL.md (comprehensive 645-line guide)
No Custom Commands: No /beads command wrapper yet
No Agent Integration: No beads-specific agents or orchestration
No Work Item Bridge: No integration with ADR-005 work item hierarchy

Key Insight: The skill document is production-quality with:

Session start protocols
Compaction survival workflows
TodoWrite integration patterns
Decision boundaries (when to use bd vs TodoWrite)
Progress checkpointing triggers

CODITECT's Existing Task Management

Three-Layer Architecture:

Layer 1: TodoWrite (Ephemeral - THIS HOUR)
├── Duration: Single session
├── Scope: Tactical execution ("Review Section 3")
├── Persistence: Disappears at session end
└── Tools: Native Claude Code TodoWrite tool

Layer 2: Beads (Persistent - THIS WEEK/MONTH) ← INTEGRATION POINT
├── Duration: Multi-session, survives compaction
├── Scope: Strategic work with dependencies
├── Persistence: Git-backed JSONL
└── Tools: bd CLI (Go binary)

Layer 3: Work Item Hierarchy (Project - THIS QUARTER/YEAR)
├── Duration: Long-term project tracking
├── Scope: Epic → Feature → Task hierarchy
├── Persistence: SQLite (context.db)
└── Tools: /cxq queries, work_items.py (ADR-005)

Current Problem: Layer 2 is MISSING from non-Beads workflows.

Architectural Synergies

1. Distributed, Git-Backed Architecture

Beads Philosophy:

Issues as data (JSONL) → Version controlled (Git) → Distributed sync

CODITECT Philosophy (WHAT-IS-CODITECT.md):

Intelligence as components (.md) → Symlink distributed → Git-tracked

Synergy: Both use Git as the source of truth and embrace distributed-first design.

Architectural Alignment Score: 9/10

2. Dependency-Aware Graph vs Multi-Agent Orchestration

Beads Capability:

Hierarchical task IDs (bd-a3f8.1, bd-a3f8.1.1)
Dependency types: blocks, discovered-from, parent-child, related
bd ready command shows unblocked work
Dependency graph visualization with bd dep tree

CODITECT Capability:

130+ specialized agents requiring orchestration
Task() invocation pattern with agent coordination
Work item hierarchy (Project → Epic → Feature → Task) per ADR-005
No built-in dependency resolution for agent sequencing

Integration Opportunity: Beads' dependency graph can orchestrate agent workflows:

# Example: Agent orchestration via Beads dependencies
bd create "Deploy auth system" -t epic
bd create "Build backend API" --parent epic --assignee codi-devops-engineer
bd create "Create frontend" --parent epic --assignee frontend-react-typescript-expert
bd create "Security audit" --parent epic --assignee security-specialist
bd dep add backend-api security-audit  # Security NEEDS backend first

# Orchestrator reads dependency graph
ready_tasks = bd ready --json
for task in ready_tasks:
    agent = task['assignee']
    invoke_agent(agent, task['description'])
    bd update task['id'] --status in_progress

Synergy Score: 10/10 - Beads provides the missing sequencing layer for multi-agent workflows.

3. Memory Decay Resistance

CODITECT Memory System:

/cx - Capture session to context.db (SQLite + FTS5)
/cxq - Query with semantic search
Problem: Sessions get compacted; TodoWrite lists disappear

Beads Solution:

Issues persist indefinitely in .beads/issues.jsonl
notes field designed for post-compaction recovery
Compaction survival pattern: Write notes as if future-you has zero conversation history

Integration Pattern:

# Before compaction (detected at >70% token usage)
bd update current-task --notes "COMPLETED: JWT auth with RS256.
KEY DECISION: RS256 over HS256 per security review - enables key rotation.
IN PROGRESS: Password reset flow - email service working, need rate limiting.
BLOCKERS: Waiting on user decision: reset token expiry (15min vs 1hr).
NEXT: Implement rate limiting (5 attempts/15min) once expiry decided."

# After compaction
/cxq --recall "authentication"  # Finds context from before compaction
bd show current-task            # Notes field provides full recovery context

Synergy Score: 10/10 - Beads solves CODITECT's catastrophic forgetting problem for multi-session work.

4. CLI-First with JSON Output

Beads: Every command supports --json flag for programmatic use CODITECT: Python automation scripts, JSON-based component registry

Integration: Beads CLI → Python wrapper → CODITECT command system

# scripts/beads-integration.py (proposed)
def bd_ready_for_agent(agent_name: str) -> List[Dict]:
    """Get ready tasks assigned to specific agent."""
    result = subprocess.run(
        ['bd', 'ready', '--assignee', agent_name, '--json'],
        capture_output=True, text=True
    )
    return json.loads(result.stdout)

Synergy Score: 9/10 - Perfect CLI/scripting integration pattern.

Integration Points

Integration Point 1: TodoWrite ↔ Beads Handoff

Current State: Documented in skills/beads/SKILL.md but not automated

Proposed Architecture:

Session Start:
bd ready --json → Create TodoWrite items for immediate tasks
Agent executes TodoWrite items
At checkpoints: Update bd notes with outcomes + context

Session End:
TodoWrite disappears
Beads notes persist with enriched context
Next session: bd show → Reconstruct TodoWrite from notes

Implementation:

Add /beads-sync command to automate TodoWrite → Beads note updates
Trigger on token budget > 70% (proactive checkpointing)
Trigger before compaction events

Priority: P0 (Core workflow)

Integration Point 2: Beads ↔ Work Item Hierarchy Bridge

Current State: Two separate hierarchies with no bridge

Beads Hierarchy:

bd-a3f8       (Epic)
├── bd-a3f8.1 (Task)
└── bd-a3f8.2 (Task)

CODITECT Hierarchy (ADR-005):

Project P001
└── Epic E001
    ├── Feature F001.1
    │   └── Task T001
    └── Feature F001.2

Problem: Duplication and confusion - Which system is source of truth?

Proposed Solution: Beads as Execution Layer, Work Items as Planning Layer

Planning (Long-term):
- Use ADR-005 Work Item Hierarchy (SQLite)
- Project → Epic → Feature → Task structure
- Story points, sprints, completion rollup
- Query with /cxq --epic-progress

Execution (Active work):
- Use Beads for in-progress tasks
- Sync status back to Work Item Hierarchy
- Beads notes field provides detailed context
- Dependency graph drives agent sequencing

Bridge Script:

# scripts/sync-beads-to-workitems.py
def sync_status():
    """One-way sync: Beads status → Work Item Hierarchy"""
    beads_issues = get_beads_issues_json()
    for issue in beads_issues:
        if issue.get('work_item_id'):  # Tagged with CODITECT work item
            update_work_item_status(
                issue['work_item_id'],
                status=issue['status'],
                notes=issue['notes'],
                actual_hours=calculate_hours(issue)
            )

Data Flow:

1. Create Epic E001 in Work Item Hierarchy (/epic create)
2. Break down into Features F001.1, F001.2 (/feature create)
3. When starting Feature F001.1:
   - Create Beads epic: bd create "F001.1 Implementation" --work-item-id F001.1
   - Create Beads tasks for immediate work
   - Work progresses in Beads (dependency-aware)
4. Periodically sync status back to Work Items
5. On Feature completion: bd close → triggers Work Item status update

Priority: P1 (Prevents duplication, clarifies boundaries)

Integration Point 3: Agent Orchestration via Dependency Graph

Use Case: Multi-agent workflows with prerequisites

Current CODITECT Pattern:

# Manual orchestration
Task(subagent_type="orchestrator", ...)  # Create plan
Task(subagent_type="backend-architect", ...)  # Execute
Task(subagent_type="security-specialist", ...)  # Execute
# ❌ No automatic sequencing, no dependency tracking

Proposed Beads-Orchestrated Pattern:

# 1. Define workflow in Beads
bd create "Implement auth system" -t epic --id auth-epic
bd create "Design auth API" --parent auth-epic --assignee backend-architect
bd create "Implement auth" --parent auth-epic --assignee codi-devops-engineer
bd create "Security audit" --parent auth-epic --assignee security-specialist
bd create "Write docs" --parent auth-epic --assignee codi-documentation-writer

# 2. Set dependencies
bd dep add api-design implementation
bd dep add implementation security-audit
bd dep add security-audit docs-writing

# 3. Orchestrator executes dependency-aware
python3 scripts/beads-orchestrator.py auth-epic

scripts/beads-orchestrator.py:

def execute_beads_workflow(epic_id: str):
    """Execute multi-agent workflow following Beads dependency graph."""
    while True:
        ready = get_ready_tasks(epic_id)
        if not ready:
            blocked = get_blocked_tasks(epic_id)
            if blocked:
                print(f"Workflow blocked: {blocked}")
                break
            else:
                print("Workflow complete!")
                break

        for task in ready:
            agent = task['assignee']
            print(f"Invoking {agent} for {task['title']}")

            # Invoke CODITECT agent
            result = invoke_agent_via_task_tool(agent, task['description'])

            # Update Beads
            subprocess.run(['bd', 'update', task['id'], '--status', 'in_progress'])
            subprocess.run(['bd', 'update', task['id'], '--notes', result])
            subprocess.run(['bd', 'close', task['id']])

Benefits:

Automatic sequencing (no manual orchestration)
Parallel execution where dependencies allow
Blocked work detection (shows what's stuck)
Audit trail of agent invocations

Priority: P1 (Core orchestration enhancement)

Integration Point 4: Session Context Preservation

CODITECT Anti-Forgetting System:

/cx - Export + deduplicate sessions
/cxq - Query historical context
Gap: Active work context not captured

Beads Enhancement:

# At session end
/export-to-beads
# Captures:
# - Active TodoWrite items → Beads notes
# - Key decisions → Beads notes
# - Discovered work → Beads issues with discovered-from
# - Blockers → Beads status=blocked

# At session start
/import-from-beads
# Reconstructs:
# - TodoWrite items from Beads ready tasks
# - Context from Beads notes
# - Blockers as warnings

Priority: P2 (Quality of life improvement)

Overlap Analysis

Where They Overlap

Task Tracking:

TodoWrite: Ephemeral checklists (session-scoped)
Beads: Persistent issues (multi-session)
Work Items: Project hierarchy (long-term)

Conclusion: No problematic overlap - different timescales.

Where They Differ (Complementary)

Feature	TodoWrite	Beads	Work Items (ADR-005)
Persistence	Session only	Git-backed forever	SQLite (context.db)
Scope	Single task list	Dependency graph	Project hierarchy
Dependencies	None	4 types (blocks, etc.)	Parent-child only
Compaction Survival	❌ Lost	✅ Persists	✅ Persists (DB)
Agent Assignment	❌ No	✅ Per-issue	❌ No
Hierarchical IDs	❌ No	✅ bd-a3f8.1	✅ E001 → F001.1
Query Interface	❌ No	✅ bd list --json	✅ /cxq --epic-progress
Burndown Tracking	❌ No	❌ No	✅ Sprint burndown
Story Points	❌ No	✅ (via labels/custom fields)	✅ estimate_points

Conclusion: Beads fills the multi-session execution layer between ephemeral TodoWrite and long-term Work Items.

Integration Architecture Proposal

Layered Integration Strategy

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    CODITECT + Beads Integration                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Layer 1: Planning & Roadmap (Work Item Hierarchy - ADR-005)
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ SQLite: context.db                                             │
│ Scope: Project → Sub-Project → Epic → Feature → Task          │
│ Tools: /epic, /feature, /task, /sprint commands               │
│ Duration: Months/quarters                                      │
│ Use Case: Long-term planning, sprint management, burndown     │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                               ↓ (sync status)
Layer 2: Execution & Dependencies (Beads)
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Git-backed: .beads/issues.jsonl                                │
│ Scope: Epic → Task → Subtask (with dependency graph)          │
│ Tools: bd CLI, /beads wrapper commands                         │
│ Duration: Weeks/months (survives compaction)                   │
│ Use Case: Multi-session work, agent orchestration, blockers   │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                               ↓ (create TodoWrite from bd ready)
Layer 3: Tactical Execution (TodoWrite)
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Ephemeral: Claude Code session memory                          │
│ Scope: Task list (no hierarchy)                                │
│ Tools: TodoWrite tool (native)                                 │
│ Duration: Single session (hours)                               │
│ Use Case: Immediate task tracking, progress visibility         │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Data Flow:
──────────
1. Planning Phase:
   - Create Epic E001 in Work Items (/epic create)
   - Break down into Features (/feature create)
   - Estimate story points, assign to sprint

2. Execution Start:
   - Create Beads epic for Feature F001.1
   - Break down into Beads tasks with dependencies
   - Assign tasks to CODITECT agents

3. Session Work:
   - bd ready → TodoWrite items for immediate work
   - Agent executes TodoWrite tasks
   - Checkpoint: Update Beads notes with progress

4. Session End:
   - TodoWrite disappears
   - Beads notes persist
   - Sync Beads status → Work Item Hierarchy

5. Next Session:
   - bd show → Reconstruct context
   - bd ready → New TodoWrite items
   - Continue execution

Command Architecture

New Commands Needed:

# Beads wrapper commands (priority order)
/beads ready [--agent AGENT]           # P0 - Show ready work
/beads create "Title" [OPTIONS]        # P0 - Create issue
/beads update ID --status STATUS       # P0 - Update status
/beads show ID                         # P0 - Show issue details
/beads sync-to-workitems               # P1 - Bridge to ADR-005
/beads checkpoint                      # P1 - Save TodoWrite to notes
/beads orchestrate EPIC_ID             # P1 - Multi-agent workflow
/beads export-todowrite                # P2 - Session end workflow
/beads import-todowrite                # P2 - Session start workflow

Implementation Pattern:

# commands/beads.md
"""
Beads Integration Command

Wrapper for bd CLI providing seamless integration with CODITECT.

Usage:
  /beads ready
  /beads create "Issue title" -p 1 -t task
  /beads checkpoint  # Save active work before compaction
"""

# scripts/beads.py
def beads_command(args: List[str]) -> Dict:
    """Execute bd CLI and return JSON."""
    result = subprocess.run(['bd'] + args + ['--json'], ...)
    return json.loads(result.stdout)

Agent Orchestrator Integration

New Agent: beads-workflow-orchestrator.md

title: Beads Workflow Orchestrator
purpose: Execute multi-agent workflows using Beads dependency graph
tools: Read, Write, Bash, TodoWrite
invocation: /agent beads-workflow-orchestrator "epic-id"

capabilities:
  - Read Beads dependency graph (bd dep tree)
  - Identify ready tasks (bd ready)
  - Invoke CODITECT agents based on task.assignee
  - Update task status after agent completion
  - Detect blocked work and report
  - Parallel execution where dependencies allow

Workflow:

# Orchestrator logic
1. bd dep tree EPIC_ID → Build execution plan
2. While work remains:
   a. bd ready --parent EPIC_ID → Get unblocked tasks
   b. For each ready task:
      - Invoke agent (task.assignee)
      - Update bd status (in_progress → completed)
      - Update work_items table (if work_item_id set)
   c. If no ready tasks but work remains:
      - bd blocked → Report blockers
      - Pause or escalate to human
3. bd stats EPIC_ID → Report completion

Database Schema Enhancement (ADR-005 Extension)

Add Beads integration fields to work_items table:

ALTER TABLE work_items ADD COLUMN beads_issue_id TEXT;
ALTER TABLE work_items ADD COLUMN beads_status TEXT;
ALTER TABLE work_items ADD COLUMN beads_last_sync TIMESTAMP;

CREATE INDEX idx_work_items_beads ON work_items(beads_issue_id);

-- View: Work items with Beads sync status
CREATE VIEW work_items_beads_sync AS
SELECT
    wi.id,
    wi.title,
    wi.status as work_item_status,
    wi.beads_issue_id,
    wi.beads_status,
    wi.beads_last_sync,
    CASE
        WHEN wi.beads_issue_id IS NULL THEN 'not_synced'
        WHEN wi.beads_last_sync < datetime('now', '-1 day') THEN 'stale'
        WHEN wi.status != wi.beads_status THEN 'out_of_sync'
        ELSE 'synced'
    END as sync_status
FROM work_items wi;

Sync Strategy:

# One-way sync: Beads (execution truth) → Work Items (planning truth)
def sync_beads_to_workitems():
    """Sync execution status from Beads to Work Item Hierarchy."""
    beads_issues = get_all_beads_issues()
    for issue in beads_issues:
        work_item_id = issue.get('work_item_id')  # Custom field in Beads
        if work_item_id:
            update_work_item(
                work_item_id,
                beads_issue_id=issue['id'],
                beads_status=issue['status'],
                beads_last_sync=datetime.now(),
                # Optionally update work_item status if complete
                status='completed' if issue['status'] == 'closed' else None
            )

Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Core Integration (P0 - 2 weeks)

Sprint 1: Command Wrapper + Agent

Create /beads command wrapper (scripts/beads.py + commands/beads.md)
Implement core commands: ready, create, update, show, close
Create beads-workflow-orchestrator.md agent
Test basic workflow: create issue → assign agent → execute → close

Sprint 2: TodoWrite Handoff

Implement /beads checkpoint (TodoWrite → Beads notes)
Implement session start protocol (bd ready → TodoWrite)
Add token budget monitoring (checkpoint at 70%)
Test compaction survival workflow

Deliverable: Beads operational for multi-session work with agent assignment

Phase 2: Work Item Bridge (P1 - 2 weeks)

Sprint 3: Database Integration

Add beads_issue_id, beads_status, beads_last_sync to work_items table
Create work_items_beads_sync view
Implement sync_beads_to_workitems() script
Test bidirectional workflow

Sprint 4: Orchestration Enhancement

Implement beads-workflow-orchestrator dependency execution
Add parallel task execution (where deps allow)
Add blocked work detection and reporting
Test complex multi-agent workflow with dependencies

Deliverable: Beads drives agent orchestration, syncs to Work Items

Phase 3: Advanced Features (P2 - 2 weeks)

Sprint 5: Automation

Implement /beads sync-to-workitems command
Add pre-commit hook: bd sync (if .beads/ exists)
Add session-startup hook: bd ready check
Create /beads dashboard (ASCII art progress view)

Sprint 6: Documentation + Training

Update USER-QUICK-START.md with Beads workflows
Create BEADS-INTEGRATION-GUIDE.md
Add beads examples to CODITECT-COOKBOOK.md
Record demo video: "Multi-session work with Beads"

Deliverable: Production-ready Beads integration with docs

Benefits Summary

For Users

Multi-Session Continuity: Work persists across compaction events
Dependency Management: Clear sequencing for complex tasks
Agent Orchestration: Automatic multi-agent workflows
Compaction Survival: Never lose context to memory decay
Better Planning: Clear separation: planning vs execution vs tactics

For Developers

Git-Backed Audit Trail: All issues version-controlled
Distributed Collaboration: Multiple agents/humans on same project
Zero-Config: bd auto-discovers .beads/ or ~/.beads/
Standard CLI: JSON output for scripting
Community Ecosystem: 6+ UIs (beads_viewer, beads.el, bdui, etc.)

For CODITECT Framework

Fills Architectural Gap: Multi-session execution layer was missing
Agent Orchestration: Dependency graph drives agent sequencing
Memory System Enhancement: Complements /cx and /cxq
Standards Alignment: Git-first, distributed, CLI-based
Low Maintenance: External stable project (active community)

Risks & Mitigations

Risk 1: Complexity Overhead

Risk: Users confused by three task systems (TodoWrite, Beads, Work Items)

Mitigation:

Clear documentation: "When to use which"
Default recommendation: Use Beads for >1 session work
Automated transitions (TodoWrite → Beads checkpoint)
Training pathway in USER-TRAINING-PATHWAYS.md

Residual Risk: Low (skill document already addresses this)

Risk 2: Sync Conflicts (Beads ↔ Work Items)

Risk: Status out of sync between Beads and Work Item Hierarchy

Mitigation:

One-way sync: Beads is execution truth, Work Items is planning truth
Periodic sync script (cron or pre-commit hook)
work_items_beads_sync view shows drift
Manual resolution workflow documented

Residual Risk: Medium (requires discipline)

Risk 3: External Dependency

Risk: Beads project becomes unmaintained or introduces breaking changes

Mitigation:

Beads is mature (v0.16+, active community, 6+ UI tools)
CODITECT can vendor bd binary if needed
Python wrapper abstracts Beads CLI (migration path exists)
Fallback: Fork and maintain if necessary

Residual Risk: Low (active project)

Risk 4: Learning Curve

Risk: bd CLI commands add cognitive load

Mitigation:

/beads wrapper provides familiar interface
Integration into existing workflows (session start/end)
skills/beads/SKILL.md already comprehensive
Gradual adoption (optional feature)

Residual Risk: Low (wrapper hides complexity)

Competitive Analysis

vs Linear/Jira Integration

Beads Advantages:

Offline-first (no cloud dependency)
Git-backed (version control for issues)
Zero cost
Data sovereignty (all local)
Hash-based IDs (no merge conflicts)

Linear/Jira Advantages:

Team collaboration features (comments, mentions)
Rich UI (drag-drop, boards)
Integrations (Slack, GitHub, etc.)
Reporting dashboards

Conclusion: Beads better for individual developer workflows; Linear/Jira for team coordination. CODITECT can support both.

vs Native Work Item Hierarchy (ADR-005)

Beads Advantages:

Dependency-aware graph (blocks, discovered-from)
Compaction survival (Git-backed)
Agent assignment per-issue
Distributed by design (multi-repo support)

Work Items Advantages:

Sprint management (burndown, velocity)
Story points estimation
Completion rollup (Epic → Feature → Task)
Query integration (/cxq)

Conclusion: Use both—Beads for execution, Work Items for planning. Bridge via sync script.

Recommendations

Immediate Actions (Next Sprint)

Activate beads skill (if not already activated)

python3 scripts/update-component-activation.py activate skill beads \
  --reason "Core multi-session task management"

Create /beads command wrapper (commands/beads.md + scripts/beads.py)
- Implement: ready, create, update, show, close
- Add --json output for automation
Create beads-workflow-orchestrator agent
- Dependency-aware multi-agent execution
- Reads bd dep tree, invokes agents, updates status
Document integration in USER-BEST-PRACTICES.md
- When to use Beads vs TodoWrite vs Work Items
- Session start/end protocols
- Compaction survival workflow

Medium-Term (Next Month)

Bridge Beads ↔ Work Item Hierarchy (ADR-005 extension)
- Add beads_issue_id column to work_items table
- Implement sync_beads_to_workitems() script
- Create work_items_beads_sync view
Automate checkpointing
- Token budget monitoring (checkpoint at 70%)
- Pre-compaction triggers
- TodoWrite → Beads notes automation
Add to training pathway
- "Multi-Session Work Management" module
- Video demo: Beads integration workflow
- Cookbook recipes for common patterns

Long-Term (Next Quarter)

Community integration
- Evaluate beads_viewer for CODITECT dashboard
- Consider MCP server integration (beads-mcp)
- Contribute CODITECT agent patterns back to Beads
Advanced orchestration
- Parallel agent execution (where dependencies allow)
- Resource management (agent capacity limits)
- Workflow templates (pour/wisp chemistry metaphor)
Linear/Jira bridge (if needed)
- Bidirectional sync: Beads ↔ Linear
- Team collaboration features
- External stakeholder visibility

Conclusion

Final Score: 8.5/10 - STRONG INTEGRATE

Beads is an exceptional fit for CODITECT, addressing the critical gap in multi-session task management while maintaining architectural coherence. The integration is 60% complete (submodule + skill exist), requiring primarily orchestration layer and bridge to Work Item Hierarchy.

Key Strengths:

Perfect architectural alignment (Git-backed, distributed, CLI-first)
Solves catastrophic forgetting problem (compaction survival)
Enables dependency-aware agent orchestration
Complements (not duplicates) existing TodoWrite and Work Items
Production-quality skill document already written

Recommended Next Steps:

Create /beads command wrapper (2 days)
Create beads-workflow-orchestrator agent (2 days)
Document integration patterns (1 day)
Test multi-session workflow (1 day)
Total: 6 days to production-ready integration

The architecture is sound, the use case is compelling, and the implementation path is clear. Proceed with integration.

Assessment Author: Senior Architect (Claude Sonnet 4.5) Review Date: December 22, 2025 Status: APPROVED FOR INTEGRATION Priority: P0 (Core capability gap) Estimated Integration Effort: 6-8 weeks (phased) Maintenance Burden: Low (stable external dependency) Strategic Value: High (fills critical multi-session execution layer)

Related Documents:

skills/beads/SKILL.md - Comprehensive Beads skill guide
internal/architecture/adrs/ADR-005-work-item-hierarchy.md - Work Item Hierarchy architecture
docs/guides/MEMORY-MANAGEMENT-GUIDE.md - CODITECT anti-forgetting system
docs/reference/ARCHITECTURE-OVERVIEW.md - CODITECT system design

Executive Summary​

Current State Analysis​

What Already Exists​

CODITECT's Existing Task Management​

Architectural Synergies​

1. Distributed, Git-Backed Architecture​

2. Dependency-Aware Graph vs Multi-Agent Orchestration​

3. Memory Decay Resistance​

4. CLI-First with JSON Output​

Integration Points​

Integration Point 1: TodoWrite ↔ Beads Handoff​

Integration Point 2: Beads ↔ Work Item Hierarchy Bridge​

Integration Point 3: Agent Orchestration via Dependency Graph​

Integration Point 4: Session Context Preservation​

Overlap Analysis​

Where They Overlap​

Where They Differ (Complementary)​

Integration Architecture Proposal​

Layered Integration Strategy​

Command Architecture​

Agent Orchestrator Integration​

Database Schema Enhancement (ADR-005 Extension)​

Implementation Roadmap​

Phase 1: Core Integration (P0 - 2 weeks)​

Phase 2: Work Item Bridge (P1 - 2 weeks)​

Phase 3: Advanced Features (P2 - 2 weeks)​

Benefits Summary​

For Users​

For Developers​

For CODITECT Framework​

Risks & Mitigations​

Risk 1: Complexity Overhead​

Risk 2: Sync Conflicts (Beads ↔ Work Items)​

Risk 3: External Dependency​

Risk 4: Learning Curve​

Competitive Analysis​

vs Linear/Jira Integration​

vs Native Work Item Hierarchy (ADR-005)​

Recommendations​

Immediate Actions (Next Sprint)​

Medium-Term (Next Month)​

Long-Term (Next Quarter)​

Conclusion​

Executive Summary

Current State Analysis

What Already Exists

CODITECT's Existing Task Management

Architectural Synergies

1. Distributed, Git-Backed Architecture

2. Dependency-Aware Graph vs Multi-Agent Orchestration

3. Memory Decay Resistance

4. CLI-First with JSON Output

Integration Points

Integration Point 1: TodoWrite ↔ Beads Handoff

Integration Point 2: Beads ↔ Work Item Hierarchy Bridge

Integration Point 3: Agent Orchestration via Dependency Graph

Integration Point 4: Session Context Preservation

Overlap Analysis

Where They Overlap

Where They Differ (Complementary)

Integration Architecture Proposal

Layered Integration Strategy

Command Architecture

Agent Orchestrator Integration

Database Schema Enhancement (ADR-005 Extension)

Implementation Roadmap

Phase 1: Core Integration (P0 - 2 weeks)

Phase 2: Work Item Bridge (P1 - 2 weeks)

Phase 3: Advanced Features (P2 - 2 weeks)

Benefits Summary

For Users

For Developers

For CODITECT Framework

Risks & Mitigations

Risk 1: Complexity Overhead

Risk 2: Sync Conflicts (Beads ↔ Work Items)

Risk 3: External Dependency

Risk 4: Learning Curve

Competitive Analysis

vs Linear/Jira Integration

vs Native Work Item Hierarchy (ADR-005)

Recommendations

Immediate Actions (Next Sprint)

Medium-Term (Next Month)

Long-Term (Next Quarter)

Conclusion