PDF View

LLM Solution

Problem Statement

To enhance Architecture Decision Record we want to use a Large Language Model with a dedicated prompt to generate a synthesis with an Enterprise Architect point of View.

Decision Drivers

• SaaS solution
• REST API
• Markdown file support

Considered Options

• Open AI
• Gemini

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: Gemini because it’s a simple SaaS solution with a free plan to quickly test prompt efficiency.

Consequences

File process will integrate an API call to gemini LLM.

Analysis

Okay, let’s analyze the provided ADR from an Enterprise Architect perspective and generate the requested Mermaid diagram.

Analysis of ADR “LLM Solution”

Strengths:

• Addresses a clear problem: The ADR clearly identifies the need to enhance ADR processing by incorporating an LLM to synthesize information from an Enterprise Architect point of view.
• Pragmatic approach: Prioritizes a quick and easy solution (Gemini) for initial testing and validation of the concept. The “free plan” justification demonstrates cost-consciousness.
• Clear decision rationale: The ADR explicitly states the reason for choosing Gemini: simplicity, SaaS nature, and availability of a free plan for initial testing.
• Focus on automation: The decision implicitly supports automating aspects of architecture review and analysis.
• Markdown file support: The decision driver to support Markdown file is aligned with the current architecture.

Weaknesses:

• Limited evaluation criteria: The ADR primarily focuses on ease of use and cost for the initial test. It lacks a more comprehensive evaluation of factors like:
  • Accuracy and reliability of LLM output: How well does Gemini synthesize information from an EA perspective? Is the information accurate and trustworthy?
  • Security and privacy: How is the data handled by Gemini? What are the security implications of sending ADR content to a third-party LLM?
  • Scalability: How well will Gemini handle a large volume of ADRs?
  • Integration complexity: Beyond a simple API call, what is the effort involved in integrating Gemini into the File Process microservice?
  • Vendor lock-in: Reliance on a single SaaS provider (Gemini) introduces vendor lock-in risks.
• Lack of alternative evaluation: While OpenAI is mentioned, there’s no discussion of why it was rejected beyond the implied “Gemini was easier to test.” A more thorough comparison would be beneficial.
• Missing risk assessment: The ADR lacks a formal risk assessment. There are potential risks related to data security, LLM accuracy, and vendor dependency.
• Limited long-term view: The ADR is very focused on the short-term “quick test.” It doesn’t address the long-term implications of using an LLM for architecture analysis.

Opportunities:

• Improved efficiency: Automating the synthesis of ADRs can significantly improve the efficiency of enterprise architects.
• Better insights: LLMs can potentially identify patterns and insights in ADRs that might be missed by human analysts.
• Standardization: Using an LLM to analyze ADRs can help to standardize the application of enterprise architecture principles and standards.
• Integration with other architectural tools: This could lead to integration with other architecture tools and platforms, further enhancing the value of ADRs.

Threats:

• Inaccurate or biased output: The LLM may generate inaccurate or biased output, leading to poor architectural decisions.
• Data security breaches: Sending ADR content to a third-party LLM could expose sensitive information to security breaches.
• Vendor lock-in: Reliance on a single LLM vendor creates a risk of vendor lock-in and potential price increases.
• Loss of human oversight: Over-reliance on LLMs could lead to a loss of human oversight and critical thinking.
• Compliance issues: Depending on the sensitivity of the data in the ADRs, using a third-party LLM could raise compliance issues (e.g., GDPR).

Recommendations:

• Expand evaluation criteria: Conduct a more thorough evaluation of LLM options, considering factors like accuracy, security, scalability, and integration complexity.
• Develop a risk assessment: Identify and assess the potential risks associated with using an LLM for ADR analysis, and develop mitigation strategies.
• Consider alternative solutions: Explore alternative solutions for automating ADR analysis, such as custom-built tools or open-source libraries.
• Establish clear guidelines: Develop clear guidelines for using LLMs in ADR analysis, including data security protocols and quality control procedures.
• Monitor LLM performance: Continuously monitor the performance of the LLM and adjust the prompt as needed to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Mermaid Diagram:

This diagram visually represents the flow of information: Architects indirectly trigger the process, the File Process microservice interacts with Google Gemini, and the LLM returns a synthesis of the ADR.