# Component Inventory

## Objective

Keep a searchable record of every component, its variants, its owner, and where it is used.

A generated, browsable list of the components in the codebase with their variants, owners, usage counts, and lifecycle state.

## Before You Begin

This feature is being added to an application that already exists and already
works. Do not scaffold a new project, and do not assume a blank slate.

Inspect the codebase first and establish:

- The existing application structure and where code of this kind already lives.
- The framework and version in use.
- The existing design system — colours, spacing, typography, and component conventions.
- Existing UI components you can reuse instead of writing new ones.
- The existing database structure, if this feature needs to persist anything.
- The existing authentication and authorization system, if this feature is user-scoped.
- Dependencies already installed, so you don't add a library that duplicates one.
- The existing test setup and conventions.

Only start writing code once you understand the above. If the application
already implements part of this feature, extend it rather than replacing it.

## Implementation Instructions

1. Derive the inventory from the source rather than from a maintained document. Anything a person has to remember to update is wrong within a month, and a wrong inventory is worse than none because decisions get made from it.
2. Record for each entry the variants it accepts, the owner recorded by Shared Component Ownership, the number of usages, and the files that use it. Ownership is defined by that feature; this one only reads and displays it.
3. Follow re-exports, wrappers, and renamed imports back to the component that actually renders, so a thin local wrapper does not appear as its own component and hide the real usage count.
4. Exclude generated output, vendored code, and third-party sources from the count, and say in the inventory that they were excluded rather than quietly dropping them.
5. Do not present the inventory as a one-off report. Regenerate it in the same automated checks that run on every change, and fail the check when the committed inventory no longer matches the source.

## UI and UX Requirements

Match the application's existing design system exactly. Reuse its components,
spacing, and typography. This feature should look like it was always there.

## Responsive Requirements

Works on mobile, tablet, and desktop. Touch targets are large enough to hit on a
phone, and nothing overflows horizontally at 320px.

## Accessibility Requirements

- Fully keyboard navigable.
- Correct semantic elements and ARIA roles.
- Visible focus states.
- Meets WCAG AA contrast.
- Dynamic changes are announced to screen readers.
- Respects prefers-reduced-motion.

## Edge Cases

- Wrappers, aliases, and re-exports must resolve to the underlying component. Counted naively, a component used through three local wrappers looks like four rarely-used components and survives a cleanup it should not have survived.
- Generated files, vendored dependencies, and third-party components must be excluded from the inventory, or the list is dominated by code nobody in this codebase can change.
- Deprecated and experimental entries must be labelled as such in the listing, so someone searching for a component to reuse does not adopt one that is scheduled for removal.
- The inventory has to be regenerated automatically on every change and checked for drift, because a stale inventory is consulted with the same confidence as a current one.
- Components reached only through dynamic or data-driven rendering will show zero usages by static analysis, so those call sites need to be recognised or the entry flagged as uncertain rather than reported as unused.
- Usage counts must distinguish production code from tests, stories, and examples, or a component used nowhere but its own tests appears healthy.
- The listing needs to be searchable by variant and by owner, not only by name, since the common question is which components already solve a given problem.

## Testing

Exercise the feature end to end in the running application. Cover every edge case
above, then run the existing test suite and confirm nothing regressed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] The inventory is generated from source and regenerated by the automated checks on every change.
- [ ] Each entry lists variants, owner, usage count, and the files that use the component.
- [ ] Wrappers, aliases, and re-exports resolve to the component that actually renders.
- [ ] Generated, vendored, and third-party code is excluded, and the exclusion is stated in the listing.
- [ ] Deprecated and experimental components are labelled in the listing.
- [ ] Usage counts separate production usage from tests, stories, and examples.
- [ ] A drifted inventory fails the automated check rather than being silently accepted.
- [ ] The feature matches the existing design system.
- [ ] No existing functionality is broken.

## Adaptation Rules

- Match the existing design system. Do not introduce a new colour palette,
  spacing scale, or component library.
- Reuse existing components and utilities wherever they fit.
- Follow the naming, file layout, and code style already present.
- Do not upgrade, replace, or remove existing dependencies to make this
  feature fit. Adapt the feature to the app, not the app to the feature.
- Do not break existing functionality. If a change is genuinely required in
  existing code, make the smallest one that works and say so.
- If something in these instructions conflicts with how the application is
  built, follow the application and explain the deviation.

## Final Verification

Before you report the work as done:

1. Re-read the acceptance criteria above and check each one against what you
   actually built.
2. Run the application and exercise the feature end to end.
3. Run the existing test suite and confirm you have broken nothing.
4. Check the feature on mobile, tablet, and desktop widths.
5. Check keyboard navigation and focus handling.
6. Summarize what changed: files added, files modified, and anything you
   deliberately did differently because of how this application is built.

If any acceptance criterion is unmet, fix it before reporting completion.