Skip to main content

​
Context

Web and mobile both need routing, and a file-system router would tie route shape to one framework’s folder convention. Figentra OS, Stackra’s ancestor, solved this with decorator route classes (@Route, @Layout, @Guard) whose loaders are resolved through DI (0005). 0011 already rejects expo-router for mobile; this decision extends the same stance to every surface and is consistent with it.

​
Decision

  1. Routes are declared as classes decorated with @Route, @Layout and @Guard; loaders are resolved from the container with explicit tokens.
  2. One definition compiles to two adapters: React Router 7 on web and a React Navigation adapter on mobile.
  3. No file-based routing anywhere in the repository, including expo-router and React Router file conventions. The landing site’s routes.ts (0057) is a code-based route list, not a folder convention.
  4. The router package is ported from Figentra OS through the normal package gate; its category is chosen when it is scaffolded (0028).

​
Consequences

  • Route logic is testable without a framework and shared between web and mobile.
  • We own the adapters and must keep them in step with React Router 7 and React Navigation 7 releases.
  • Decorators rely on the legacy decorator setting already accepted in 0005.

​
Enforcement

Planned — a validate-repository.mjs rule rejecting expo-router and any app/ or routes/ directory used as a file router, plus a conformance test that one route definition yields equivalent web and mobile route tables.

​
Supersedes and sources

Supersedes: none. Consistent with 0011 (expo-router rejected). Sources: owner decision in chat, 2026-10-19; Figentra OS router package.