πŸ“‘ axum Γ— iot-embedded

Ship iot / embedded on Axum with sensible defaults.

Axum is a Rust workable choice for iot / embedded. GreatCTO auto-detects both β€” adds the iot-embedded archetype overlay, wires iot-embedded-specific gates, and runs 83 specialist agents around your existing Axum workflow.

What changes when GreatCTO joins your Axum project

Detection β†’ overlay β†’ gates β†’ reviewers.

1 Β· DETECT

Stack + archetype

GreatCTO reads your Cargo.toml and detects axum + iot-embedded archetype from signals: imports, file structure, env vars, README hints.

2 Β· OVERLAY

Archetype pack

Attaches the iot-embedded archetype overlay: OTA strategy, secure boot, ETSI EN 303 645 baseline, watchdog patterns. Override if your specifics differ; the defaults are sensible for Axum-style projects.

3 Β· GATES

Axum-aware reviewers

qa-engineer runs cargo clippy / cargo test / cargo-tarpaulin; security-officer audits unsafe blocks + dependency tree; performance-engineer reviews allocator patterns.

4 Β· MEMORY

Cross-project lessons

Bugs you've hit before in other Axum projects (connection-pool exhaustion, ORM N+1 queries, retry storms) β€” the agent's Step 0 includes the prior detection order. MTTR drops 94 % on second occurrence (methodology).

First 10 minutes

Concrete walkthrough.

$ cd my-axum-app && npx great-cto init
βœ“ scanning manifests… found manifest
βœ“ stack: axum (Rust)
βœ“ archetype: iot-embedded
⚠ archetype + stack combo is unusual β€” review overlay manually
βœ“ 83 agents ready

$ /start "add OTA update endpoint"
β–Έ architect drafting ARCH-iot-embedded.md…
β–Έ pm decomposing into beads tasks…
⚐ gate:plan β€” your approval needed

Approve β†’ 3 senior-devs run in parallel worktrees β†’ 5 reviewers fan out in parallel β†’ gate:ship β†’ deploy. One real run walked stage-by-stage: /proof.

What ships

The first feature, Axum-idiomatic.

This is the shape of what senior-dev drafts for "OTA update endpoint" β€” auth first, schema validation, and the audit line the iot-embedded reviewer requires before gate:ship opens.

// src/handlers/iot_embedded.rs β€” drafted by senior-dev, reviewed by 5 agents
pub async fn create(
    user: AuthenticatedUser,                  // security-officer: extractor rejects anon
    State(state): State<AppState>,
    Json(req): Json<IotEmbeddedRequest>,     // qa-engineer: serde validation
) -> Result<Json<IotEmbeddedResponse>, AppError> {
    let result = handle(req, &user, &state).await?;
    state.audit.record(user.id, "OTA update endpoint", result.confidence).await?; // gate:iot-embedded
    Ok(Json(result))
}
Where this combo lands

What teams build with Axum + the iot-embedded overlay.

1

Device firmware with secure boot and OTA strategy.

2

Sensor fleets under ETSI EN 303 645.

3

RTOS apps (Zephyr / ESP-IDF / embassy) with watchdog patterns.

⚠ Honest caveat

Axum (Rust) is not a typical fit for iot / embedded. The archetype overlay still attaches, but you may want to override defaults more aggressively. Check the iot-embedded archetype page for the typical stack list and decide if your case is the right tool / right archetype.

Architecture

Every step of the pipeline, transparent.

No black-box "AI does it all" loop. GreatCTO is a deterministic state machine β€” 8 stages, 22 nodes, 2 human gates. Every node maps to a real agent on GitHub. Inspect the state machine β†’

Install

Axum + GreatCTO in one command.

$ npx great-cto init

Free, MIT, runs locally. Built as a Claude Code plugin β€” install with one command.

Related deep-dives

More from the blog

AI

How I designed the SDLC state machine for agentic coding

Eight stages, two human gates, four memory layers. Why this exact shape, and what I tried that didn't work.

AI

First real shipped feature with this stack β€” receipts

One run, one feature, from prompt to merged PR. Time, cost, and gate-by-gate breakdown β€” no marketing math.

AI

How GreatCTO chooses which compliance pack to attach

Regex vs LLM-based archetype detection, the false-positive count, and why I keep rejecting the obvious fix.

AI

Why your agent system fails: missing gates, not missing intelligence

The bottleneck in agentic SDLC isn't model quality β€” it's process governance. Here's the state machine that closes the gap.