## Context

Current operations are concentrated in `backend/cli.py` with a single `force-fetch` command and no unified admin maintenance suite. Operational actions such as archive cleanup, translation regeneration, image refresh, and cache/news reset require manual code/DB operations. Existing backend services already contain reusable primitives: ingestion (`process_and_store_news`), archival helpers (`archive_old_news`, `delete_archived_news`), and translation generation pipelines in `backend/news_service.py`.

## Goals / Non-Goals

**Goals:**
- Introduce an admin command suite that consolidates common maintenance and recovery actions.
- Implement queued image refetch for latest 30 items, sequentially processed with exponential backoff.
- Improve image refresh relevance by combining keyword and mood/sentiment cues with deterministic fallback behavior.
- Provide safe destructive operations (`clear-news`, `clean-archive`, cache clear) with operator guardrails.
- Add translation regeneration and parameterized fetch count command to reduce manual intervention.

**Non-Goals:**
- Replacing the scheduled ingestion model.
- Introducing external queue infrastructure (RabbitMQ/Redis workers) for this phase.
- Redesigning storage models or adding new DB tables unless strictly necessary.
- Building a web-based admin dashboard in this change.

## Decisions

### Decision: Extend existing CLI with subcommands
**Decision:** Expand `backend/cli.py` into a multi-subcommand admin command suite.

**Rationale:**
- Reuses existing deployment/runtime assumptions.
- Keeps operations scriptable via terminal/cron and avoids UI scope expansion.

**Alternatives considered:**
- New standalone admin binary: rejected due to duplicated bootstrapping/runtime checks.

### Decision: Queue image refetch in-process with sequential workers
**Decision:** Build a bounded in-memory queue for latest 30 items and process one-by-one.

**Rationale:**
- Meets rate-limit resilience requirement without new infrastructure.
- Deterministic and easy to monitor in command output.

**Alternatives considered:**
- Parallel refetch workers: rejected due to higher provider throttling risk.

### Decision: Exponential backoff for external image calls
**Decision:** Apply exponential backoff with capped retries for rate-limited or transient failures.

**Rationale:**
- Reduces burst retry amplification.
- Improves success rate under API pressure.

### Decision: Safety-first destructive command ergonomics
**Decision:** Destructive operations require explicit confirmation/flags and support dry-run where meaningful.

**Rationale:**
- Prevents accidental data loss.
- Makes admin actions auditable and predictable.

### Decision: Fetch-N command reuses ingestion pipeline
**Decision:** Add a fetch-count option that drives existing ingestion/fetch flow rather than building a second implementation.

**Rationale:**
- Preserves deduplication/retry logic and minimizes divergence.

## Risks / Trade-offs

- **[Risk] Operator misuse of destructive commands** -> Mitigation: confirmation gate + explicit flags + dry-run.
- **[Risk] Backoff can increase command runtime** -> Mitigation: cap retries and print progress ETA-style output.
- **[Risk] Queue processing interruption mid-run** -> Mitigation: idempotent per-item updates and resumable reruns.
- **[Trade-off] In-process queue is simpler but non-distributed** -> Mitigation: acceptable for admin-invoked maintenance scope.

## Migration Plan

1. Extend CLI parser with admin subcommands and argument validation.
2. Add reusable maintenance handlers (archive clean, cache clear, clear news, rebuild, regenerate translations, fetch-n).
3. Implement queued image-refetch handler with exponential backoff and per-item progress logs.
4. Add safe guards (`--confirm`, optional `--dry-run`) for destructive operations.
5. Document command usage and examples in README.

Rollback:
- Keep existing `force-fetch` path intact.
- Revert new subcommands while preserving unaffected ingestion pipeline.

## Open Questions

- What cache layers are considered in-scope for `clear-cache` (in-memory only vs additional filesystem cache)?
- Should `rebuild-site` chain all maintenance actions or remain a defined subset with explicit steps?
- Should `fetch n` enforce an upper bound to avoid accidental high-cost runs?
