generated from coulomb/repo-seed
101 lines
3.9 KiB
YAML
101 lines
3.9 KiB
YAML
id: review-kit/alignment/workflow
|
|
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Review Workflow
|
|
status: candidate
|
|
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
|
|
workflow_goal: Turn an unknown or partially understood repository into a source-linked canon alignment assessment and repo-local workplan proposal.
|
|
phases:
|
|
- id: intake
|
|
title: Repository Intake
|
|
purpose: Capture what the repository appears to provide before selecting canon surfaces.
|
|
inputs:
|
|
- README, INTENT, SCOPE, architecture docs, package manifests, tests, API specs, deployment files, and existing workplans.
|
|
questions:
|
|
- What producer intent does the repository declare?
|
|
- What current scope is evidenced by code, docs, tests, and deployment artifacts?
|
|
- Who are the likely consumers and what purposes do they bring?
|
|
- Which parts are owned by the repository and which are dependencies, adapters, generated assets, or examples?
|
|
outputs:
|
|
- repository_context
|
|
- initial_intent_scope_purpose_notes
|
|
- evidence_inventory
|
|
- id: surface-selection
|
|
title: Canon Surface Selection
|
|
purpose: Choose the smallest useful set of models, standards, profiles, benchmarks, and evaluation packs for the review.
|
|
inputs:
|
|
- repository_context
|
|
- model_selection_guide
|
|
- retrieval_index
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Which domain models are directly relevant?
|
|
- Which standards or benchmarks should stress-test the review?
|
|
- Which existing consumer packs already match the repository shape?
|
|
outputs:
|
|
- selected_canon_surfaces
|
|
- surface_selection_rationale
|
|
- id: mapping
|
|
title: Repository To Canon Mapping
|
|
purpose: Map observed repository concepts, entities, edges, APIs, policies, tasks, and artifacts to canon concepts.
|
|
inputs:
|
|
- selected_canon_surfaces
|
|
- evidence_inventory
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Which repository concepts map directly?
|
|
- Which concepts are partial fits or conflicts?
|
|
- Which mappings require stronger evidence?
|
|
- Which native terms must be preserved to avoid semantic flattening?
|
|
outputs:
|
|
- mapping_findings
|
|
- evidence_links
|
|
- unresolved_questions
|
|
- id: scoring
|
|
title: Fit Scorecard
|
|
purpose: Score alignment consistently enough to compare reviews and prioritize follow-up.
|
|
inputs:
|
|
- mapping_findings
|
|
- scorecard
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Where is fit strong enough to rely on?
|
|
- Which gaps block integration or reuse?
|
|
- Which conflicts risk wrong interpretation?
|
|
- Which findings are urgent, useful, or merely interesting?
|
|
outputs:
|
|
- scorecard_results
|
|
- prioritized_gaps
|
|
- risk_notes
|
|
- id: workplan-proposal
|
|
title: Consumer Workplan Proposal
|
|
purpose: Convert findings into repo-local workplans without moving consumer implementation work into the canon repo.
|
|
inputs:
|
|
- scorecard_results
|
|
- consumer_workplan_template
|
|
questions:
|
|
- What should the consumer repo change first?
|
|
- What validation should prove the alignment improved?
|
|
- Which tasks are refactors, documentation, schema changes, data migration, or governance review?
|
|
outputs:
|
|
- recommended_workplans
|
|
- proposed_tasks
|
|
- validation_plan
|
|
- id: canon-feedback
|
|
title: Canon Feedback And Pressure
|
|
purpose: Capture where the review suggests canon improvements without altering models or standards silently.
|
|
inputs:
|
|
- mapping_findings
|
|
- unresolved_questions
|
|
- scorecard_results
|
|
questions:
|
|
- Which gaps indicate the canon needs a new concept, profile, pattern, schema, or benchmark?
|
|
- Which findings should stay consumer-specific?
|
|
- Which proposed canon changes need a separate workplan?
|
|
outputs:
|
|
- canon_feedback
|
|
- proposed_canon_workplans
|
|
- open_questions
|
|
minimum_review_packet:
|
|
- repository_context
|
|
- selected_canon_surfaces
|
|
- mapping_findings
|
|
- scorecard_results
|
|
- recommended_workplans
|
|
- canon_feedback
|