generated from coulomb/repo-seed
1021 lines
30 KiB
Markdown
1021 lines
30 KiB
Markdown
# open-reuse PRD
|
||
|
||
*Product Requirements Document*
|
||
|
||
## 1. Document Status
|
||
|
||
**Product:** open-reuse
|
||
**Document Type:** Product Requirements Document
|
||
**Status:** Draft v0.1
|
||
**Primary Audience:** Product, engineering, maintainers, platform teams, open-source integration owners
|
||
**Related Artifacts:** INTENT.md, future Integration Definition Schema, future Functional Requirements Specification
|
||
**Framing Reference:** This PRD follows the InfoTechPrimer understanding of a PRD as a product-definition artifact that captures purpose, scope, constraints, and success criteria without prescribing implementation details. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2. Product Summary
|
||
|
||
**open-reuse** is a framework and service for transforming valuable open-source integrations into structured, registered, and automatically maintained integration assets.
|
||
|
||
It starts after an integration has already been built, tested, and deemed useful. open-reuse then helps analyze, classify, refactor, reframe, register, monitor, validate, update, and escalate that integration as upstream open-source code evolves.
|
||
|
||
The product exists to prevent valuable open-source reuse from degrading into hidden coupling, unmanaged forks, brittle patches, silent drift, or long-term technical debt.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 3. One-Sentence Product Definition
|
||
|
||
**open-reuse turns proven open-source integrations into structured, registered, and automatically maintained assets with explicit boundaries, validation, update policies, and maintainer escalation.**
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 4. Problem Statement
|
||
|
||
Open-source software is frequently reused across systems in pragmatic and valuable ways. Teams adapt components, depend on APIs, embed modules, copy useful code, patch upstream projects, or maintain lightweight forks.
|
||
|
||
These integrations often begin as successful engineering work. However, once they become important, they create a continuing dependency on upstream evolution.
|
||
|
||
Common failure modes include:
|
||
|
||
- The integration is not explicitly documented.
|
||
- The reused upstream surface is unclear.
|
||
- The boundary between local system and upstream project is leaky.
|
||
- Updates are handled manually and inconsistently.
|
||
- Breaking upstream changes are discovered too late.
|
||
- Security or license changes are missed.
|
||
- Local patches become difficult to understand.
|
||
- Forks silently diverge from upstream.
|
||
- Responsibility for the integration becomes unclear.
|
||
- Maintainers are notified only after something has already broken.
|
||
|
||
The result is that reuse, initially a strength, becomes a source of fragility.
|
||
|
||
open-reuse addresses this by making open-source reuse explicit, classified, testable, monitorable, and maintainable under change.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 5. Product Intent
|
||
|
||
open-reuse exists to provide a structured lifecycle for valuable open-source integrations after they have proven their usefulness.
|
||
|
||
The product shall support the transition from:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
Working but informal integration
|
||
````
|
||
|
||
to:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
Registered, classified, validated, and automatically maintained integration asset
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The core product intent is to make sustainable reuse of open-source software possible at scale without relying on undocumented human memory or ad-hoc maintenance discipline.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 6. Target Users
|
||
|
||
### 6.1 Primary Users
|
||
|
||
#### Integration Maintainers
|
||
|
||
People or teams responsible for keeping a specific integration functional over time.
|
||
|
||
They need:
|
||
|
||
* Clear visibility into upstream changes
|
||
* Escalation when automation cannot safely proceed
|
||
* Evidence about why an update passed or failed
|
||
* Traceability of integration decisions
|
||
|
||
#### Platform Engineering Teams
|
||
|
||
Teams responsible for reusable internal platforms, developer experience, shared services, or enterprise architecture.
|
||
|
||
They need:
|
||
|
||
* A registry of integration assets
|
||
* Standardized integration definitions
|
||
* Update automation
|
||
* Policy-based control
|
||
* Auditable governance
|
||
|
||
#### Product Engineering Teams
|
||
|
||
Teams that build products by integrating open-source tools or components.
|
||
|
||
They need:
|
||
|
||
* A way to operationalize valuable integrations
|
||
* Protection against upstream breakage
|
||
* Reduced long-term maintenance burden
|
||
* Reliable dependency evolution
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
### 6.2 Secondary Users
|
||
|
||
#### Security Teams
|
||
|
||
They need visibility into reused upstream code, security advisories, dependency exposure, and risky update conditions.
|
||
|
||
#### Legal / Compliance Teams
|
||
|
||
They need visibility into license changes, attribution requirements, and reuse patterns that may trigger compliance obligations.
|
||
|
||
#### Open-Source Program Offices
|
||
|
||
They need a structured view of how open-source software is reused internally and where upstream collaboration may be beneficial.
|
||
|
||
#### AI / Automation Agents
|
||
|
||
They may act as analysis, transformation, validation, or maintenance assistants operating on registered integration definitions.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 7. Product Goals
|
||
|
||
### Goal 1: Make integrations explicit
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall provide a structured way to describe open-source integrations, including upstream sources, reuse mode, local boundaries, validation requirements, update policies, and maintainers.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 2: Classify reuse risk
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall classify integrations by reuse pattern and associated maintenance risk.
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
* Dependency reuse
|
||
* Plugin reuse
|
||
* Adapter reuse
|
||
* Component extraction
|
||
* Patch overlay
|
||
* Fork continuation
|
||
|
||
### Goal 3: Support systematic refactoring into maintainable boundaries
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall help teams reframe valuable integrations around explicit boundaries so upstream change can be isolated and tested.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 4: Register integrations as managed assets
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall provide a registry where structured integration definitions can be stored, inspected, searched, and governed.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 5: Monitor upstream change
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall track upstream releases, commits, tags, dependency updates, security advisories, license changes, and other relevant signals.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 6: Validate integration continuity
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall support automated validation of whether a registered integration still works after upstream change.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 7: Automate safe maintenance
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall support automated update attempts, validation runs, reporting, and update proposals where risk is acceptable.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 8: Escalate uncertainty to humans
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall notify registered maintainers when automation cannot safely complete an update or when policy requires review.
|
||
|
||
### Goal 9: Preserve traceability
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall maintain an audit trail of integration definitions, upstream versions, update attempts, validation results, maintainer actions, and escalation decisions.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 8. Non-Goals
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall not initially aim to:
|
||
|
||
* Replace package managers
|
||
* Replace CI/CD systems
|
||
* Replace source control platforms
|
||
* Replace dependency update tools
|
||
* Replace security scanners
|
||
* Replace software composition analysis tools
|
||
* Become a general workflow automation platform
|
||
* Build initial integrations from scratch
|
||
* Guarantee automatic resolution of all upstream breaking changes
|
||
* Eliminate the need for maintainers
|
||
* Force all integrations into one implementation pattern
|
||
|
||
open-reuse complements existing developer tools by managing the lifecycle and continuity of valuable integrations.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 9. Product Scope
|
||
|
||
## 9.1 In Scope
|
||
|
||
The initial product scope includes:
|
||
|
||
* Definition of an open-reuse Integration Definition format
|
||
* Registration of integration definitions
|
||
* Classification of reuse modes
|
||
* Assignment of maintainers
|
||
* Tracking of upstream source references
|
||
* Tracking of local integration boundaries
|
||
* Definition of update policies
|
||
* Definition of validation requirements
|
||
* Upstream monitoring
|
||
* Change impact classification
|
||
* Automated validation triggers
|
||
* Escalation to maintainers
|
||
* Status reporting
|
||
* Audit trail of integration lifecycle events
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 9.2 Out of Scope for Initial Version
|
||
|
||
The following are out of scope for the first product version:
|
||
|
||
* Fully autonomous code migration for all languages
|
||
* Full semantic understanding of arbitrary application architectures
|
||
* Complete legal compliance automation
|
||
* Complete vulnerability remediation automation
|
||
* Hosting of upstream code mirrors as a primary function
|
||
* Replacement of Renovate, Dependabot, OpenRewrite, CI systems, or SCA tools
|
||
* Multi-tenant enterprise billing
|
||
* Marketplace functionality
|
||
* Public SaaS operation as the default deployment model
|
||
* Automatic acceptance of risky updates without human approval
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 10. Core Lifecycle
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall support the following lifecycle:
|
||
|
||
```text
|
||
Build Integration
|
||
→ Prove Value
|
||
→ Analyze Integration
|
||
→ Classify Reuse Mode
|
||
→ Refactor Boundaries
|
||
→ Create Integration Definition
|
||
→ Register Integration
|
||
→ Monitor Upstream Changes
|
||
→ Analyze Change Impact
|
||
→ Attempt Safe Update
|
||
→ Validate Integration
|
||
→ Report Result
|
||
→ Escalate if Required
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Important lifecycle principle:
|
||
|
||
**open-reuse starts after the integration has proven value.**
|
||
|
||
It does not primarily optimize initial experimentation. It operationalizes successful reuse before it becomes unmanaged technical debt.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 11. Core Concepts
|
||
|
||
## 11.1 Integration
|
||
|
||
A working reuse relationship between a local system and one or more upstream open-source systems, repositories, packages, APIs, services, modules, files, schemas, or artifacts.
|
||
|
||
## 11.2 Proven Integration
|
||
|
||
An integration that has been built, tested, and deemed valuable enough to preserve and maintain.
|
||
|
||
## 11.3 Integration Definition
|
||
|
||
A structured, machine-readable description of a proven integration.
|
||
|
||
It includes:
|
||
|
||
* Integration identity
|
||
* Upstream source references
|
||
* Reuse mode
|
||
* Reused surfaces
|
||
* Local boundaries
|
||
* Validation requirements
|
||
* Update policies
|
||
* Maintainer assignments
|
||
* Escalation conditions
|
||
* Audit metadata
|
||
|
||
## 11.4 Reuse Mode
|
||
|
||
The classified pattern by which upstream open-source functionality is reused.
|
||
|
||
Initial reuse modes:
|
||
|
||
| Reuse Mode | Description | Relative Risk |
|
||
| -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------- |
|
||
| Dependency reuse | Upstream is consumed as a package, library, image, or service | Low |
|
||
| Plugin reuse | Upstream is extended through official extension points | Low to medium |
|
||
| Adapter reuse | Upstream behavior is wrapped behind a local interface | Medium |
|
||
| Component extraction | Selected internal parts of upstream are reused | High |
|
||
| Patch overlay | Local patches are maintained on top of upstream | High |
|
||
| Fork continuation | A local fork evolves separately but remains upstream-aware | Very high |
|
||
|
||
## 11.5 Reuse Boundary
|
||
|
||
The explicit local seam between the host system and the reused upstream functionality.
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
* Interface
|
||
* Port
|
||
* Adapter
|
||
* Wrapper service
|
||
* API facade
|
||
* Plugin boundary
|
||
* CLI boundary
|
||
* Schema boundary
|
||
* Event contract
|
||
* File-level copy boundary
|
||
|
||
## 11.6 Validation Harness
|
||
|
||
The set of automated checks used to determine whether the integration still works.
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
* Unit tests
|
||
* Contract tests
|
||
* Integration tests
|
||
* Golden-path tests
|
||
* Snapshot tests
|
||
* Build checks
|
||
* API compatibility checks
|
||
* Schema compatibility checks
|
||
* Security scans
|
||
* License checks
|
||
|
||
## 11.7 Update Policy
|
||
|
||
Rules determining how upstream changes are handled.
|
||
|
||
Example outcomes:
|
||
|
||
* Ignore
|
||
* Monitor only
|
||
* Open issue
|
||
* Open update proposal
|
||
* Open pull request
|
||
* Auto-merge after validation
|
||
* Require maintainer review
|
||
* Block update
|
||
* Trigger escalation
|
||
|
||
## 11.8 Maintainer
|
||
|
||
A registered responsible person, team, group, or automation identity accountable for reviewing escalations and maintaining the integration.
|
||
|
||
## 11.9 Escalation Case
|
||
|
||
A situation where automation cannot safely proceed or policy requires human inspection.
|
||
|
||
Examples:
|
||
|
||
* Failed validation
|
||
* Breaking API change
|
||
* Changed license
|
||
* Security advisory
|
||
* Upstream deletion or archival
|
||
* Patch conflict
|
||
* Fork divergence
|
||
* Unknown change impact
|
||
* Missing maintainer
|
||
* Repeated automation failure
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 12. Functional Product Capabilities
|
||
|
||
This section describes product-level capabilities without prescribing implementation details.
|
||
|
||
## 12.1 Integration Definition Management
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall allow users to create, store, inspect, update, and version integration definitions.
|
||
|
||
The product shall support:
|
||
|
||
* Unique integration identity
|
||
* Human-readable description
|
||
* Upstream source references
|
||
* Local repository references
|
||
* Reuse mode classification
|
||
* Maintainer assignment
|
||
* Validation requirements
|
||
* Update policies
|
||
* Escalation rules
|
||
* Lifecycle status
|
||
|
||
## 12.2 Integration Registration
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall allow a structured integration definition to be registered with the open-reuse service.
|
||
|
||
Registration shall result in:
|
||
|
||
* The integration becoming visible in the registry
|
||
* The integration being assigned a lifecycle state
|
||
* Monitoring being activated according to policy
|
||
* Maintainers becoming associated with escalation events
|
||
* Validation requirements becoming available to automation
|
||
|
||
## 12.3 Reuse Mode Classification
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall support explicit classification of the integration’s reuse mode.
|
||
|
||
The classification should help determine:
|
||
|
||
* Risk level
|
||
* Recommended validation depth
|
||
* Update automation eligibility
|
||
* Escalation thresholds
|
||
* Governance requirements
|
||
|
||
## 12.4 Boundary Description
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall allow users to describe the boundary between local system and reused upstream asset.
|
||
|
||
The boundary description should include:
|
||
|
||
* Boundary type
|
||
* Local interface or seam
|
||
* Reused upstream surface
|
||
* Expected compatibility assumptions
|
||
* Known fragility points
|
||
|
||
## 12.5 Upstream Monitoring
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall monitor relevant upstream sources.
|
||
|
||
Supported upstream signals should include:
|
||
|
||
* Releases
|
||
* Tags
|
||
* Commits
|
||
* Dependency metadata
|
||
* Changelogs
|
||
* Security advisories
|
||
* License changes
|
||
* Repository archival status
|
||
* Breaking-change indicators where available
|
||
|
||
## 12.6 Change Impact Analysis
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall classify detected upstream changes according to their likely impact on registered integrations.
|
||
|
||
Impact levels may include:
|
||
|
||
* No relevant impact
|
||
* Informational
|
||
* Safe update candidate
|
||
* Requires validation
|
||
* Requires review
|
||
* Blocking change
|
||
* Unknown impact
|
||
|
||
## 12.7 Update Handling
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall support controlled update handling based on update policies.
|
||
|
||
Possible actions include:
|
||
|
||
* Record change only
|
||
* Trigger validation
|
||
* Create update proposal
|
||
* Create pull request
|
||
* Apply transformation recipe
|
||
* Request maintainer review
|
||
* Block update
|
||
* Escalate issue
|
||
|
||
## 12.8 Validation Execution
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall integrate with validation mechanisms capable of proving whether the integration remains acceptable.
|
||
|
||
Validation results shall include:
|
||
|
||
* Pass/fail status
|
||
* Check category
|
||
* Execution timestamp
|
||
* Upstream version tested
|
||
* Local version tested
|
||
* Error details where available
|
||
* Required maintainer action if applicable
|
||
|
||
## 12.9 Escalation Management
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall notify registered maintainers when human inspection is required.
|
||
|
||
Escalations shall include:
|
||
|
||
* Integration identity
|
||
* Upstream change summary
|
||
* Impact classification
|
||
* Failed checks, if any
|
||
* Recommended next action
|
||
* Severity
|
||
* Due or priority information where configured
|
||
|
||
## 12.10 Audit Trail
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall preserve a traceable history of relevant events.
|
||
|
||
The audit trail shall include:
|
||
|
||
* Integration registration
|
||
* Definition changes
|
||
* Upstream changes detected
|
||
* Impact analysis results
|
||
* Validation results
|
||
* Update attempts
|
||
* Escalations
|
||
* Maintainer decisions
|
||
* Policy changes
|
||
|
||
## 12.11 Dashboard and Reporting
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall provide visibility into the current state of registered integrations.
|
||
|
||
The product should expose:
|
||
|
||
* Healthy integrations
|
||
* Integrations requiring review
|
||
* Failed update attempts
|
||
* Stale integrations
|
||
* High-risk reuse modes
|
||
* Unassigned maintainer cases
|
||
* Security-sensitive escalations
|
||
* Integration drift indicators
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 13. User Stories
|
||
|
||
## 13.1 Register a Proven Integration
|
||
|
||
As an integration maintainer,
|
||
I want to register a proven integration with open-reuse,
|
||
so that it can be monitored and maintained systematically.
|
||
|
||
Acceptance expectations:
|
||
|
||
* I can provide upstream source information.
|
||
* I can classify the reuse mode.
|
||
* I can identify local boundaries.
|
||
* I can assign maintainers.
|
||
* I can define validation requirements.
|
||
* The integration appears in the registry.
|
||
|
||
## 13.2 Classify Integration Risk
|
||
|
||
As a platform engineer,
|
||
I want open-reuse to classify integrations by reuse mode,
|
||
so that high-risk reuse patterns can receive stronger validation and governance.
|
||
|
||
Acceptance expectations:
|
||
|
||
* Each integration has a reuse mode.
|
||
* Risk level is visible.
|
||
* Missing classification is treated as incomplete.
|
||
* High-risk classifications can trigger stricter policy.
|
||
|
||
## 13.3 Monitor Upstream Changes
|
||
|
||
As an integration maintainer,
|
||
I want open-reuse to detect relevant upstream changes,
|
||
so that I do not need to manually watch every upstream project.
|
||
|
||
Acceptance expectations:
|
||
|
||
* Upstream versions are tracked.
|
||
* New releases or changes are detected.
|
||
* Relevant changes are associated with affected integrations.
|
||
* Irrelevant changes can be ignored or classified as informational.
|
||
|
||
## 13.4 Validate an Update
|
||
|
||
As a maintainer,
|
||
I want open-reuse to run validation after upstream change,
|
||
so that I can trust whether the integration still works.
|
||
|
||
Acceptance expectations:
|
||
|
||
* Validation is linked to the integration definition.
|
||
* Validation results are recorded.
|
||
* Failed validation creates an actionable result.
|
||
* Successful validation may allow automated continuation according to policy.
|
||
|
||
## 13.5 Escalate a Breaking Change
|
||
|
||
As a maintainer,
|
||
I want to be notified when automation cannot safely handle a change,
|
||
so that I can inspect and resolve the issue before production systems are harmed.
|
||
|
||
Acceptance expectations:
|
||
|
||
* Escalation includes reason and severity.
|
||
* Escalation includes affected integration.
|
||
* Escalation includes upstream change context.
|
||
* Escalation identifies expected maintainer action.
|
||
|
||
## 13.6 Inspect Integration Portfolio
|
||
|
||
As a platform owner,
|
||
I want to see all registered integrations and their health,
|
||
so that I can manage open-source reuse as a portfolio of assets.
|
||
|
||
Acceptance expectations:
|
||
|
||
* Integrations are searchable.
|
||
* Health status is visible.
|
||
* Risk classification is visible.
|
||
* Stale or failing integrations are highlighted.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 14. Product Requirements
|
||
|
||
## 14.1 Integration Definition Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall provide a structured Integration Definition format.
|
||
|
||
The format shall support at least:
|
||
|
||
* Integration name
|
||
* Description
|
||
* Owner or maintainer
|
||
* Upstream source
|
||
* Local consuming system
|
||
* Reuse mode
|
||
* Reused surface
|
||
* Local boundary
|
||
* Current upstream version or reference
|
||
* Update policy
|
||
* Validation policy
|
||
* Escalation policy
|
||
* Lifecycle status
|
||
|
||
## 14.2 Registry Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall provide an integration registry.
|
||
|
||
The registry shall support:
|
||
|
||
* Registering integrations
|
||
* Updating integration metadata
|
||
* Listing integrations
|
||
* Searching integrations
|
||
* Filtering by status, owner, reuse mode, and risk level
|
||
* Viewing integration details
|
||
* Recording lifecycle state
|
||
|
||
## 14.3 Monitoring Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall detect upstream changes relevant to registered integrations.
|
||
|
||
The product shall support configurable monitoring policies per integration.
|
||
|
||
## 14.4 Policy Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall allow users to define update and escalation policies.
|
||
|
||
Policies shall distinguish between:
|
||
|
||
* Safe automatic handling
|
||
* Review-required handling
|
||
* Blocked handling
|
||
* Escalation-required handling
|
||
|
||
## 14.5 Validation Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall connect registered integrations to validation checks.
|
||
|
||
Validation must be treated as a gate before updates are considered safe.
|
||
|
||
## 14.6 Maintainer Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall support assignment of maintainers to integrations.
|
||
|
||
The product shall notify maintainers when escalation conditions occur.
|
||
|
||
## 14.7 Traceability Requirements
|
||
|
||
The product shall maintain a historical record of integration lifecycle events.
|
||
|
||
Traceability shall be sufficient to answer:
|
||
|
||
* What changed upstream?
|
||
* Which integration was affected?
|
||
* What was attempted automatically?
|
||
* What validation ran?
|
||
* What failed?
|
||
* Who reviewed it?
|
||
* What decision was made?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 15. Non-Functional Requirements
|
||
|
||
## 15.1 Reliability
|
||
|
||
open-reuse shall be reliable enough to serve as a trusted maintenance coordination layer for important integrations.
|
||
|
||
It shall avoid silent failures in monitoring, validation, and escalation.
|
||
|
||
## 15.2 Transparency
|
||
|
||
The product shall make automation decisions inspectable.
|
||
|
||
Users should be able to understand why an update was accepted, blocked, or escalated.
|
||
|
||
## 15.3 Extensibility
|
||
|
||
The product shall support additional reuse modes, validation types, source providers, policy types, and notification channels over time.
|
||
|
||
## 15.4 Security
|
||
|
||
The product shall handle repository access, automation credentials, maintainer notification paths, and integration metadata securely.
|
||
|
||
It shall avoid unnecessary access to source code or secrets.
|
||
|
||
## 15.5 Auditability
|
||
|
||
The product shall preserve enough historical information to support operational review, compliance review, and post-incident analysis.
|
||
|
||
## 15.6 Portability
|
||
|
||
The product should not depend on a single source control provider, CI provider, or package ecosystem as a conceptual requirement.
|
||
|
||
## 15.7 Human Override
|
||
|
||
The product shall allow maintainers to override automation outcomes where policy permits.
|
||
|
||
## 15.8 Failure Containment
|
||
|
||
The product shall fail safely.
|
||
|
||
When it cannot classify, validate, or update confidently, it shall escalate rather than proceed silently.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 16. Lifecycle States
|
||
|
||
Registered integrations should support lifecycle states such as:
|
||
|
||
| State | Meaning |
|
||
| ------------ | ------------------------------------------------------ |
|
||
| Draft | Integration definition is being prepared |
|
||
| Registered | Integration is known to open-reuse |
|
||
| Active | Integration is monitored and maintained |
|
||
| Needs Review | Human inspection is required |
|
||
| Degraded | Integration has unresolved validation or update issues |
|
||
| Paused | Automation is intentionally suspended |
|
||
| Deprecated | Integration should be replaced or removed |
|
||
| Retired | Integration is no longer active |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 17. Initial MVP Scope
|
||
|
||
The MVP should prove that open-reuse can register and maintain a small number of valuable integrations in a structured, inspectable way.
|
||
|
||
## 17.1 MVP Capabilities
|
||
|
||
The MVP should include:
|
||
|
||
1. Integration Definition Schema v0.1
|
||
2. Git-based storage of integration definitions
|
||
3. CLI or minimal service for registration
|
||
4. Basic registry listing
|
||
5. Manual or scheduled upstream version check
|
||
6. Reuse mode classification
|
||
7. Maintainer assignment
|
||
8. Validation command definition
|
||
9. Basic validation execution or integration with CI
|
||
10. Status reporting
|
||
11. Escalation output, at minimum as issue creation or notification
|
||
12. Audit log of key lifecycle events
|
||
|
||
## 17.2 MVP Reuse Modes
|
||
|
||
The MVP should initially support:
|
||
|
||
* Dependency reuse
|
||
* Adapter reuse
|
||
* Component extraction
|
||
* Patch overlay
|
||
|
||
Plugin reuse and fork continuation may be modeled but do not need full automation in the first MVP.
|
||
|
||
## 17.3 MVP Success Scenario
|
||
|
||
A team has a working integration with an upstream open-source project.
|
||
|
||
They create an open-reuse Integration Definition, register it, configure an upstream version source, define validation commands, and assign maintainers.
|
||
|
||
When upstream changes, open-reuse detects the change, records it, triggers validation, and reports whether the integration remains healthy.
|
||
|
||
If validation fails, open-reuse creates an escalation for the registered maintainer.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 18. Future Scope
|
||
|
||
Future versions may include:
|
||
|
||
* Web dashboard
|
||
* Deeper source-code impact analysis
|
||
* AI-assisted integration analysis
|
||
* AI-assisted reuse mode classification
|
||
* AI-assisted refactoring recommendations
|
||
* Transformation recipes
|
||
* Codemod integration
|
||
* Semantic API compatibility analysis
|
||
* License-change detection
|
||
* Security advisory integration
|
||
* Pull request generation
|
||
* Auto-merge for low-risk updates
|
||
* Organizational policy packs
|
||
* Integration health scoring
|
||
* Multi-repository portfolio analytics
|
||
* Integration drift metrics
|
||
* Maintainer workload tracking
|
||
* Open-source contribution recommendations
|
||
* Upstream collaboration workflows
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 19. Success Metrics
|
||
|
||
open-reuse success should be measured by operational outcomes.
|
||
|
||
Potential metrics:
|
||
|
||
| Metric | Meaning |
|
||
| ----------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------- |
|
||
| Registered integrations | Number of integrations managed by open-reuse |
|
||
| Classified integrations | Percentage with explicit reuse mode |
|
||
| Boundary-defined integrations | Percentage with explicit local boundary |
|
||
| Automated update checks | Number of upstream checks executed |
|
||
| Validation coverage | Percentage with configured validation harness |
|
||
| Escalation precision | Percentage of escalations that required real human action |
|
||
| Mean time to detect upstream change | Time from upstream change to open-reuse detection |
|
||
| Mean time to validate update | Time from detection to validation result |
|
||
| Failed silent updates | Should trend toward zero |
|
||
| Integration drift | Difference between tracked and current upstream state |
|
||
| Maintainer response time | Time from escalation to review |
|
||
| Manual maintenance reduction | Reduction in ad-hoc update work |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 20. Risks and Mitigations
|
||
|
||
## 20.1 Risk: Scope Becomes Too Broad
|
||
|
||
open-reuse could become a generic integration platform, dependency manager, CI system, or security tool.
|
||
|
||
Mitigation:
|
||
|
||
* Keep focus on post-success integration continuity.
|
||
* Integrate with existing tools rather than replacing them.
|
||
* Treat Integration Definition as the core product asset.
|
||
|
||
## 20.2 Risk: Automation Is Overtrusted
|
||
|
||
Users may assume open-reuse can safely resolve all upstream changes.
|
||
|
||
Mitigation:
|
||
|
||
* Default to escalation for uncertainty.
|
||
* Make confidence levels visible.
|
||
* Require validation before update acceptance.
|
||
* Avoid unsafe auto-merge defaults.
|
||
|
||
## 20.3 Risk: Definitions Become Documentation Only
|
||
|
||
Integration definitions could become stale if not connected to automation.
|
||
|
||
Mitigation:
|
||
|
||
* Treat definitions as executable configuration.
|
||
* Validate definitions regularly.
|
||
* Report stale or incomplete definitions.
|
||
|
||
## 20.4 Risk: High Setup Cost
|
||
|
||
Teams may resist writing structured integration definitions.
|
||
|
||
Mitigation:
|
||
|
||
* Provide templates.
|
||
* Support incremental adoption.
|
||
* Add analysis helpers.
|
||
* Allow draft definitions.
|
||
* Start with minimal required fields.
|
||
|
||
## 20.5 Risk: Hard-to-Classify Integrations
|
||
|
||
Real integrations may combine multiple reuse modes.
|
||
|
||
Mitigation:
|
||
|
||
* Allow composite reuse modes.
|
||
* Support primary and secondary classification.
|
||
* Permit unknown or transitional states with review.
|
||
|
||
## 20.6 Risk: Maintainer Fatigue
|
||
|
||
Too many escalations may reduce trust in the system.
|
||
|
||
Mitigation:
|
||
|
||
* Tune escalation thresholds.
|
||
* Group related alerts.
|
||
* Distinguish informational events from required actions.
|
||
* Improve impact analysis over time.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 21. Assumptions
|
||
|
||
The PRD assumes:
|
||
|
||
* Integrations are stored or described in version-controlled environments.
|
||
* Teams can provide at least minimal validation commands.
|
||
* Maintainers can be assigned to integration assets.
|
||
* Upstream sources expose detectable change signals.
|
||
* The first version may rely on existing CI, source control, and notification systems.
|
||
* Fully automated remediation is not required for product value.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 22. Dependencies
|
||
|
||
open-reuse may depend on or integrate with:
|
||
|
||
* Git repositories
|
||
* Source control providers
|
||
* CI/CD systems
|
||
* Package registries
|
||
* Container registries
|
||
* Dependency update tools
|
||
* Security advisory sources
|
||
* License scanning tools
|
||
* Issue trackers
|
||
* Notification systems
|
||
* Code transformation tools
|
||
* AI coding or analysis agents
|
||
|
||
These dependencies are external capabilities, not necessarily built into open-reuse itself.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 23. Open Questions
|
||
|
||
1. Should the first implementation be CLI-first, service-first, or GitHub/GitLab-app-first?
|
||
2. Should the Integration Definition Schema be YAML, JSON, CUE, Jsonnet, or another structured format?
|
||
3. Should open-reuse maintain its own registry database, or should git remain the source of truth?
|
||
4. What is the minimal validation model for MVP?
|
||
5. How should maintainers be represented: users, teams, roles, or external identities?
|
||
6. Should open-reuse distinguish technical maintainers, business owners, security owners, and legal reviewers?
|
||
7. Should integration definitions live in the consuming repository, a central registry repository, or both?
|
||
8. How strongly should open-reuse integrate with dependency update tools?
|
||
9. How should composite reuse modes be represented?
|
||
10. What is the first real-world integration to use as reference case?
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 24. Acceptance Criteria for PRD v0.1
|
||
|
||
This PRD is acceptable if it enables the next artifacts to be created:
|
||
|
||
* Integration Definition Schema v0.1
|
||
* Functional Requirements Specification
|
||
* MVP architecture outline
|
||
* Use Case Catalog
|
||
* Initial CLI/service design
|
||
* Example integration definition
|
||
* Repository structure proposal
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 25. Product Positioning
|
||
|
||
open-reuse occupies the space between:
|
||
|
||
* Package management
|
||
* CI/CD
|
||
* Dependency update automation
|
||
* Software composition analysis
|
||
* Source control
|
||
* Integration architecture
|
||
* Maintainer governance
|
||
|
||
Its unique position is the structured lifecycle of **valuable reuse under upstream change**.
|
||
|
||
The shortest positioning phrase is:
|
||
|
||
> **open-reuse starts after “it works” and before “it becomes technical debt.”**
|
||
|
||
|