Refine maturity scorecard and next hardening plan

This commit is contained in:
2026-05-18 23:26:01 +02:00
parent ba1ef4f554
commit 22892416d7
3 changed files with 280 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@@ -95,5 +95,6 @@ for package bridge boundaries, [docs/activation-quality.md](docs/activation-qual
for retrieval and evaluation behavior, [docs/service-readiness.md](docs/service-readiness.md)
for service and adapter contracts, [docs/lifecycle-rules.md](docs/lifecycle-rules.md)
for profile-driven lifecycle rules, [docs/external-adapter-packs.md](docs/external-adapter-packs.md)
for fake external integration packs, and [SCOPE.md](SCOPE.md) for repository
for fake external integration packs, [docs/maturity-scorecard.md](docs/maturity-scorecard.md)
for the current maturity assessment, and [SCOPE.md](SCOPE.md) for repository
boundaries.

113
docs/maturity-scorecard.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,113 @@
# Phase Memory Maturity Scorecard
Updated: 2026-05-18
## Purpose
This scorecard tracks progress toward `INTENT.md`: a profile-driven,
phase-aware memory infrastructure layer for agentic systems.
The original scorecard treated roadmap closure and fake external adapters as
near-operational maturity. The refined scoring below is stricter: fake adapters
prove wiring and contracts, but live durability, migration, telemetry, service
bindings, and broader evaluation corpora are still needed before scoring close
to 5.
## Scoring Model
| Score | Meaning |
| --- | --- |
| 0 | Not started. |
| 1 | Intent or docs only. |
| 2 | Deterministic local library behavior with tests. |
| 3 | Usable runtime or CLI behavior with stable envelopes. |
| 4 | Integration-ready local service boundary with policy, persistence, interop, and conformance coverage. |
| 5 | Operationally mature with live adapter implementations, migrations, telemetry, retention, service bindings, and evaluation gates. |
## Current Score
Overall maturity: **3.8 / 5**
Two sub-scores make the result easier to reason about:
- Local integration maturity: **4.1 / 5**
- Operational maturity: **3.2 / 5**
The repo is strong as a deterministic local library and service-boundary core.
It is not yet production-operational because the external adapters are fakes,
durability semantics are basic, service bindings are framework-neutral shapes
rather than deployable endpoints, and evaluation coverage is still narrow.
## Dimension Scorecard
| Dimension | Score | Target | Evidence | Needed Next |
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- | --- |
| Intent and boundaries | 4.4 | 5.0 | `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, `README.md`, architecture docs, adjacent-repo boundary docs | Keep docs current as live adapters and service bindings clarify real ownership. |
| Package and API foundation | 4.2 | 4.5 | Python package, public exports, runtime facade, CLI, service config, dependency-light tests | Add API stability notes and compatibility checks for public exports. |
| Markitect profile contract ingress | 3.7 | 4.5 | Profile loading, diagnostics, runtime envelopes, profile-derived config, local alias normalization | Add richer compatibility fixtures and schema drift diagnostics. |
| Graph and event ingress | 3.7 | 4.5 | Graph loading, endpoint diagnostics, event model, JSONL log, export, repair checks, fake graph/event adapters | Add broader malformed/large graph fixtures and migration repair coverage. |
| Phase domain model | 3.5 | 4.5 | Phases, lifecycle states, actions, paths, retention rules, profile-derived transition rules | Add migration semantics for profile/rule changes over durable stores. |
| Profile execution planning | 4.0 | 4.5 | Adapter plan, capabilities, policy gates, fallback behavior, config-driven local/external resolution | Add compatibility gates for live adapter packs. |
| Lifecycle planning and apply | 3.6 | 4.5 | Dry-run lifecycle plans, profile rules, review-gated local apply | Add service `lifecycle.apply` handling, migration semantics, and better apply audit queries. |
| Activation planning | 3.8 | 4.8 | Budgeted activation, selections, package request, graph neighborhoods, paths, ranking, metrics | Wire semantic-index-assisted retrieval and expand evaluation corpora. |
| Local persistence | 3.2 | 4.5 | File-backed graph store, JSONL event log, audit sink, export, repair diagnostics | Add atomic writes, schema migration, compaction/retention utilities, and stronger corruption recovery. |
| Policy, review, and audit | 3.5 | 5.0 | Operation points, review records, audit schema, denials, redaction, fake external policy/audit adapters | Add audit query service, retention policy behavior, and live policy adapter boundary. |
| Observability and operations | 3.3 | 4.8 | Health report, config diagnostics, adapter status, fake telemetry audit sink | Add metrics/event export, retention diagnostics, and deployable health/readiness binding. |
| Markitect interop | 3.7 | 4.5 | Local validation, package request/response envelopes, fake compiler | Add optional live Markitect compiler adapter and contract compatibility suite. |
| Kontextual/Infospace interop | 3.1 | 4.5 | Delegation envelope, fake runtime registry, activation quality report fixture | Add live/fake delegation scenarios and broader Infospace restart reports. |
| Testing and evaluation | 3.8 | 4.5 | 60 deterministic tests over runtime, CLI, adapters, policy, activation, lifecycle, service, fakes | Add multi-profile/multi-graph evaluation corpus and regression thresholds. |
| Service readiness | 3.9 | 4.8 | Service contracts, local runner, health, config, adapter conformance, fake pack | Implement missing service operations and optional framework binding. |
| Developer experience | 3.8 | 4.5 | README, package map, CLI examples, persistence/policy/interop/service/lifecycle/fake-pack docs | Add troubleshooting, examples, and end-to-end recipes. |
## Assessment
The project has a credible core. The runtime envelopes, policy/review model,
profile-derived configuration, lifecycle rules, local persistence, fake
external pack, and conformance helpers form a solid integration boundary.
The biggest optimization opportunity is not another broad feature burst. It is
closing the gap between declared contracts and runnable operational behavior:
the service contract advertises operations that the local runner only partly
handles, persistence needs migration/durability semantics, and evaluation needs
more than one small fixture family.
## Recommended Refinement Workplan
Create and execute `PMEM-WP-0011`: refinement hardening and operational
readiness.
Highest-value tasks:
- Bring service runner parity to the published operation catalog:
`package.compile`, `lifecycle.apply`, and `audit.query`.
- Add local-store schema migration and repair hardening, including atomic write
behavior and migration diagnostics.
- Expand evaluation fixtures across multiple profiles, graph shapes, policies,
lifecycle rules, and activation budgets.
- Add live-adapter readiness manifests so fake and future live packs can be
tested by the same compatibility suite.
- Add audit query and retention semantics that make policy/audit behavior
inspectable after runtime operations.
- Improve DX with troubleshooting, end-to-end recipes, and API compatibility
notes.
## Score Movement Gates
Move overall score to **4.0** when:
- Service runner handles every operation in `SERVICE_OPERATIONS`.
- Audit query and lifecycle apply are covered through service contracts.
- Local persistence has migration diagnostics.
- Evaluation fixtures cover at least three profile/graph families.
Move overall score to **4.3+** when:
- Live optional Markitect or Kontextual adapter can be used behind the same
conformance suite as the fake pack.
- Operational docs include a deployable service binding or a clear embedding
recipe.
Move overall score to **4.7+** only when:
- Live adapter behavior, telemetry, audit retention, migration, and evaluation
gates are all exercised by repeatable tests or documented operator drills.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
---
id: PMEM-WP-0011
type: workplan
title: "Refinement Hardening And Operational Readiness"
domain: markitect
repo: phase-memory
status: ready
owner: codex
topic_slug: phase-memory
created: "2026-05-18"
updated: "2026-05-18"
state_hub_workstream_id: "a427c05f-0ff5-49d1-b719-7dfd4f1f8571"
---
# PMEM-WP-0011: Refinement Hardening And Operational Readiness
## Goal
Close the gap exposed by the refined maturity scorecard: the local core is
integration-ready, but the operational surface still needs service parity,
durability/migration semantics, richer evaluation, and adapter compatibility
gates.
## Current Evidence
The repo now has:
- deterministic runtime envelopes and CLI behavior;
- file-backed graph/event/audit adapters;
- policy, review, and activation denials;
- Markitect package bridge envelopes;
- profile-derived runtime config and lifecycle rules;
- service contracts, health checks, and adapter conformance helpers;
- fake external adapter packs.
The refined scorecard in `docs/maturity-scorecard.md` scores the project at
**3.8 / 5** overall, with stronger local integration maturity than operational
maturity.
## Non-Goals
- Build production-hosted services in this repo.
- Add network credentials or live service dependencies to default tests.
- Replace fake adapter packs with mandatory live adapters.
- Expand beyond phase-memory's ownership boundary.
## T01 - Bring service runner to contract parity
```task
id: PMEM-WP-0011-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "2b3c6eb4-8d3f-4c73-ab53-74e1bed8b93f"
```
Implement local service runner handling for every operation in
`SERVICE_OPERATIONS`, especially `package.compile`, `lifecycle.apply`, and
`audit.query`.
Acceptance:
- Every operation in `service_contracts()` has a local runner path or explicit
unsupported diagnostic.
- Tests cover successful `package.compile`, review-gated `lifecycle.apply`,
and audit querying.
## T02 - Harden local persistence migration and repair
```task
id: PMEM-WP-0011-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "2c19cfb0-e147-40b8-b964-6c617bddb90e"
```
Add migration and repair semantics for the local file-backed store.
Acceptance:
- Store metadata can declare schema versions and planned migrations.
- Repair diagnostics distinguish corruption, missing references, and migration
needs.
- Writes are made safer through atomic write behavior where practical.
## T03 - Expand evaluation fixtures and gates
```task
id: PMEM-WP-0011-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "cdce1c6a-4581-4184-87c6-f7bec6c3fcbd"
```
Broaden activation/lifecycle evaluation beyond the single primary fixture
family.
Acceptance:
- Add at least three profile/graph scenario families.
- Cover policy-denied activation, profile lifecycle rules, event-path
activation, semantic-index hints, and budget pressure.
- Add deterministic report fixtures or threshold assertions.
## T04 - Add adapter pack compatibility manifests
```task
id: PMEM-WP-0011-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "602c22bb-d440-4d38-a51f-bf6ed504fd1e"
```
Define manifest metadata for fake and future live adapter packs.
Acceptance:
- Adapter packs can declare capabilities, ownership boundaries, and required
conformance helpers.
- Fake pack tests use the manifest rather than only direct class assertions.
- Missing capability diagnostics are explicit.
## T05 - Make policy/audit retention inspectable
```task
id: PMEM-WP-0011-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "c4fa6001-b20c-4ec1-b885-af9b80c832de"
```
Add query and retention behavior around audit records.
Acceptance:
- Audit sink query behavior is exposed through runtime/service paths.
- Retention metadata is visible and testable.
- Review and denial audit records can be traced after operations.
## T06 - Improve operational developer experience
```task
id: PMEM-WP-0011-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "f4674eaf-cbc1-4eac-b1d1-b07ae51289cf"
```
Add end-to-end recipes, troubleshooting, and API compatibility notes.
Acceptance:
- README links to the refined maturity scorecard.
- Docs include a local end-to-end recipe from profile/graph import to
lifecycle, activation, package compile, audit query, and health.
- Public API compatibility expectations are documented.
## Acceptance Criteria
- Refined maturity blockers have concrete executable coverage.
- The scorecard can move from 3.8 toward 4.0 based on behavior, not optimism.
- StateHub has this refinement workplan as the next actionable PMEM workstream.
## Closure Review
Pending implementation.