coulomb/frontend-patterns
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Update scope and assess alignment with language intent

Browse source 
Assistant: codex
Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra
Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-27 01:05:06 +02:00
parent aee2971732
commit 9ac6f6925b
4 changed files with 260 additions and 19 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

98
SCOPE.md
View file

@ -1,32 +1,94 @@
# SCOPE
## Purpose
Reviewed: 2026-09-27 · Scope: ongoing research and a versioned knowledge base.
## Purpose and deliverable
Develop a framework-independent frontend architecture pattern language for human
and agent reference, following the preliminary direction in `INTENT.md`.
and agent reference, following [INTENT.md](INTENT.md). Its intended practical
outcome is an explainable path from a frontend problem and its forces to compatible
patterns and implementation options.
The deliverable is a versioned Markdown knowledge base with structured metadata,
traceable evidence and transparent revision history. The language evolves through
bounded investigations and review gates; it has no final completion date. Completing
an experiment or milestone does not establish a mature language.
## In scope
- `canon/`: responsibilities, forces, scales, relations and the pattern schema.
- `patterns/`: patterns with context, evidence, trade-offs and failure modes.
- `research/`: sources, interpretations, candidate concepts and counterexamples.
- `sequences/` and `architectures/`: decisions and configurations through patterns.
- `technologies/`: descriptive mappings to implementation options.
- `templates/`: authoring structures and future metadata validation.
- `canon/`: responsibilities, forces, scales, relations and the metadata contract,
including testing whether the proposed vocabulary explains contrasting cases.
- `research/`: identifiable sources, claim-level interpretations, candidate patterns,
counterexamples, pinned implementation studies and bounded executable experiments.
- `patterns/`: evidence-qualified canonical records when admission is justified;
research candidates remain separately identified until then.
- `sequences/` and `architectures/`: decision ordering, compatible configurations,
alternatives and resulting contexts, exercised through contrasting walkthroughs.
- `technologies/`: descriptive mappings from patterns to implementation approaches,
including their constraints and limits.
- `templates/`, `scripts/` and the infospace-bench adapter: authoring, metadata checks
and reproducible research evaluation. Live model execution uses llm-connect.
- `research/evolution/` and `history/`: evidence profiles, immutable snapshots,
prospective questions and effort, supersession, learning outcomes and dated
assessments. Track applicability, trustworthiness, usefulness, coherence,
maintainability and learning efficiency separately.
## Out of scope
These areas include intended capabilities; directory presence is not evidence that
the corresponding capability is implemented or validated.
- Building or operating a frontend application or framework.
- Ranking frameworks or prescribing a universal architecture.
- Treating candidate lists or unsourced interpretations as established evidence.
## Current capabilities and limits
## Current state
As of 2026-09-27, seventeen developed research candidates remain draft hypotheses;
none is canonically admitted. Sources and claim-level reviews, metadata contract
checks, an infospace-bench adapter and bounded runtime research fixtures exist.
Four walkthroughs are synthetic drafts or provisional studies, not validated
architecture recipes. Six further validation cases remain planned.
Research scaffold with an infospace-bench adapter as of 2026-09-26. The adapter
has deterministic integration tests, completed bounded live investigations through
llm-connect, and four synthetic architecture walkthroughs (VC-03 and VC-06 provisional). Seventeen developed research
drafts remain hypotheses; none is canonically admitted. No frontend application runtime exists. See `research/bench/README.md`,
`REVIEW.md` (the initial review) and `workplans/` for follow-up work.
The frozen development pilot scored 18/24 in each presentation condition after
submitted model-review adjudication. It establishes neither a naming benefit nor
equivalence; independent human validation and decision-time measurement remain open.
Evolution profiles, a baseline, learning ledger, snapshots and a generated report
are implemented. Four effort-accounted prospective cycles belong to four different
comparison groups: there is no comparable window for a diminishing-returns claim.
Evidence types, implementation families and review provenance remain distinct.
Static source mechanisms and authored runtime fixtures do not establish complete
pattern recurrence, production fitness or independent human confirmation.
Canonical admission, M1/M2 acceptance, demonstrated generativity, full graph export,
held-out retrieval evaluation and developed technology mappings remain open.
There is research runtime code, but no maintained frontend application or framework
is offered as the product. See the [evolution report](research/evolution/EvolutionReport.md)
for current counts and evidence limits; [REVIEW.md](REVIEW.md) preserves the initial
2026-09-23 review and is not a current capability inventory.
## Research boundaries and exclusions
- Do not build or operate a general frontend application, framework, router or
release platform as the deliverable. Fixtures exist to investigate claims.
- Do not rank frameworks, prescribe a universal architecture or turn the language
into a component cookbook or collection of tool-specific idioms.
- Do not treat candidate counts, source counts, passing assertions or model agreement
as maturity, independent recurrence or proof of usefulness.
- Do not infer accessibility conformance, production guarantees or upstream defects
from bounded DOM experiments or partial source inspection.
- Do not combine viability dimensions into a maturity percentage, infer historical
effort from commits, or pool incomparable studies to claim learning saturation.
## Work ownership and review boundaries
[WP-0002](workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md) owns seed evidence,
connected-corpus validation and M1. [WP-0003](workplans/FEP-WP-0003-contrasting-schools.md)
owns contrasting streams, broader walkthroughs, ontology decisions and M2.
[WP-0004](workplans/FEP-WP-0004-reference-surface.md) is proposed follow-up for graph,
held-out retrieval and real-repository applicability, subject to its recorded gates.
[WP-0006](workplans/FEP-WP-0006-language-evolution.md) owns ongoing learning visibility,
review dates and comparable-cycle measurement. Actionable work stays in workplans;
this file describes boundaries, not a second backlog.
The [2026-09-27 scope–intent assessment](history/2026-09-27T010237+0200-scope-vs-intent.md)
records the current gaps and recommended priorities. Future assessments should
preserve that historical judgment and cite changed evidence.
## Registration