Register frontend pattern research and establish preliminary intent
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
This commit is contained in:
parent
9c8a49212a
commit
cbe82f806b
8 changed files with 592 additions and 0 deletions
5
.gitignore
vendored
Normal file
5
.gitignore
vendored
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
|
|||
# state-hub: track .claude/rules
|
||||
# Claude Code local state (track shared rules; ignore machine-specific files)
|
||||
.claude/*
|
||||
!.claude/rules/
|
||||
!.claude/rules/*.md
|
||||
6
.repo-classification.yaml
Normal file
6
.repo-classification.yaml
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
|
|||
category: research
|
||||
domain: infotech
|
||||
capability_tags:
|
||||
- frontend-architecture
|
||||
- pattern-language
|
||||
- knowledge-representation
|
||||
265
AGENTS.md
Normal file
265
AGENTS.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,265 @@
|
|||
# frontend-patterns — Agent Instructions
|
||||
|
||||
## Repo Identity
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Framework-independent frontend architecture pattern language for human and agent reference.
|
||||
|
||||
**Domain:** infotech
|
||||
**Repo slug:** frontend-patterns
|
||||
**Topic ID:** `fe2aaa78-9c20-4feb-b3d2-4fe0529572a3`
|
||||
**Workplan prefix:** `FEP-WP-`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## State Hub Integration
|
||||
|
||||
The Custodian State Hub tracks work across all domains. Codex uses HTTP REST and
|
||||
the `statehub` CLI by default. MCP is opt-in because the current Codex MCP bridge
|
||||
adds severe call latency; the full administrative MCP surface remains available
|
||||
to clients that need it.
|
||||
|
||||
| Context | URL |
|
||||
|---------|-----|
|
||||
| Local workstation | `http://127.0.0.1:8000` |
|
||||
| Remote via tunnel | `http://127.0.0.1:18000` |
|
||||
| Optional local edge relay | http://127.0.0.1:18080 |
|
||||
|
||||
When an operator has enabled the edge relay, set API_BASE to the relay URL.
|
||||
Queueable writes return an explicit queued receipt if the central hub is
|
||||
unreachable. Treat that as pending local evidence, then ask the operator to run
|
||||
statehub outbox status/replay after connectivity returns.
|
||||
|
||||
Codex workspace-write sandboxes need network access enabled to reach the host's
|
||||
loopback listener. Bootstrap this once with `make -C ~/state-hub configure-codex`
|
||||
and restart Codex. The canonical REST health endpoint is `/state/health`, not
|
||||
`/health`. If a sandboxed loopback probe fails, retry it with escalated execution
|
||||
before declaring State Hub unavailable; a managed Codex permission profile may
|
||||
still enforce isolated networking. Experimental MCP can be enabled explicitly
|
||||
with `make -C ~/state-hub configure-codex WITH_MCP=1`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Orient at session start
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Offline brief — works without hub connection
|
||||
cat .custodian-brief.md
|
||||
|
||||
# Active workplans for this domain
|
||||
curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:8000/workplans/?topic_id=fe2aaa78-9c20-4feb-b3d2-4fe0529572a3&status=active" \
|
||||
| python3 -m json.tool
|
||||
|
||||
# Check inbox
|
||||
curl -s "http://127.0.0.1:8000/messages/?to_agent=frontend-patterns&unread_only=true" \
|
||||
| python3 -m json.tool
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Mark a message read:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/messages/<id>/read" \
|
||||
-H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Log progress (required at session close)
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:8000/progress/ \
|
||||
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
|
||||
-d '{
|
||||
"summary": "what was done",
|
||||
"event_type": "note",
|
||||
"author": "codex",
|
||||
"workplan_id": "<uuid>",
|
||||
"task_id": "<uuid>"
|
||||
}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Omit `workplan_id` / `task_id` when not applicable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Update task status
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/tasks/<task_id>" \
|
||||
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
|
||||
-d '{"status": "progress"}'
|
||||
# values: wait | todo | progress | done | cancel
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Flag a task for human review
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
curl -s -X PATCH "http://127.0.0.1:8000/tasks/<task_id>" \
|
||||
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
|
||||
-d '{"needs_human": true, "intervention_note": "reason"}'
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Session Protocol
|
||||
|
||||
**Start:**
|
||||
1. `cat .custodian-brief.md` — domain goal and open workplans (offline-safe)
|
||||
2. Check inbox: `GET /messages/?to_agent=frontend-patterns&unread_only=true`; mark read
|
||||
3. Scan workplans: `ls workplans/` — note `status: ready`, `active`, or `blocked` files and open tasks
|
||||
4. Check human-needed tasks: `GET /tasks/?needs_human=true`
|
||||
|
||||
**During work:**
|
||||
- Update task statuses in workplan files as tasks progress
|
||||
- Record significant decisions via `POST /decisions/`
|
||||
|
||||
**Close:**
|
||||
1. Update workplan file task statuses to reflect progress
|
||||
2. If finishing a workplan: hand off **residuals** as live work records first
|
||||
(intake with `origin: residual` + `origin_ref: <WP-id>`, or a next workplan /
|
||||
decision / engagement). Do not park leftovers only in prose or `SCOPE.md`.
|
||||
Canon: `the-custodian/canon/standards/work-record-types_v0.1.md` § Residuals.
|
||||
3. Log: `POST /progress/` with a summary of what changed (name handoff ids)
|
||||
4. After workplan file changes, run:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
uv run --project ~/repo-manager rmgr sync --path . --push
|
||||
```
|
||||
This assigns only missing deterministic identifiers, verifies the pushed
|
||||
Forgejo commit and `primary/railliance01`, then requests one central
|
||||
reconciliation. A queued receipt is pending evidence; rerun after
|
||||
connectivity returns. Use `statehub fix-consistency` for a separate deep audit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Credential and access routing
|
||||
|
||||
**Audience:** Codex, Claude Code, Grok, and custodian agents that call **llm-connect**
|
||||
for inference. Run this check **before** requesting secrets, API keys, SSH access,
|
||||
login tokens, or database passwords — in any repo, not only `ops-warden`.
|
||||
|
||||
ops-warden **issues SSH certificates only** (`warden sign`, `cert_command`). Every
|
||||
other credential need belongs to another subsystem. **Do not** message
|
||||
`ops-warden` on State Hub expecting a secret value; the reply is a pointer, not a key.
|
||||
|
||||
### Lookup (do this first)
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
warden route find "<describe your need>" --json
|
||||
warden route show <catalog-id> --json
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Requires the `warden` CLI from `~/ops-warden` (`uv tool install .` or `uv run warden`).
|
||||
|
||||
| Agent runtime | How to orient |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| **Codex / Grok** (shell, HTTP State Hub) | `warden route` commands above; inbox `to_agent=frontend-patterns` is for coordination, not secret vending |
|
||||
| **Claude Code** (MCP when available) | `get_domain_summary("custodian")` for workplans; **still** use `warden route` for credential ownership |
|
||||
| **llm-connect** (inference service) | Never put secret retrieval in prompts; route custody to OpenBao/operator paths surfaced by `warden route` |
|
||||
|
||||
### Quick routing table
|
||||
|
||||
| I need… | Owner | ops-warden executes? |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| SSH cert (`adm`/`agt`/`atm`) | ops-warden | **Yes** — `warden sign` |
|
||||
| API key, DB password, provider token | OpenBao (`railiance-platform`) | No — route only |
|
||||
| Login / OIDC / MFA | key-cape / Keycloak | No — route only |
|
||||
| Authorization decision | flex-auth | No — route only |
|
||||
| activity-core → issue-core emission | activity-core + issue-core | No — `warden route show activity-core-issue-sink` |
|
||||
| SSH tunnel | ops-bridge (+ `cert_command` from warden) | No — route only |
|
||||
|
||||
### Anti-patterns (do not do these)
|
||||
|
||||
- `POST /messages/` to `ops-warden` asking for `ISSUE_CORE_API_KEY`, `OPENROUTER_API_KEY`, etc.
|
||||
- Inventing `warden secret`, `warden login`, `warden bao`, `warden tunnel` — they do not exist
|
||||
- Pasting secrets into Git, State Hub, workplans, logs, or chat
|
||||
|
||||
### Other capabilities (reuse-surface)
|
||||
|
||||
Non-credential capabilities are usually discovered through **reuse-surface** federation
|
||||
(`reuse-surface` registry / `capability.*` indexes). Credential routing is inlined in
|
||||
every repo's agent instructions because it is high-frequency, high-risk, and easy to
|
||||
get wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
**Canon:** `~/ops-warden/wiki/CredentialRouting.md` · catalog `~/ops-warden/registry/routing/catalog.yaml`
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- REPO-AGENTS-EXTENSIONS -->
|
||||
<!-- Append repo-specific agent instructions below this marker.
|
||||
The state-hub template sync preserves content after this line. -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Workplan Convention (ADR-001)
|
||||
|
||||
Work items originate as files in this repo — not in the hub. The hub is a
|
||||
read/cache/index layer that rebuilds from files.
|
||||
|
||||
**File location:** `workplans/FEP-WP-NNNN-<slug>.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Archived location:** finished workplans may move to
|
||||
`workplans/archived/YYMMDD-FEP-WP-NNNN-<slug>.md`. The `YYMMDD` prefix is
|
||||
the completion/archive date; the frontmatter `id` does not change.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ad Hoc Tasks:** small opportunistic fixes discovered during a session use
|
||||
`workplans/ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD.md`, workplan id
|
||||
`FEP-WP-ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD`, and task ids
|
||||
`FEP-WP-ADHOC-YYYY-MM-DD-T01`, etc. `FEP-WP` includes its final `-WP`
|
||||
token. Unqualified historic `ADHOC-*` ids are grandfathered and must not be
|
||||
copied into new records. Use this only for low-risk work completed directly;
|
||||
create a normal workplan for anything needing analysis, design, approval,
|
||||
dependencies, or multiple phases.
|
||||
|
||||
**Frontmatter:**
|
||||
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-NNNN
|
||||
type: workplan
|
||||
title: "..."
|
||||
domain: infotech
|
||||
repo: frontend-patterns
|
||||
status: proposed | ready | active | blocked | backlog | finished | archived
|
||||
owner: codex
|
||||
topic_slug: ...
|
||||
created: "YYYY-MM-DD"
|
||||
updated: "YYYY-MM-DD"
|
||||
state_hub_workstream_id: "<uuid>" # deterministic UUIDv5; managed by Repo Manager
|
||||
---
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Use `proposed` for a new draft, `ready` after review against current repo
|
||||
state, and `finished` after implementation. `stalled` and `needs_review` are
|
||||
derived health labels, not frontmatter statuses.
|
||||
|
||||
**Terminology:** workplan is the fleet term; `workstream` appears only in legacy
|
||||
API/MCP/frontmatter bridges until `STATE-WP-0069` retires them — see
|
||||
`the-custodian/canon/standards/workplan-terminology-fleet_v0.1.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Task block format** (one per `##` section):
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Task Title
|
||||
|
||||
` ` `task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-NNNN-T01
|
||||
status: wait | todo | progress | done | cancel
|
||||
priority: high | medium | low
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "<uuid>" # deterministic UUIDv5; managed by Repo Manager
|
||||
` ` `
|
||||
|
||||
Task description text.
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Status progression: `todo` → `progress` → `done`; use `wait` for waiting/blocked work and `cancel` for stopped work.
|
||||
|
||||
**Residuals when finishing:** actionable leftovers become live work records
|
||||
before `status: finished` — usually an intake (`origin: residual`,
|
||||
`origin_ref: FEP-WP-NNNN`) or a spawned workplan. Residual is a *role*,
|
||||
not a kind. Fleet list lives on State Hub, not in `SCOPE.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
To create a new workplan:
|
||||
1. Write the file following the format above
|
||||
2. Run `uv run --project ~/repo-manager rmgr sync --path . --push`.
|
||||
3. Run `statehub fix-consistency` only when a separate deep audit is needed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## Repository workflow
|
||||
|
||||
This is a Markdown research repository. No install, build, run, lint or automated
|
||||
application test command exists yet. Review documentation and use `git diff --check`
|
||||
for whitespace. Inspect new files as well as tracked diffs.
|
||||
|
||||
Read `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md` and `REVIEW.md` for scope and maturity. Treat source
|
||||
interpretations, candidate patterns and research stubs as provisional. Preserve
|
||||
unrelated uncommitted work. Future validators belong to FEP-WP-0002.
|
||||
120
INTENT.md
Normal file
120
INTENT.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
|
|||
# INTENT
|
||||
|
||||
Status: preliminary · Reviewed: 2026-09-23
|
||||
|
||||
This records the initial direction inferred from the repository scaffold. The
|
||||
responsibility model, vocabulary and sequences remain hypotheses to test against
|
||||
sources and contrasting applications.
|
||||
|
||||
## Mission
|
||||
|
||||
Establish **frontend-patterns** as a durable, framework-independent pattern language for frontend architecture and design.
|
||||
|
||||
The repository should help a human or software agent answer questions such as:
|
||||
|
||||
- What architectural problem am I actually trying to solve?
|
||||
- Which forces are active?
|
||||
- Which patterns are applicable?
|
||||
- Which patterns conflict?
|
||||
- Which decisions must be made before this one?
|
||||
- What context will applying this pattern create?
|
||||
- Which implementation approaches realize this pattern?
|
||||
- What failure modes should I expect?
|
||||
- Which evidence and known uses support the pattern?
|
||||
- How does a named frontend architecture decompose into reusable patterns?
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this exists
|
||||
|
||||
Frontend knowledge is fragmented across:
|
||||
|
||||
- framework documentation,
|
||||
- architecture articles,
|
||||
- rendering taxonomies,
|
||||
- state-management schools,
|
||||
- local-first research,
|
||||
- microfrontend literature,
|
||||
- design-system practice,
|
||||
- accessibility guidance,
|
||||
- performance engineering,
|
||||
- distributed-systems concepts,
|
||||
- GUI architecture traditions.
|
||||
|
||||
These sources often discuss similar forces using incompatible vocabularies.
|
||||
|
||||
The project aims to reconcile them into a coherent language.
|
||||
|
||||
## Non-goals
|
||||
|
||||
The project is not primarily:
|
||||
|
||||
- a framework comparison site,
|
||||
- a component cookbook,
|
||||
- a list of React idioms,
|
||||
- a collection of code snippets,
|
||||
- a prescriptive "one true architecture",
|
||||
- a popularity ranking of frontend technologies.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation examples are useful only insofar as they illuminate patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
## Desired properties
|
||||
|
||||
The language should be:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Generative** — capable of helping construct architectures.
|
||||
- **Relational** — patterns explicitly connect to other patterns.
|
||||
- **Contextual** — every pattern exists in a context with forces.
|
||||
- **Evidence-aware** — claims distinguish observation, established practice and hypothesis.
|
||||
- **Multi-scale** — patterns range from application topology to interaction details.
|
||||
- **Technology-independent** — named tools map into the language but do not define it.
|
||||
- **Agent-readable** — structured metadata supports retrieval and reasoning.
|
||||
- **Human-readable** — prose explains why and when a pattern matters.
|
||||
- **Evolvable** — concepts can mature without destabilizing the whole canon.
|
||||
|
||||
## Success condition
|
||||
|
||||
The repository is successful when a practitioner or agent can start with a frontend problem description and derive a small, explainable configuration of compatible patterns, then map those patterns to implementation options.
|
||||
|
||||
## Initial scope and maturity
|
||||
|
||||
The deliverable is a versioned Markdown knowledge base: vocabulary, patterns,
|
||||
relations, architecture decompositions, decision sequences, technology mappings
|
||||
and traceable evidence. A running application or framework is not required.
|
||||
|
||||
The current repository is a scaffold. Pattern families contain candidate lists;
|
||||
architecture descriptions and most sequences are research stubs. There are no
|
||||
completed canonical pattern records, technology mappings, graph exports or
|
||||
automated validators. The first source case is an initial interpretation, not a
|
||||
completed source review.
|
||||
|
||||
## Preliminary priorities
|
||||
|
||||
1. Reconcile schema and template: stable identifiers, relation spelling, force
|
||||
identifiers, prerequisites, scales and evidence maturity need clear meanings.
|
||||
2. Record identifiable sources with dates or versions and claim-level references;
|
||||
distinguish source claims, our interpretations and untested hypotheses.
|
||||
3. Develop a small connected set of complete patterns before expanding the catalog.
|
||||
Each needs competing forces, consequences, failure modes and supporting evidence.
|
||||
4. Exercise that set in contrasting server-authoritative and local-first scenarios.
|
||||
Record alternatives, decision sequences, resulting contexts and gaps.
|
||||
5. Add metadata validation and graph export once the contract survives those examples.
|
||||
|
||||
## Evidence of useful progress
|
||||
|
||||
A preliminary demonstration should trace an application problem through explicit
|
||||
forces to a connected pattern configuration and implementation options. Each
|
||||
selected pattern should have a stable identity, justified relations, traceable
|
||||
evidence and stated maturity. Explain rejected alternatives and unresolved forces.
|
||||
|
||||
Pattern count alone is not success. Progress should improve conceptual precision,
|
||||
evidence quality or the ability to explain a concrete design decision.
|
||||
|
||||
## Open decisions
|
||||
|
||||
- Whether the nine responsibilities are sufficient and independent.
|
||||
- How prerequisites differ from relations between patterns.
|
||||
- How evidence maturity differs from editorial or publication status.
|
||||
- How to represent patterns spanning multiple scales.
|
||||
- Which metadata and evaluation cases enable reliable agent retrieval.
|
||||
|
||||
`research/plan/ResearchProgram.md` provides a provisional roadmap; its milestones
|
||||
describe planned work, not completed capabilities.
|
||||
41
REVIEW.md
Normal file
41
REVIEW.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
|||
# Preliminary repository review
|
||||
|
||||
Reviewed: 2026-09-23. Scope: the local Markdown scaffold, including pre-existing
|
||||
uncommitted content. External source claims were not independently verified.
|
||||
|
||||
The scaffold has a coherent purpose and useful separation between research,
|
||||
vocabulary, patterns and implementations. Reasoning from forces and resulting
|
||||
contexts is its central strength. It is not yet an evidence-backed pattern corpus.
|
||||
|
||||
## Findings
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Metadata is inconsistent.** `canon/PatternSchema.md` uses `conflicts_with`,
|
||||
while `canon/Relations.md` and `templates/Pattern.md` use `conflicts-with`.
|
||||
Forces have prose labels in the vocabulary but underscore IDs in the schema.
|
||||
Resolve serialization and identity before tools depend on them.
|
||||
2. **Prerequisites and graph edges are ambiguous.** Schema `requires` values name
|
||||
conditions such as `authoritative_state`, whereas relation definitions permit
|
||||
patterns or their contexts. Examples use names instead of `FEP-*` IDs.
|
||||
Define target types and reference resolution.
|
||||
3. **Evidence is prospective.** The source catalog lists families, not individually
|
||||
identifiable references. The Carniato case is a stub without a source URL,
|
||||
date/version or claim references. README's “research-backed” description should
|
||||
be treated as an ambition until supporting evidence is recorded.
|
||||
4. **Maturity and scales need definitions.** Schema `status` and `evidence.maturity`
|
||||
both use `hypothesis`; the catalog uses `seed`. Catalog scales include `L3/L6`
|
||||
and `cross-scale`, whereas the template uses one scale. Define valid states
|
||||
and representations before automated validation.
|
||||
5. **Generative usefulness is untested.** Pattern families contain only READMEs;
|
||||
six architecture records and four specialized sequences are stubs. There are
|
||||
no technology mappings. Test a connected pattern set on contrasting scenarios
|
||||
before claiming coverage or expanding the catalog.
|
||||
|
||||
## Follow-up
|
||||
|
||||
`workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md` tracks these findings.
|
||||
The preliminary intent preserves the mission and adds current maturity,
|
||||
bounded priorities, success criteria and open decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
There is no application runtime, dependency manifest or automated test suite.
|
||||
Validation for this change covers documentation, placeholders, classification
|
||||
and State Hub registration/projection consistency.
|
||||
37
SCOPE.md
Normal file
37
SCOPE.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
|||
# SCOPE
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Develop a framework-independent frontend architecture pattern language for human
|
||||
and agent reference, following the preliminary direction in `INTENT.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
## 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.
|
||||
|
||||
## Out of scope
|
||||
|
||||
- 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 state
|
||||
|
||||
Research scaffold as of 2026-09-23. No application runtime, dependency manifest,
|
||||
build pipeline or automated test suite is present. See `REVIEW.md` for findings
|
||||
and `workplans/` for tracked follow-up work.
|
||||
|
||||
## Registration
|
||||
|
||||
- Repository: `frontend-patterns`
|
||||
- Category: `research`
|
||||
- Domain / topic: `infotech / canon`
|
||||
- Workplan prefix: `FEP-WP`
|
||||
|
||||
The topic groups this research with semantic coordination work; it does not imply
|
||||
that the proposed language is an adopted fleet standard.
|
||||
65
workplans/FEP-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md
Normal file
65
workplans/FEP-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0001
|
||||
type: workplan
|
||||
title: "Bootstrap State Hub integration"
|
||||
domain: infotech
|
||||
repo: frontend-patterns
|
||||
status: finished
|
||||
owner: codex
|
||||
topic_slug: canon
|
||||
created: "2026-09-23"
|
||||
updated: "2026-09-23"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Bootstrap State Hub integration
|
||||
|
||||
Framework-independent frontend architecture pattern language for human and agent reference.
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Generated Integration Files
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0001-T01
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Review `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, and `.custodian-brief.md`.
|
||||
Replace generated placeholders with repo-specific facts where needed.
|
||||
|
||||
## Verify Local Developer Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0001-T02
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Identify the repo's install, test, lint, build, and run commands. Add or refine
|
||||
those commands in the agent instructions so future coding sessions can verify
|
||||
changes confidently.
|
||||
|
||||
## Seed First Real Workplan
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0001-T03
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Create the first implementation workplan for the repository's most important
|
||||
next change. After workplan file updates, run the sync locally from this repo
|
||||
checkout:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
statehub fix-consistency
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Completion evidence
|
||||
|
||||
Registered repository, remote, root Git fingerprint and bnt-lap001 checkout with
|
||||
State Hub under infotech/canon. Reviewed the scaffold in `REVIEW.md`, refined
|
||||
`INTENT.md` and `SCOPE.md`, resolved the generated credential-routing placeholder,
|
||||
and documented the Markdown-only workflow in `AGENTS.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
Residual research findings are handed off to proposed workplan FEP-WP-0002.
|
||||
Registration/projection verification is recorded in the State Hub progress log.
|
||||
53
workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md
Normal file
53
workplans/FEP-WP-0002-seed-language-validation.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
|||
---
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0002
|
||||
type: workplan
|
||||
title: "Validate the seed frontend pattern language"
|
||||
domain: infotech
|
||||
repo: frontend-patterns
|
||||
status: proposed
|
||||
owner: codex
|
||||
topic_slug: canon
|
||||
created: "2026-09-23"
|
||||
updated: "2026-09-23"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Validate the seed frontend pattern language
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-up from `REVIEW.md` and FEP-WP-0001. This records future research.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reconcile the metadata contract
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0002-T01
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Resolve relation spelling, force and pattern IDs, prerequisite target types,
|
||||
multi-scale representation and editorial status versus evidence maturity.
|
||||
Done when schema and template agree and a worked example resolves every reference.
|
||||
|
||||
## Establish traceable source evidence
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0002-T02
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Complete the first source case and a contrasting local-first source review.
|
||||
Record source identity, URL, date/version, claim references, interpretations and
|
||||
counterexamples. Reconcile README maturity claims with the evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
## Validate a connected seed corpus
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: FEP-WP-0002-T03
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Author a small connected pattern set and exercise it in server-authoritative and
|
||||
local-first scenarios. Show forces, alternatives, ordering rationale, resulting
|
||||
contexts and failure modes. Record gaps, then define the minimum metadata
|
||||
validator and graph export needed by these examples.
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue