tegwick
cbe82f806b
Assistant: codex Assistant-Model: gpt-6-astra Assistant-Session: 01a0cffe-206f-7323-89d3-b20ca4cf4bf9
120 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
120 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
# 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.
|