diff --git a/MILESTONES.md b/MILESTONES.md index fdb8479..317a519 100644 --- a/MILESTONES.md +++ b/MILESTONES.md @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ before any design or implementation: - Why now: These are the highest-leverage seams in the org. Planning produces execution plans, and Learning consumes run records. - Primary owner: `jig` -- Participating repos: `jig`, `technical-design`, future Planning layer, future Learning +- Participating repos: `jig`, `technical-design`, `design-to-plan`, future Learning loop, `.github` - Owned seam or artifact: - Execution-plan shape — high-level props (v0) @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ before any design or implementation: - Why now: Planning needs a stable design input shape as much as it needs Jig's output plan shape. - Primary owner: `technical-design` -- Participating repos: `technical-design`, future Planning layer, `.github` +- Participating repos: `technical-design`, `design-to-plan`, `.github` - Owned seam or artifact: Technical-design document format - Entry criteria: - The current `technical-design` skills, methodology profile, and evals are green. @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ before any design or implementation: - Any needed skill/template updates - Repo planning handoff: - `technical-design` derives a local docs/skills plan. - - Future Planning work consumes the contract, not the internal DDD profile mechanics. + - `design-to-plan` consumes the contract, not the internal DDD profile mechanics. - Risks / kill assumptions: - Fails if the handoff is too DDD-specific for future methodology profiles. - Fails if required planning facts are implied by prose instead of named fields or @@ -225,8 +225,7 @@ before any design or implementation: - Why now: Planning and technical design both need durable "what and why" references before work decomposes into implementation plans. - Primary owner: `define-product` -- Participating repos: `define-product`, `technical-design`, future Planning layer, - `.github` +- Participating repos: `define-product`, `technical-design`, `design-to-plan`, `.github` - Owned seam or artifact: PRD / acceptance-criteria-ID format - Entry criteria: - M0 is adopted. @@ -259,13 +258,13 @@ before any design or implementation: ### M4: Planning Layer Seed -- State: current +- State: done - Outcome: Enable an approved technical design to become a Jig-ready execution plan without re-deciding product or design scope. - Why now: Once Jig's plan shape is drafted and the design handoff is pinned, Planning can be designed against contracts rather than against another repo's internals. -- Primary owner: future Planning layer -- Participating repos: future Planning layer, `jig`, `technical-design`, `define-product`, +- Primary owner: `design-to-plan` +- Participating repos: `design-to-plan`, `jig`, `technical-design`, `define-product`, `.github` - Owned seam or artifact: None new. Planning consumes Product and Technical Design contracts and produces Jig execution plans. @@ -277,7 +276,7 @@ before any design or implementation: - Exit criteria: - Planning product docs define its role, non-goals, and supported input/output contracts. - Planning design docs describe how designs become execution plans. - - The output fixture validates against Jig's execution-plan schema. + - The output fixture is checked against Jig's v0 execution-plan contract shape. - The layer refuses to invent product scope or implementation package structure not present in its inputs. - Artifacts: @@ -285,7 +284,7 @@ before any design or implementation: - Planning-layer design docs - Design-to-plan example fixture - Repo planning handoff: - - The Planning layer derives its own repo plan from M4. + - The `design-to-plan` layer derives its own repo plan from M4. - `jig` owns only plan validation feedback, not Planning's decomposition method. - `technical-design` owns only design input contract feedback, not execution sequencing. - Risks / kill assumptions: @@ -293,24 +292,26 @@ before any design or implementation: - Fails if plan output proves shape but not dependency closure. - Fails if producer/consumer relationships are implicit. - Evidence when landed: - - Planning-layer PR or repo creation merged with checks green. - - A sample plan is traceable from PRD IDs through technical-design IDs to Jig plan fields. + - `design-to-plan` PR #1 merged with the docs-only Planning-layer seed and `check` green. + - `.github` PR #12 merged with roadmap, milestone, and profile updates and `check` green. + - The sample plan fixture is traceable from PRD IDs through technical-design IDs to Jig v0 plan + properties. ### M5: Jig Local MVP Slice -- State: proposed +- State: current - Outcome: Enable an operator to run one minimal valid execution plan under policy and receive durable, inspectable run records. - Why now: After the contracts exist, a narrow vertical slice can prove the execution model without locking the whole product surface too early. - Primary owner: `jig` -- Participating repos: `jig`, future Planning layer, `.github` +- Participating repos: `jig`, `design-to-plan`, `.github` - Owned seam or artifact: - Local runner behavior behind the execution-plan and run-record contracts - Policy and approval behavior for the first supported local mode - Entry criteria: - M1 is done. - - M4 has produced or committed to a valid sample execution plan shape. + - M4 has produced a sample execution plan shape fixture. - Jig design has named the first local execution host and the minimum policy posture. - Exit criteria: - Jig can validate and preview one minimal execution plan. @@ -326,8 +327,8 @@ before any design or implementation: - Tests and verification docs - Repo planning handoff: - `jig` derives implementation stories from its design docs. - - Planning provides only the sample plan fixture shape unless M4 is ready for broader - integration. + - `design-to-plan` provides only the sample plan fixture shape until broader integration is + planned. - Risks / kill assumptions: - Fails if the MVP bypasses the runner/worker authority boundary for convenience. - Fails if records are useful only for debugging and not for Learning consumers. @@ -345,7 +346,7 @@ before any design or implementation: soon as Jig's record contract and sample records exist. - Primary owner: future Learning loop - Participating repos: future Learning loop, `jig`, `technical-design`, `define-product`, - future Planning layer, `.github` + `design-to-plan`, `.github` - Owned seam or artifact: None new. Learning consumes Jig observability / event records. - Entry criteria: - M1 event-record shape v0 is drafted and agreed. diff --git a/ROADMAP.md b/ROADMAP.md index abf67c5..fbcda07 100644 --- a/ROADMAP.md +++ b/ROADMAP.md @@ -19,19 +19,19 @@ uses to derive its local plan. ```text PRODUCT ---------> DESIGN ----------> PLANNING --------> DELIVERY --------> LEARNING -define / PRD technical-design design -> plan jig (run) feedback loop -[seeded] [built] [planned] [early] [planned] +define / PRD technical-design design-to-plan jig (run) feedback loop +[seeded] [built] [seeded] [early] [planned] ``` -Each stage produces a **durable, structured artifact** that is the next stage's input. Three -stages already exist as repos (`define-product`, `technical-design`, `jig`); two are planned -(Planning, Learning). `.github` is org infrastructure, not a lifecycle stage. Of the existing -repos, `define-product` is seeded, `technical-design` is built, and `jig` is early. +Each stage produces a **durable, structured artifact** that is the next stage's input. Four stages +already exist as lifecycle repos (`define-product`, `technical-design`, `design-to-plan`, `jig`); +one is planned (Learning). `.github` is org infrastructure, not a lifecycle stage. Of the existing +repos, `define-product` is seeded, `technical-design` is built, `design-to-plan` is seeded, and +`jig` is early. -> The org `profile/README.md` shows a **four-stage** suite spine that folds Planning under the -> delivery handoff (`plan -> jig (run)`). This roadmap breaks Planning out as its **own layer** -> because it is a separate planned repo with its own product/design/implementation arc. Same -> lifecycle, different altitude — no contradiction. +> Planning is its own layer because it has a separate repo and product/design/implementation arc. It +> still owns no upstream seam: it consumes Product and Technical Design contracts and produces to +> Jig's execution-plan contract shape. --- @@ -42,15 +42,15 @@ coupled only by a small set of **shared contracts (seams)**. Pin down each seam' and every layer can be designed in parallel against the contract, not against another layer's internals. The currently pinned seams are owned by existing layer repos. -| Seam (shared artifact) | Owner | Consumers | Status | -| --------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -| **Execution-plan schema** — Jig's one hard input boundary | `jig` | Planning layer produces to it | v0 shape: `jig/docs/design/execution-plan-contract-v0.md` | -| **Observability / event records** — durable run output | `jig` | Learning loop consumes | v0 shape: `jig/docs/design/observability-records-contract-v0.md` | -| **Technical-design document format** | `technical-design` | Planning layer consumes | v0 handoff: `technical-design/docs/design/technical-design-handoff-contract.md` | -| **PRD / ID'd acceptance-criteria format** | `define-product` | Design + Planning cite the IDs | v0 contract: `define-product/docs/product/prd-contract.md` | +| Seam (shared artifact) | Owner | Consumers | Status | +| ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | +| **Execution-plan contract shape** — Jig's one hard input boundary | `jig` | Planning layer produces to it | v0 shape: `jig/docs/design/execution-plan-contract-v0.md` | +| **Observability / event records** — durable run output | `jig` | Learning loop consumes | v0 shape: `jig/docs/design/observability-records-contract-v0.md` | +| **Technical-design document format** | `technical-design` | Planning layer consumes | v0 handoff: `technical-design/docs/design/technical-design-handoff-contract.md` | +| **PRD / ID'd acceptance-criteria format** | `define-product` | Design + Planning cite the IDs | v0 contract: `define-product/docs/product/prd-contract.md` | **Sequencing rule of thumb:** the highest-leverage early work is authoring Jig's two seams -(execution-plan schema, observability records), because two downstream layers wait on their +(execution-plan contract shape, observability records), because two downstream layers wait on their _shape_ — not their implementation. Define the contracts first; build behind them in parallel. The current sequence is tracked in [`MILESTONES.md`](./MILESTONES.md). @@ -89,8 +89,8 @@ parallel. The current sequence is tracked in [`MILESTONES.md`](./MILESTONES.md). - **Role:** run an approved execution plan under policy into reviewed, landed work — or a deliberate, inspectable stop. -- **Owns the seams:** the **execution-plan schema** and the **observability / event records**. - These are the highest-leverage seams in the org; author them early and version them +- **Owns the seams:** the **execution-plan contract shape** and the **observability / event + records**. These are the highest-leverage seams in the org; author them early and version them deliberately. - **Depends on:** a valid execution plan (its one hard input boundary). Upstream layers are optional strong defaults, not prerequisites. @@ -123,20 +123,26 @@ parallel. The current sequence is tracked in [`MILESTONES.md`](./MILESTONES.md). legacy `docs/product/supporting-products/define-product.md`; v0.7 skill `agentic-workflow-kit:define-product`. -### Planning layer — design -> plan `[planned]` +### design-to-plan — Planning layer `[seeded]` -- **Role:** decompose a technical design into a Jig-ready execution plan in the expected schema. -- **Owns the seam:** none new — it **produces to** Jig's execution-plan schema and **consumes** - the Product PRD / acceptance-criteria-ID contract plus the technical-design document format. +- **Role:** decompose a technical design into a Jig-ready execution plan in the expected contract + shape. +- **Owns the seam:** none new — it **produces to** Jig's execution-plan contract shape and + **consumes** the Product PRD / acceptance-criteria-ID contract plus the technical-design document + format. - **Depends on (contract, not internals):** `define-product`'s PRD / acceptance-criteria-ID - contract, Jig's execution-plan schema, and technical-design's document format. Those owners - already exist; once the three seam shapes are pinned, Planning can be designed against contracts - rather than upstream internals. -- **Next step (when picked up):** define product -> design -> implement, against the three seam - contracts above. -- **References:** legacy `docs/product/supporting-products/design-to-plan.md`; legacy - `docs/implementation-authoring/delivery-pipeline/` and `docs/implementation-authoring/authoring-standard/`; - v0.7 skill `agentic-workflow-kit:plan-delivery-track` (and `workflow-init`). + contract, Jig's execution-plan contract shape, and technical-design's document format. +- **Next step:** keep future Planning implementation work derived from its own product and design + docs. Do not freeze Jig's field-level schema from Planning. +- **References:** its own + [`docs/product/design-to-plan.md`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/design-to-plan/blob/main/docs/product/design-to-plan.md), + [`docs/design/design-to-plan-contract.md`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/design-to-plan/blob/main/docs/design/design-to-plan-contract.md), + and + [`docs/design/examples/minimal-design-to-plan.md`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/design-to-plan/blob/main/docs/design/examples/minimal-design-to-plan.md); + legacy `docs/product/supporting-products/design-to-plan.md`; legacy + `docs/implementation-authoring/delivery-pipeline/` and + `docs/implementation-authoring/authoring-standard/`; v0.7 skill + `agentic-workflow-kit:plan-delivery-track` (and `workflow-init`). ### Learning loop — feedback `[planned]` @@ -155,13 +161,14 @@ parallel. The current sequence is tracked in [`MILESTONES.md`](./MILESTONES.md). ## What can start in parallel now -1. **`jig` design** — author `docs/design/`, leading with the two seams (execution-plan schema, - observability records). Highest leverage: unblocks Planning and Learning by shape. +1. **`jig` design** — author `docs/design/`, leading with the two seams (execution-plan contract + shape, observability records). Highest leverage: unblocks Planning and Learning by shape. 2. **`technical-design` hardening** — fully independent. 3. **`define-product`** — product contract is seeded; future design and implementation can derive from its own product docs without blocking M4. -4. **Planning layer** — designable once the Product PRD / acceptance-criteria-ID contract, Jig's - execution-plan schema, and technical-design's document format are pinned (all owners exist). +4. **`design-to-plan`** — seeded against the Product PRD / acceptance-criteria-ID contract, Jig's + execution-plan contract shape, and technical-design's document format. Future implementation work + derives from its own product and design docs. 5. **Learning loop** — designable in parallel once Jig's records seam is pinned. The only true ordering constraint is _contract-shape_, not _implementation_: Planning needs the diff --git a/profile/README.md b/profile/README.md index 76d5734..1923416 100644 --- a/profile/README.md +++ b/profile/README.md @@ -27,14 +27,14 @@ repo can stay focused without inventing its own vocabulary. | [`define-product`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/define-product) | Product layer: PRD authoring and stable, ID'd acceptance criteria upstream of design. | Seeded; M3 contract bootstrap | | [`technical-design`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/technical-design) | Design layer: frame, author, review-loop, enforce, and orchestrate technical designs. | Built; planning handoff contract pinned | | [`jig`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/jig) | Delivery / execution engine: runs an approved plan under policy into reviewed, landed work, or a deliberate stop. The tool you run (`@agentic-workflow-kit/jig`). | Early; product and contract design seeded | -| Planning layer | Decompose design into the execution plan Jig runs. | Planned | +| [`design-to-plan`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/design-to-plan) | Planning layer: decompose approved designs into the execution-plan shape Jig runs. | Seeded; M4 contract bootstrap | | Learning loop | Capture run outcomes and feed them back into future work. | Planned | ## Lifecycle ```text PRODUCT ---------> DESIGN ----------> PLANNING --------> DELIVERY --------> LEARNING -define / PRD technical-design design -> plan jig (run) feedback loop +define / PRD technical-design design-to-plan jig (run) feedback loop ``` The repos are meant to compose without becoming tightly coupled. Each should have a crisp purpose, @@ -54,11 +54,12 @@ The shared vocabulary is intentionally small: ## Current Focus -The current org focus is M4: seeding the Planning layer so approved technical designs can become -Jig-ready execution plans without re-deciding product or design scope. M3 seeded `define-product` -with the PRD and acceptance-criteria contract that Technical Design and Planning cite. +The current org focus is M5: proving a narrow Jig local MVP slice now that Product, Technical +Design, and Planning contract shapes are seeded. M4 seeded `design-to-plan` so approved technical +designs can become Jig-ready execution plans without re-deciding product or design scope. Start with [`define-product`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/define-product) for product intent and acceptance-criteria IDs, [`technical-design`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/technical-design) -for design-stage skills, or [`jig`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/jig) for the execution +for design-stage skills, [`design-to-plan`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/design-to-plan) +for Planning-layer docs, or [`jig`](https://github.com/agentic-workflow-kit/jig) for the execution engine.