chore: add Kubeflow MCP server roadmap#13
Conversation
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
google-oss-prow
Bot
requested review from
Electronic-Waste,
kramaranya and
szaher
abhijeet-dhumal
changed the title
abhijeet-dhumal
changed the title
abhijeet-dhumal
changed the title
Signed-off-by: abhijeet-dhumal <abhijeetdhumal652@gmail.com>
… integrations Signed-off-by: abhijeet-dhumal <abhijeetdhumal652@gmail.com>
abhijeet-dhumal
force-pushed
the
add-roadmap-2026
branch
from
3e1332c to
7049f21
Compare
abhijeet-dhumal
changed the title
abhijeet-dhumal
force-pushed
the
add-roadmap-2026
branch
from
d95595d to
011f80e
Compare
Signed-off-by: abhijeet-dhumal <abhijeetdhumal652@gmail.com>
abhijeet-dhumal
force-pushed
the
add-roadmap-2026
branch
from
011f80e to
e30013c
Compare
| - CI: `kind` smoke tests, coverage gate (75%), PyPI release, Dockerfile | ||
| - Unit tests for all trainer tools and core modules; integration tests (plan → train → monitor) | ||
| - Performance benchmarks: P50/P95/P99 latency, token usage per mode (`make benchmark`) | ||
| - OpenTelemetry traces per tool call via [FastMCP instrumentation](https://gofastmcp.com/servers/telemetry) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For now I've intentionally left issue links out of the ROADMAP .. there are still several Phase 2+ items that don't have tracked issues yet, and I didn't want to add placeholder links before the scope is validated. Once we get feedback from other maintainers and settle on priorities, I'll create concrete issues and link them in the next iteration. Does that approach make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall it looks good to me, and as planned in the original KEP 👍
Thanks @abhijeet-dhumal
Signed-off-by: abhijeet-dhumal <abhijeetdhumal652@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Note
Copilot was unable to run its full agentic suite in this review.
Adds/updates project documentation to describe the Kubeflow MCP Server’s delivery plan and target architecture, plus contribution guidance.
Changes:
- Added a target architecture SVG diagram under
docs/assets/. - Added a phased
ROADMAP.mdincluding the architecture diagram embed. - Updated
README.mdwith an early-development / contribution-process note.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 2 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/assets/architecture.svg | Introduces a target architecture diagram for docs. |
| ROADMAP.md | Adds phased roadmap and embeds the architecture diagram. |
| README.md | Adds a note about contribution expectations and discussion channels. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
Signed-off-by: abhijeet-dhumal <abhijeetdhumal652@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall looks good to me, thanks @abhijeet-dhumal!
Would be nice to add links to the tracking issues
| - **Feast** — [kubeflow/sdk#239](https://github.com/kubeflow/sdk/issues/239) | ||
| - **Notebooks & UI**: notebook tools, VS Code extension, and Slack/ChatOps integrations | ||
|
|
||
| ## Graduation Criteria |
|
|
||
| ## Target Architecture | ||
|
|
||
|  |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Move this to architecture.md as in mlflow: https://github.com/kubeflow/mlflow-integration/blob/main/ARCHITECTURE.md:
I added ROADMAP 2026 for Kubeflow MCP. I tried to group them by multiple topics.
Please let me know what do you think, and if we should add more items 🚀
cc @kubeflow/kubeflow-trainer-team @kubeflow/kubeflow-sdk-team @jaiakash @akshaychitneni @Electronic-Waste @franciscojavierarceo @robert-bell @Fiona-Waters
Related Issues
Fixes : #11