benstull/rfc-app
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Spec v0.1.4: two-part structure — Business Context (§1) + Solution Proposal (§2)

Browse Source 
- §1 Business Context holds the whole business lens (1.1–1.9), solution-agnostic
- §2 Solution Proposal introduces the chosen approach (and justifies build over
  a manual alternative); may be non-software in general
- Renumber product/engineering lenses to §§3–7

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Ben Stull
2026-06-06 08:02:33 -07:00
parent 561cd73760
commit 1be4a2edbf
1 changed files with 114 additions and 93 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/design/2026-06-06-configurable-collection-metadata.md
+114 -93
View File
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
| **Author(s)** | Ben Stull |
| **Reviewers / approvers** | Ben Stull |
| **Status** | `draft` |
| **Version** | v0.1.3 |
| **Version** | v0.1.4 |
| **Source artifacts** | Reference modeled: retired **BDD Release Planner** (`wiggleverse/wiggleverse-ecomm-bdd-release-planner-app`, RETIRED 2026-06-04) · Related: [`2026-06-05-three-tier-projects-collections.md`](./2026-06-05-three-tier-projects-collections.md) (§22) · Corpus: ecomm Shopify-modeled BDD (`wiggleverse-ecomm-meta/research/shopify`, ~1,238 scenarios) · **Supersedes:** [`2026-06-06-per-type-surfaces.md`](./2026-06-06-per-type-surfaces.md) |
**Change log**
@@ -13,25 +13,30 @@
| Date | Version | Change | By |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.0 | Initial draft from discovery session OHM-0079.0 | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.1 | Executive Summary → value-only; add §4 Pain Points; renumber per Solution Design template revision | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.2 | Reshuffle (Business Outcomes → §5); outcomes restated as business (adoption/diversity); Business Use Cases → solution-agnostic actor-goal scenarios | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.3 | Supersede the per-type-surfaces draft (harvest validation seam, malformed flag, unknown-field-rides-along, engine-unchanged, N=1 backcompat; bdd coverage kept as a future surface; §22.4a amendment work item); split personas into Business Actors (§6) + Product Personas (§10) | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.1 | Value-only Executive Summary; add Pain Points | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.2 | Business Outcomes restated as business (adoption/diversity); Business Use Cases → solution-agnostic | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.3 | Supersede per-type-surfaces draft (harvest patterns; bdd coverage future; §22.4a amendment); split Business Actors / Product Personas | Ben Stull |
| 2026-06-06 | v0.1.4 | Two-part restructure: §1 Business Context (solution-agnostic, 1.1–1.9) + §2 Solution Proposal; renumber | Ben Stull |
---
## 1. Executive Summary
## 1. Business Context
A deployment's corpus is only as valuable as the ability of the people running it to prioritise it, navigate it, and act on it — and as valuable as the downstream tools that can read structured signal out of it. Today that value is stranded: operators and contributors can't rank what matters or find content by what matters, and the tools meant to plan and build from the corpus have nothing structured to consume. This design delivers, for those people, the ability to **rank what matters, find content by what matters, and hand clean machine-readable signal to the collaborators and tools that depend on it** — turning a flat thousand-item corpus into something a team can actually plan and a downstream planner can build on, while keeping the source documents clean and readable. The outcome for the customer: lower-friction corpus planning for operators and contributors, broader adoption by teams whose document types rfc-app couldn't previously serve, and a corpus external tooling can consume without bespoke glue. *(Value summary; scope and mechanism begin at §7.)*
*The business lens — solution-agnostic throughout. No mechanism is proposed until §2.*
## 2. Business Context
### 1.1 Executive Summary
The framework hosts RFC standardization for multiple deployments. One deployment hosts the ecomm BDD corpus — ~1,238 Shopify-modeled scenarios, one markdown file per scenario, slugged by feature ID (`DD-FF-NNNN-slug`). A standalone **BDD Release Planner** previously let operators search that corpus, attach metadata (priority P0–P3, owner, status), cluster scenarios into named releases, and emit each release as a roadmap phase. §22 (three-tier projects/collections) absorbed the planner's *corpus hosting* into rfc-app (the corpus now runs as a `bdd` project on the RFC deployment) and the planner was retired — but its *annotation* half (priority/tags on scenarios, filtering, bulk assignment) was never rebuilt. Operators planning work, and downstream tools consuming the corpus, currently have no structured, framework-native way to set or read that metadata. More broadly, teams evaluating rfc-app for *other* document types often need structured attributes (a priority, a status, domain tags) the platform can't yet express — so they go elsewhere.
A deployment's corpus is only as valuable as the ability of the people running it to prioritise it, navigate it, and act on it — and as valuable as the downstream tools that can read structured signal out of it. Today that value is stranded: operators and contributors can't rank what matters or find content by what matters, and the tools meant to plan and build from the corpus have nothing structured to consume. The value at stake is **lower-friction corpus planning** for operators and contributors, **broader adoption** by teams whose document types the platform couldn't previously serve, and **a corpus external tooling can consume without bespoke glue**. *(Value summary; the solution is proposed in §2.)*
## 3. Problem Statement
### 1.2 Background
The framework hosts RFC standardization for multiple deployments. One deployment hosts the ecomm BDD corpus — ~1,238 Shopify-modeled scenarios, one markdown file per scenario, slugged by feature ID (`DD-FF-NNNN-slug`). A standalone **BDD Release Planner** previously let operators search that corpus, attach metadata (priority P0–P3, owner, status), cluster scenarios into named releases, and emit each release as a roadmap phase. §22 (three-tier projects/collections) absorbed the planner's *corpus hosting* into rfc-app (the corpus now runs as a `bdd` project on the RFC deployment) and the planner was retired — but its *annotation* half (priority/tags on scenarios, filtering, bulk assignment) was never rebuilt. Teams evaluating rfc-app for *other* document types often need structured attributes (a priority, a status, domain tags) the platform can't yet express — so they go elsewhere.
### 1.3 Problem Statement
rfc-app cannot express or surface structured signal about its content. Tags are free-form strings with no filtering; there is no notion of priority or any other collection-defined attribute; the catalog is a flat list; and what little metadata exists is mixed into the top of every document. As a result, a corpus cannot be prioritised, navigated by attribute, planned in bulk, or cleanly consumed by downstream tools — and teams whose workflows depend on such attributes cannot adopt the platform at all.
## 4. Pain Points
### 1.4 Pain Points
| # | Pain | Who feels it | Cost / frequency today |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -43,19 +48,19 @@ rfc-app cannot express or surface structured signal about its content. Tags are
| PP-6 | Downstream tools have no structured signal to read — the retired planner's capability left a gap | Downstream consumer | Continuous since the planner's retirement |
| PP-7 | Teams whose document types need structured attributes can't model them, so they don't adopt rfc-app | Prospective adopter (org/team) | Every evaluation that ends in "not yet" |
## 5. Targeted Business Outcomes
### 1.5 Targeted Business Outcomes
Business outcomes for rfc-app as a platform — adoption, reach, and diversity of use — **not** solution outputs. (Whether documents carry a priority is a solution output, tracked as a slice's Definition of Done in §14, not here.) These are the business change we expect once the pains in §4 are relieved.
Business outcomes for rfc-app as a platform — adoption, reach, and diversity of use — **not** solution outputs. (Whether documents carry a priority is a solution output, tracked as a slice's Definition of Done in §7, not here.)
| Outcome | Success metric | Baseline → Target | Guardrail (must not regress) | How / when measured |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Teams blocked by missing structured attributes now adopt rfc-app | # organizations on rfc-app; # active users | internal deployments only → external orgs onboard | existing deployments don't churn | deployment registry + usage analytics; quarterly |
| The platform hosts a wider variety of workflows and document types | # distinct document/collection types & field schemas in use; # distinct workflow patterns | today's handful (philosophy RFCs, BDD corpus) → broader mix | existing types' experience unchanged | type/schema census across deployments; quarterly |
| The platform hosts a wider variety of workflows and document types | # distinct document/collection types & field schemas in use | today's handful → broader mix | existing types' experience unchanged | type/schema census; quarterly |
| Corpus planning happens on-platform rather than in side tools | share of prioritisation/planning done in rfc-app vs spreadsheets | largely off-platform → on-platform | — | operator interviews + usage signals; quarterly |
## 6. Business Actors / Roles
### 1.6 Business Actors / Roles
Real-world roles, **solution-agnostic** — they exist whether or not rfc-app does. The Business Use Cases (§9) are about these roles; the Product Personas (§10) map onto them.
Real-world roles, **solution-agnostic** — they exist whether or not rfc-app does. The Business Use Cases (§1.9) are about these roles; the Product Personas (§3) map onto them.
| Role | Responsible for (in the business) |
| --- | --- |
@@ -65,22 +70,23 @@ Real-world roles, **solution-agnostic** — they exist whether or not rfc-app do
| Requirements consumer | A person or downstream tool that plans or builds from the requirements |
| Reader | Anyone navigating the corpus to find what's relevant to them |
## 7. Scope
### 1.7 Scope (business)
- **In scope:** per-collection field schema in `.collection.yaml` (`enum`, `tags`, `text`); per-entry sidecar (`<slug>.meta.yaml`) as source of truth with pure-prose doc bodies; central schema validation (advisory at read, enforced at write); a "malformed metadata" catalog flag; schema-derived faceted left-pane filtering with counts; schema-derived metadata form (detail panel); single + bulk tag/untag with direct commit for authorized roles; dual-read compatibility + a one-shot frontmatter→sidecar migration tool + lazy migration on write; an amendment to the binding `SPEC.md` §22.4a contract (see §14 SLICE-0).
- **Out of scope:** release ordering, ship status, roadmap emission, `RELEASE-PLAN.md` generation, and the `specification` *release-planning surface* — all downstream, consuming sidecars from git. In-app management of field definitions / controlled vocabularies; corpus-wide tag rename/merge/delete. Sub-document grain. A whole-corpus metadata export endpoint.
- **Future (recorded, not v1):** a **bdd coverage surface** — a `verifies`-style **`ref` field type** plus a read-derived view mapping features to the spec sections they exercise and flagging gaps (harvested from the superseded per-type-surfaces draft, Part B.2). Built on the generic field machinery; deferred pending product questions (§16 Q4).
- **Non-goals:** rebuilding a bespoke "release" entity in rfc-app — releases are not modeled here at all; metadata is the only primitive. Hard-coding fields per collection *type* — schemas are collection-configured, not type-driven (D9).
- **In scope:** the corpus can carry per-item importance and categorisation; people can find items by those attributes; the signal is captured durably and is consumable by other people and tools; teams with new document types can express the attributes their workflow needs.
- **Out of scope (business):** deciding *what* a given deployment's priorities or categories should be (that's the deployment's editorial choice); release sequencing and ship tracking as a business process (stays a downstream/operator concern).
- **Non-goals:** modelling "releases" as a first-class business object inside the platform.
## 8. Assumptions · Constraints · Dependencies
*(Solution-specific scope/non-goals are in §2.)*
- **Assumptions:** git remains the content source of truth and downstream consumers can read the corpus from git; the BDD grain is one markdown file per scenario (already true for the ecomm corpus), so no sub-document parsing is needed.
- **Constraints:** rfc-app is a framework hosting multiple deployments — the upgrade must be **mechanical and non-breaking**, with §20 changelog/upgrade-steps; the hard secrets rule (§6.3) holds; metadata edits must respect scope-role authorization (§22 Part B / S3); the §22.4a "engine unchanged" rule holds (INV-8).
- **Dependencies:** the S3 scope-role resolver (`auth.effective_scope_role`); the existing git write-through path used by `edit-meta` (§9.5); the §22 collection model (`.collection.yaml`, `cached_rfcs` keyed by `(collection_id, slug)`); the binding `SPEC.md` §22.4a contract, which this design amends (SLICE-0).
### 1.8 Assumptions · Constraints · Dependencies
## 9. Business Use Cases
- **Assumptions:** git remains the content source of truth and downstream consumers can read the corpus from git; the BDD grain is one markdown file per scenario (already true for the ecomm corpus).
- **Constraints:** rfc-app is a framework hosting multiple deployments — any change must be **mechanical and non-breaking**, with §20 changelog/upgrade-steps; the hard secrets rule (§6.3) holds; edits must respect scope-role authorization (§22 Part B / S3); the §22.4a "engine unchanged" rule holds (INV-8).
- **Dependencies:** the S3 scope-role resolver (`auth.effective_scope_role`); the existing git write-through used by `edit-meta` (§9.5); the §22 collection model; the binding `SPEC.md` §22.4a contract, which §2's solution amends (§7 SLICE-0).
Business use cases are **solution-agnostic**: they state what an actor (§6) wants to accomplish, *why* (value), and what *success* looks like — with **no reference to rfc-app or any product**. Each could in principle be satisfied by a person by hand (a concierge first pass) before any software. Form: "As a … I can … so that …" + a business-centric scenario.
### 1.9 Business Use Cases
Solution-agnostic: what an actor (§1.6) wants to accomplish, *why* (value), and what *success* looks like — **no reference to any product**. Each could be satisfied by a person by hand before any software. Form: "As a … I can … so that …".
**BUC-1 — As a release planner, I can prioritise the requirements in a body of work, so that I can decide what belongs in upcoming releases.**
```gherkin
@@ -128,18 +134,32 @@ Scenario: BUC-5 — Find what matters
```
- **Acceptance:** a person narrows a large corpus to the relevant, important subset for their task.
## 10. Product Personas
---
rfc-app's user types — each an embodiment of one or more Business Roles (§6). The Product Use Cases (§11) are about these personas.
## 2. Solution Proposal
**The solution is to build it into rfc-app.** Give every collection a small, declared **field schema** (in its `.collection.yaml`) so it can carry structured metadata — priority, tags, and any custom fields the deployment defines. Store each entry's values in a **clean sidecar** file so the document body stays pure prose. rfc-app then **renders those fields as forms, filters the catalog by them (faceted, with counts), and lets authorized users tag in single and bulk gestures** committed straight to git; downstream tools read the values from the sidecars directly. It is one generic mechanism — tags and priority are just *fields* — not per-type special-casing and not a bespoke "release" entity.
**Why a software solution (and not a manual one).** A non-build alternative — operators maintaining priorities/tags in a shared spreadsheet — was considered and rejected: it leaves the corpus unfilterable in-tool (PP-2), keeps documents and the side-sheet out of sync, produces no durable git-readable signal for downstream tools (PP-5/PP-6), and does nothing for the adoption outcome (§1.5, PP-7). The value only lands if the structure lives with the content.
**Solution-specific scope.** *Out:* release ordering, ship status, roadmap emission, the `specification` release-planning surface — all downstream, reading sidecars from git. In-app management of field definitions (edit `.collection.yaml` in git for v1); corpus-wide tag rename/merge/delete; sub-document grain; a whole-corpus export endpoint. *Future (recorded, not v1):* a **bdd coverage surface** — a `verifies`-style **`ref` field type** plus a read-derived view mapping features to the spec sections they exercise (harvested from the superseded per-type-surfaces draft); deferred pending §9 Q4. This solution **amends the binding `SPEC.md` §22.4a contract** (§7 SLICE-0).
*(The Product and Engineering sections below — §§3–7 — elaborate this build. They would be replaced by an operational plan if the chosen solution were non-software.)*
---
## 3. Product Personas
rfc-app's user types — each an embodiment of one or more Business Roles (§1.6). The Product Use Cases (§4) are about these personas.
| Product persona | In rfc-app | Maps to business role(s) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Collection Owner | scope-role Owner on a collection/project; declares the collection's `fields:` schema (by editing `.collection.yaml`) | Standards owner |
| Collection Owner | scope-role Owner; declares the collection's `fields:` schema (edits `.collection.yaml`) | Standards owner |
| Contributor | scope-role contributor; sets metadata (single + bulk), proposes/curates entries | Requirements author; Release planner |
| Reader | viewer; browses and filters the catalog | Reader |
| Downstream consumer | an external system reading sidecars + `.collection.yaml` from git | Requirements consumer |
## 11. Product Use Cases
## 4. Product Use Cases
```gherkin
Scenario: PUC-1 — Set priority/tags on a scenario (realizes BUC-1, BUC-4)
@@ -178,40 +198,40 @@ Scenario: PUC-6 — A malformed entry is visibly fixable (realizes BUC-3)
And it is flagged "malformed metadata" so a Contributor can fix it
```
## 12. UX Layout
## 5. UX Layout
### 12.1 Screen: Catalog (left pane) (serves PUC-3, PUC-6)
### 5.1 Screen: Catalog (left pane) (serves PUC-3, PUC-6)
- **Purpose:** browse and filter a collection's entries.
- **Layout (top → bottom):** full-text search (existing); **faceted filter groups** (one per schema field + state): each a collapsible group with per-value **result counts** and multi-select checkboxes; `tags`-type fields include a "filter values…" search box to stay usable at 30+ values. (Chosen: faceted groups with counts — validated in brainstorming over flat chips.)
- **States:** happy: facets with counts · empty: "no entries match these filters" + clear-filters · loading: skeleton facets · error: retry · **malformed:** entries failing their schema carry a fixable "malformed metadata" marker (parallel to the §22.4c `unreviewed` flag), and are filterable.
- **Layout (top → bottom):** full-text search (existing); **faceted filter groups** (one per schema field + state): each a collapsible group with per-value **result counts** and multi-select checkboxes; `tags`-type fields include a "filter values…" search box to stay usable at 30+ values.
- **States:** happy: facets with counts · empty: "no entries match" + clear-filters · loading: skeleton facets · error: retry · **malformed:** entries failing their schema carry a fixable marker (parallel to §22.4c `unreviewed`) and are filterable.
### 12.2 Screen: Scenario detail — metadata panel (serves PUC-1)
### 5.2 Screen: Scenario detail — metadata panel (serves PUC-1)
- **Purpose:** view/edit one entry's metadata.
- **Layout:** one control per schema field — `enum` → single-select; `tags` → removable chips + add-tag input (with existing AI suggest where applicable); `text` → text input. The document body renders below as pure prose; metadata never appears inline.
- **States:** read (no edit role) shows values, no controls · edit (authorized) shows controls · saving: inline spinner · error: field-level validation message (e.g. "P5 is not an allowed priority").
- **Layout:** one control per schema field — `enum` → single-select; `tags` → removable chips + add-tag input (with existing AI suggest); `text` → text input. The body renders below as pure prose; metadata never appears inline.
- **States:** read (no edit role) shows values · edit (authorized) shows controls · saving: spinner · error: field-level validation message.
### 12.3 Screen: Catalog — bulk action bar (serves PUC-2)
### 5.3 Screen: Catalog — bulk action bar (serves PUC-2)
- **Purpose:** apply a field value to many entries at once.
- **Layout:** selecting ≥1 row reveals a sticky bar: "*N* selected · Set priority ▾ · Add tag ▾ · Remove tag ▾ · Clear". Each action targets one field; applying commits once.
- **Layout:** selecting ≥1 row reveals a sticky bar: "*N* selected · Set priority ▾ · Add tag ▾ · Remove tag ▾ · Clear". Applying commits once.
- **States:** none selected: hidden · applying: progress · partial failure: toast naming entries that failed validation, others applied.
## 13. Technical Design
## 6. Technical Design
### 13.1 Invariants
### 6.1 Invariants
- **INV-1:** The sidecar (`<slug>.meta.yaml`) is the source of truth for entry metadata; `cached_rfcs` is a derived index, fully rebuildable from git.
- **INV-2:** A document body (`.md`) never contains rfc-app metadata once migrated; metadata lives only in the sidecar.
- **INV-3:** Reading a collection never hard-fails on bad metadata — an invalid value against the schema surfaces as a warning, the entry still loads, and the catalog flags it (§12.1).
- **INV-3:** Reading a collection never hard-fails on bad metadata — an invalid value surfaces as a warning, the entry still loads, and the catalog flags it (§5.1).
- **INV-4:** Metadata writes are authorized by scope-role (contributor+ on the collection) and validated at the write boundary; content-body edits keep their existing PR-review path.
- **INV-5:** A collection with no `fields:` block behaves exactly as today (free-form `tags` only). The §22.13 generated **default collection is `document`** with no fields → **N=1 deployments see zero change** (the load-bearing backcompat guarantee).
- **INV-6:** Dual-read holds throughout: parser reads the sidecar if present, else legacy top-of-doc frontmatter, with identical resulting in-memory records.
- **INV-7:** Unknown / forward-compat keys in a sidecar **ride along untouched** — never dropped on read or rewrite, and never reported as malformed.
- **INV-8:** **Engine unchanged** (§22.4a) — this feature is additive and read-mostly; it never forks the content write path, the propose→branch→PR→graduate lifecycle, threads/flags/chat, or the storage model. Metadata edits reuse the existing `edit-meta` git write-through.
- **INV-5:** A collection with no `fields:` block behaves exactly as today (free-form `tags` only). The §22.13 generated **default collection is `document`** with no fields → **N=1 deployments see zero change**.
- **INV-6:** Dual-read: parser reads the sidecar if present, else legacy top-of-doc frontmatter, with identical resulting in-memory records.
- **INV-7:** Unknown / forward-compat keys in a sidecar **ride along untouched** — never dropped on read or rewrite, never reported as malformed.
- **INV-8:** **Engine unchanged** (§22.4a) — additive and read-mostly; never forks the content write path, the propose→branch→PR→graduate lifecycle, threads/flags/chat, or the storage model. Metadata edits reuse the existing `edit-meta` git write-through.
### 13.2 High-level architecture
### 6.2 High-level architecture
```mermaid
flowchart LR
@@ -224,7 +244,7 @@ flowchart LR
MD --> ING
SC --> ING
ING --> VAL[metadata_schema.validate<br/>advisory at read]
VAL --> DB[(cached_rfcs<br/>values + facet counts + malformed flag)]
VAL --> DB[(cached_rfcs<br/>values + facet counts + malformed)]
DB --> API[API: schema · list+filter · facets · edit]
API --> FILT[left-pane faceted filters]
API --> PANEL[detail metadata panel]
@@ -234,19 +254,19 @@ flowchart LR
SC -.read from git.-> CONS[downstream consumers]
```
- **ingest/parser** — reads `.collection.yaml` schema + sidecars (or legacy frontmatter), stays **lenient and type-agnostic** (unknown keys ride along, INV-7); rebuilds `cached_rfcs`; never authoritative.
- **`metadata_schema.validate(values, fields) → [problems]`** — the **one** place that knows a collection's required/forbidden fields and each field's shape (the seam harvested from the per-type-surfaces draft, modeled on `registry.py`). **Advisory at ingest** (warn + malformed flag, INV-3); **enforced at the write boundary** (single/bulk edit, INV-4).
- **API** — serves the schema, filtered lists with facet counts + malformed flag, and metadata edits; never writes metadata anywhere but the sidecar in git.
- **ingest/parser** — reads `.collection.yaml` schema + sidecars (or legacy frontmatter), stays lenient/type-agnostic (INV-7); rebuilds `cached_rfcs`; never authoritative.
- **`metadata_schema.validate(values, fields) → [problems]`** — the one place that knows a collection's required/forbidden fields and each field's shape (modeled on `registry.py`). Advisory at ingest (warn + malformed flag, INV-3); enforced at the write boundary (INV-4).
- **API** — serves the schema, filtered lists with facet counts + malformed flag, and metadata edits; never writes metadata anywhere but the sidecar.
### 13.3 Data model & ownership
### 6.3 Data model & ownership
| Entity | Owned by | Key fields | System of record |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Collection field schema | Collection Owner | `fields: {name → {type, values?, label}}` in `.collection.yaml` | git |
| Entry metadata values | Contributor | sidecar `<slug>.meta.yaml`: lifecycle (`slug,title,state,owners,…`) + schema fields (`priority,tags,…`) + any forward-compat keys (INV-7) | git (sidecar) |
| Entry metadata values | Contributor | sidecar `<slug>.meta.yaml`: lifecycle + schema fields + forward-compat keys (INV-7) | git (sidecar) |
| Derived index | ingest | per-entry values + facet aggregations + `malformed` flag | `cached_rfcs` (SQLite, derived) |
**Field types (v1):** `enum` (single-select; controlled by required `values:`), `tags` (multi-value; free-form unless `values:` given), `text` (free string). **Future:** `ref` (a typed cross-entry link, the basis for the deferred bdd `verifies`/coverage surface — §7 Future, §16 Q4). Unknown types are ignored with a warning (forward-compat).
**Field types (v1):** `enum` (single-select; controlled by required `values:`), `tags` (multi-value; free-form unless `values:` given), `text` (free string). **Future:** `ref` (a typed cross-entry link — basis for the deferred bdd `verifies`/coverage surface; §2, §9 Q4). Unknown types ignored with a warning.
**Sidecar example:**
```yaml
@@ -259,14 +279,14 @@ tags: [dashboard, analytics]
owner: hasan
```
### 13.4 Interfaces & contracts
### 6.4 Interfaces & contracts
- **`GET /api/projects/<p>/collections/<c>`** — out: collection incl. `fields` schema. Errors: 404.
- **`GET /api/projects/<p>/collections/<c>/rfcs`** — in: filter params (`?priority=P0&tags=checkout&state=active`; repeatable → OR within a field, AND across fields; `?malformed=true`) · out: entries with values + per-entry `malformed` flag + `facets: {field → {value → count}}`. Errors: 400 on unknown field.
- **`POST /api/projects/<p>/collections/<c>/rfcs/<slug>/meta`** — in: `{field: value, …}` · effect: `metadata_schema.validate` → write sidecar → commit directly → re-ingest. Errors: 403 (role), 422 (invalid value).
- **`POST /api/projects/<p>/collections/<c>/meta/bulk`** — in: `{slugs, op: set|add|remove, field, value}` · out: `{applied, rejected:[{slug,reason}]}` · effect: validate → write N sidecars → **one** commit → re-ingest. Errors: 403, 422.
- **`GET …/collections/<c>`** — out: collection incl. `fields` schema.
- **`GET …/collections/<c>/rfcs`** — in: filter params (`?priority=P0&tags=checkout&state=active`; OR within a field, AND across fields; `?malformed=true`) · out: entries with values + per-entry `malformed` + `facets: {field → {value → count}}`. Errors: 400 unknown field.
- **`POST …/rfcs/<slug>/meta`** — in: `{field: value}` · effect: validate → write sidecar → direct commit → re-ingest. Errors: 403, 422.
- **`POST …/collections/<c>/meta/bulk`** — in: `{slugs, op: set|add|remove, field, value}` · out: `{applied, rejected}` · effect: validate → write N sidecars → one commit → re-ingest. Errors: 403, 422.
### 13.5 Per–Product-Use-Case design
### 6.5 Per–Product-Use-Case design
#### PUC-2 — Bulk tag/untag
@@ -292,50 +312,51 @@ sequenceDiagram
#### PUC-5 — Migration
- **Implementation:** a tool (framework CLI verb / `tools/` script) walks a collection; for each entry with legacy frontmatter it writes `<slug>.meta.yaml` and rewrites `<slug>.md` to the body only — one commit per collection, idempotent, preserving unknown keys (INV-7). Dual-read (INV-6) means it can run anytime; lazy migration converts stragglers on first metadata edit.
- **Implementation:** a tool walks a collection; for each entry with legacy frontmatter it writes `<slug>.meta.yaml` and rewrites `<slug>.md` to the body only — one commit per collection, idempotent, preserving unknown keys (INV-7). Dual-read (INV-6) lets it run anytime; lazy migration converts stragglers on first metadata edit.
### 13.6 Non-functional requirements & cross-cutting concerns
### 6.6 Non-functional requirements & cross-cutting concerns
- **Security & privacy:** edits gated by `auth.effective_scope_role`; no secrets in sidecars; git history records authorship.
- **Performance & scale:** facet counts computed from the derived DB; responsive at ~1.2k entries with dozens of tag values (indexed value columns / aggregation).
- **Availability & resilience:** bad metadata never blocks read (INV-3); a failed re-ingest leaves git authoritative, recoverable by full rebuild.
- **Observability:** log each metadata commit (actor, field, entry count); warn-log + count schema-validation failures on ingest.
- **Performance & scale:** facet counts from the derived DB; responsive at ~1.2k entries with dozens of tag values.
- **Availability & resilience:** bad metadata never blocks read (INV-3); failed re-ingest leaves git authoritative, recoverable by rebuild.
- **Observability:** log each metadata commit; warn-log + count schema-validation failures on ingest.
- **Accessibility:** facet groups and form controls keyboard-navigable; checkboxes labelled value + count.
### 13.7 Key decisions & alternatives considered
### 6.7 Key decisions & alternatives considered
| Decision | Chosen | Alternatives | Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Release modeling | Metadata only; releases downstream | First-class release entity; release-typed tags with behavior | Operator pulled ordering/ship-status out of rfc-app |
| Tag system shape | One generic typed-field system (Approach A) | Releases first-class + simple tags; namespaced facets | Tags/priority/custom are all just fields |
| Schema model (D9) | **Pure collection-config** | Type-driven hard-coded schemas (per-type-surfaces draft) | Flexible, data-driven; a type shouldn't fix the fields |
| Metadata storage | Sidecar per entry | Frontmatter (today + per-type-surfaces draft); end-of-doc; index file; DB-only | Clean docs + git-visible + per-entry locality |
| Left-pane filtering | Faceted groups with counts | Flat facet chips | Scales to the ~1.2k-scenario, many-tag corpus |
| Edit governance | Direct commit for authorized roles (bulk = 1 commit) | PR per change | Bulk planning impractical via PR-per-toggle |
| bdd coverage (D10) | Future per-type surface over a `ref` field | Build now; drop entirely | Valuable but not v1; needs product questions (Q4) |
| Solution type | Build into rfc-app | Manual (shared spreadsheet) | Manual leaves corpus unfilterable, out of sync, no git-readable signal (§2) |
| Release modeling | Metadata only; releases downstream | First-class release entity | Operator pulled ordering/ship-status out of rfc-app |
| Tag system shape | One generic typed-field system | Releases first-class + simple tags; namespaced facets | Tags/priority/custom are all just fields |
| Schema model (D9) | Pure collection-config | Type-driven hard-coded schemas (per-type-surfaces draft) | Flexible, data-driven |
| Metadata storage | Sidecar per entry | Frontmatter; end-of-doc; index file; DB-only | Clean docs + git-visible + locality |
| Left-pane filtering | Faceted groups with counts | Flat facet chips | Scales to ~1.2k-scenario, many-tag corpus |
| Edit governance | Direct commit for authorized roles | PR per change | Bulk planning impractical via PR-per-toggle |
| bdd coverage (D10) | Future per-type surface over a `ref` field | Build now; drop | Valuable but not v1; needs Q4 |
### 13.8 Testing strategy
### 6.8 Testing strategy
Unit: schema parsing (all types, missing block); sidecar round-trip incl. unknown-key preservation (INV-7); dual-read equivalence (INV-6); validation (reject bad enum, accept free-form tag); malformed-flag derivation; facet aggregation; bulk op (set/add/remove, single commit, partial-rejection). Two-tier local-Docker→PPE for API + git write-through. "Tested" = the PUC acceptance scenarios pass + migration proven idempotent and reversible-on-read.
Unit: schema parsing (all types, missing block); sidecar round-trip incl. unknown-key preservation (INV-7); dual-read equivalence (INV-6); validation; malformed-flag; facet aggregation; bulk op (single commit, partial-rejection). Two-tier local-Docker→PPE for API + git write-through. "Tested" = PUC acceptance scenarios pass + migration proven idempotent and reversible-on-read.
### 13.9 Failure modes, rollback & flags
### 6.9 Failure modes, rollback & flags
- **Invalid value committed out-of-band** → ingest warns + loads with the value flagged malformed (INV-3).
- **Re-ingest fails after commit** → git authoritative; full rebuild recovers.
- **Migration rollback:** dual-read keeps an un-/partly-migrated corpus working; the migration commit is revertible.
- **Feature flag:** inherently opt-in per collection (INV-5) — no global flag; absent a `fields:` block, behavior is unchanged.
- **Feature flag:** inherently opt-in per collection (INV-5) — no global flag.
## 14. Delivery Plan
## 7. Delivery Plan
### 14.1 Approach / strategy
### 7.1 Approach / strategy
Amend the binding contract first, then build storage/compat, then schema, then read, then write. Each build slice is shippable and non-breaking.
### 14.2 Slicing plan
### 7.2 Slicing plan
#### SLICE-0 — Amend `SPEC.md` §22.4a (contract) → unblocks the rest
- **Depends on:** —
- **Definition of done:** §22.4a reframed — item 1 (entry schema) is **collection-configured sidecar fields**, not type-driven frontmatter; item 3 (type surfaces) deferred to a future design (bdd coverage recorded); the per-type-surfaces draft marked superseded; §20 changelog entry. *Doc-only; no code.*
- **Definition of done:** §22.4a reframed — item 1 (entry schema) is **collection-configured sidecar fields**, not type-driven frontmatter; item 3 (type surfaces) deferred to a future design (bdd coverage recorded); per-type-surfaces draft marked superseded; §20 changelog. *Doc-only; no code.*
#### SLICE-1 — Sidecar storage + dual-read + migration → completes PUC-5, PUC-6
- **Depends on:** SLICE-0
@@ -347,7 +368,7 @@ Amend the binding contract first, then build storage/compat, then schema, then r
#### SLICE-3 — Faceted left-pane filtering (read) → completes PUC-3
- **Depends on:** SLICE-2
- **DoD:** list endpoint returns facet counts + honors filter params (incl. `malformed`); left pane renders faceted groups with counts + tag-value search; filters compose (AND across fields).
- **DoD:** list endpoint returns facet counts + honors filter params (incl. `malformed`); left pane renders faceted groups with counts + tag-value search; filters compose.
#### SLICE-4 — Single-entry metadata edit → completes PUC-1
- **Depends on:** SLICE-2
@@ -357,11 +378,11 @@ Amend the binding contract first, then build storage/compat, then schema, then r
- **Depends on:** SLICE-3, SLICE-4
- **DoD:** multi-select + bulk bar; `POST …/meta/bulk` applies set/add/remove as one commit; partial-rejection reported.
### 14.3 Rollout / launch plan
### 7.3 Rollout / launch plan
Pre-v1, single production: ship slices in order to the RFC deployment; each minor bump carries §20 changelog + upgrade steps. Opt-in per collection (INV-5): a deployment adopts it only by declaring a `fields:` block and (optionally) running the migration.
Pre-v1, single production: ship slices in order; each minor bump carries §20 changelog + upgrade steps. Opt-in per collection (INV-5): a deployment adopts it only by declaring a `fields:` block and (optionally) running the migration.
### 14.4 Risks & mitigations
### 7.4 Risks & mitigations
| Risk | L/I | Mitigation |
| --- | --- | --- |
@@ -371,7 +392,7 @@ Pre-v1, single production: ship slices in order to the RFC deployment; each mino
| Direct-commit metadata edits bypass review | M/M | Scope-role gate (INV-4); content-body edits still PR'd; git audit trail |
| Facet aggregation slow at scale | L/M | Compute from indexed derived DB; measure at ~1.2k entries |
## 15. Traceability matrix
## 8. Traceability matrix
| Pain | Business UC | Product UC | Slice | Tests |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -383,7 +404,7 @@ Pre-v1, single production: ship slices in order to the RFC deployment; each mino
| PP-4 | BUC-2 | PUC-2 | SLICE-5 | `test_bulk_one_commit`, `test_partial_reject` |
| PP-6 | BUC-3 | (consumer reads git) | — | `test_sidecar_schema_stable` |
## 16. Open Questions & Decisions log
## 9. Open Questions & Decisions log
**Open**
@@ -392,7 +413,7 @@ Pre-v1, single production: ship slices in order to the RFC deployment; each mino
| Q1 | Do downstream consumers read sidecars from git, via API, or both? (leaning git) | Ben | nothing v1 |
| Q2 | Ship `multi-enum` (multi-select controlled) in v1 or later? | Ben | SLICE-2 scope |
| Q3 | Exact §22.4a amendment wording + the future-surfaces home | Ben | SLICE-0 |
| Q4 | bdd coverage: `ref` field grammar + does a coverage view honor §22's no-cross-collection-join rule as hyperlinks? | Ben | future surface |
| Q4 | bdd coverage: `ref` field grammar + a coverage view honoring §22's no-cross-collection-join rule as hyperlinks | Ben | future surface |
**Resolved**
@@ -406,16 +427,16 @@ Pre-v1, single production: ship slices in order to the RFC deployment; each mino
| D6 | Left-pane filtering | Faceted groups with counts | 2026-06-06 |
| D7 | Edit governance | Direct commit for authorized roles; bulk = 1 commit | 2026-06-06 |
| D8 | Management scope | Deferred; edit `.collection.yaml` in git for v1 | 2026-06-06 |
| D9 | Schema model | Pure collection-config; **not** type-driven (supersedes per-type-surfaces) | 2026-06-06 |
| D10 | bdd coverage | Keep as a **future** per-type surface over a `ref` field; not v1 | 2026-06-06 |
| D11 | per-type-surfaces draft | **Superseded** by this spec; §22.4a to be amended (SLICE-0) | 2026-06-06 |
| D9 | Schema model | Pure collection-config; not type-driven | 2026-06-06 |
| D10 | bdd coverage | Future per-type surface over a `ref` field; not v1 | 2026-06-06 |
| D11 | per-type-surfaces draft | Superseded; §22.4a to be amended (SLICE-0) | 2026-06-06 |
## 17. Glossary & References
## 10. Glossary & References
- **Sidecar** — `<slug>.meta.yaml`, the per-entry metadata file that is the source of truth; keeps the `.md` body pure prose.
- **Field schema** — the `fields:` block in `.collection.yaml` declaring a collection's typed metadata fields.
- **Facet** — a schema field surfaced as a left-pane filter group with per-value counts.
- **Malformed metadata** — stored values that fail their collection's schema; flagged in the catalog, never a hard read failure (INV-3).
- **Downstream consumer** — an external tool (e.g. a release planner) that reads corpus metadata from git; rfc-app does not model releases.
- **Downstream consumer** — an external tool that reads corpus metadata from git; rfc-app does not model releases.
- **References:** retired BDD Release Planner; superseded per-type-surfaces draft (`2026-06-06-per-type-surfaces.md`); §22 three-tier design; `SPEC.md` §7.1 (left-pane filter), §9.5 (edit-meta), §20 (versioning), §22.4a (per-type contract — to be amended), §22 Part B / S3 (scope-role).
```