Skip to content

workplan-roadmap: a cadence bound to the workplan verbs, a plan-review mode that draws the alternative, and the cross-project cut #78

Description

@mmcky

Field report from the plan review of QuantEcon/status-projects#69 and #89 (2026-09-08). The skill's update rule is right and already there — a roadmap changes when an item is added, removed or re-sequenced, when a role changes or a gate records its decision, and never when an item merely closes — but three things around it are unspecified, and the first live two-project review ran into all three.

1. The cadence is unnamed, so regeneration depends on someone remembering

The update rule says what makes a roadmap stale; nothing says when it is redrawn, and nothing in the workplan verbs points at this skill. Proposed: three named moments — when the Decide phase closes (the plan is ruled and the first draw is worth keeping), at a re-plan (any change the update rule names, and /qe:workplan update is where those changes are made), and at wrap-up (/qe:workplan close, so the record carries the final shape) — with the update and close verbs ending by running this skill's compare step and reporting drift, and one line in this skill saying the file is never hand-edited between regenerations: a hand edit is the mirror QEP-6 §7 bans from bodies, moved one file over.

2. A plan-review mode: draw the alternative, not only the tracker

At a plan review the question is often structural — combine two trackers or keep them apart, move items between them, gate one Build phase on another — and a tracker can only show what is. The 2026-09-08 review drew as filed beside as ruled (two projects as two bands, phases as columns, gates and cross-project edges marked), and that pair is what surfaced a priority inversion created by a joint review round, and a group row split across two projects. Proposed: an explicit mode that takes a described alternative (items moved, gates changed) and renders it beside the as-filed figure. The pair is kept as a dated record beside the reviewdocs/roadmaps/<date>-<slug>.md in the tracker's repository — and is never maintained: the ruled figure becomes the tracker, and the next draw comes from the tracker.

3. The cross-project cut, and where it should live

The skill draws one tracker. Two trackers with native edges between them (in status-projects, #94 blocked by #73 and #74, #97 by #75 and #84, and a registry depends_on between the rows) have no drawing here, and Mermaid's auto-layout could not produce one: with nested subgraphs and cross-subgraph edges it reordered the bands and clipped the cluster titles — mmdc and GitHub run the same engine — so the record had to be a hand-laid SVG on a grid. Proposed: state that the live cross-project view is the projects dashboard's to render once depends_on ships (dependency rows on the project page, chains on the Pipeline, the programme page's plan order); that this skill draws per tracker; and that a multi-tracker figure is drawn only in the plan-review mode above, as SVG when Mermaid tangles, with that gotcha recorded in the skill.

Evidence

The review is docs/reviews/2026-09-08-focus-and-overview-design.md in QuantEcon/status-projects (merged there as #100); the dated record with both figures is docs/roadmaps/2026-09-08-focus-and-overview.md in the same repository; the field report against QEP-6 from the same review is on QuantEcon/qeps#18. Related here: #63, the workplan family tracker, and #68 — this is the roadmap-side counterpart of #68's question, where a derived artefact lives and when it is refreshed.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementImprovement to existing content or functionality

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions