rendering-project.md

title	Rendering project
category	FS.GG
categoryindex	6
index	3
description	Scope and operating model for the rendering/runtime repository in the FS.GG split.

Rendering project

Historical planning record (2026-06). This document is part of the planning corpus that proposed the FS.GG split; the work it describes has since shipped. It is preserved as a record of intent, not current instruction — for the system as built see architecture.md; for live status see the ADRs, the registry projection, and the Coordination board.

The rendering project owns the UI framework as a product. It should be possible to build, test, package, document, and release it with normal repository tools and standard Spec Kit, without depending on an experimental governance platform.

Scope

The rendering project owns:

• scene and drawing primitives;
• layout;
• input and keyboard abstractions;
• Skia viewer and host behavior;
• Elmish integration;
• controls and typed control front doors;
• design-system primitives, theme models, and concrete themes;
• optional design-specific kits where a design system introduces product patterns beyond styling;
• testing helpers that are part of the product contract;
• runtime packages and package metadata;
• product documentation;
• templates and generated-product smoke tests, unless template cadence later justifies a separate repository.

Design and controls

Controls and design live in the rendering project, but not in the same layer. The product should have one semantic control set and multiple theme or design system layers over it.

Recommended internal split:

Layer	Owns
Rendering core	Scene, layout, input, drawing, and host-independent primitives.
Controls	Semantic controls, behavior, state, focus, keyboard, pointer, value, and accessibility contracts.
Design system	Token model, theme model, density, typography, radii, color roles, visual states, and component token slots.
Themes	Concrete Ant Design, Fluent, Material, or product-specific theme values.
Kits/patterns	Design-specific compositions when behavior or layout conventions exceed styling.

Specific design languages should not get duplicated controls by default. A Button remains Button; Ant Design, Fluent, and Material normally provide different themes for the same control. A design-specific module is justified only when it introduces a real pattern, such as Ant Design-style form layout, table filtering conventions, result pages, descriptions, statistics, or other opinionated compositions.

See Design and controls for the boundary rules.

Workflow

Use standard Spec Kit for feature specification, planning, and task breakdown. Keep the workflow boring and recognizable. The rendering repository may retain repo-owned checks that are already valuable, but those checks should stay narrow:

• API surface drift checks;
• package skew checks;
• template pack/install/instantiate checks;
• docs build checks;
• selected visual or scenario smoke checks;
• release packaging checks.

The initial repository version should be intentionally light. Tests and governance mechanisms are important, but they must be moved over because they protect a current product contract or a known failure mode, not because they exist in the old repository. Every imported check should have a short justification: what it protects, when it runs, who owns it, and what maintenance cost it adds.

Do not introduce a custom feature graph as the source of truth for ordinary rendering work. spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md may remain authored Spec Kit artifacts unless a future lightweight tool proves a better path without raising the cost of contribution.

The repository should be created as a fresh standard Spec Kit repository before product code is imported. This keeps import decisions explicit and prevents old workflow state from becoming the new product workflow by accident.

Governance boundary

The rendering project can consume optional governance tools, but it must not be blocked by them. A useful test is:

Could a contributor clone the rendering repository, read the standard feature artifacts, run the documented build/test commands, and ship a routine rendering change without understanding the governance repository?

If the answer is no, the boundary has failed.

Release posture

The rendering project should own its package and docs release policy directly. Governance tooling can help check that policy, but release identity belongs to the rendering product:

• package IDs;
• package versions;
• template identity;
• docs URL;
• supported target frameworks;
• release notes;
• migration guidance.

The release path should be conservative and explicit, not generated from an unproven governance schema.

What not to carry forward

Do not carry the following as active runtime-repository requirements:

• a mandatory custom ProjectGraph;
• a mandatory custom ProductGraph;
• a custom FeatureGraph replacing standard Spec Kit artifacts;
• graph-bound task completion as the only accepted source of task status;
• generated spec.md, plan.md, or tasks.md as the initial workflow;
• governance workspaces and FAKE concurrency policy as a prerequisite for normal product changes;
• historical tests, evidence reports, generated fixtures, or governance checks that do not have a current owner and product-risk justification.

These ideas can be revisited later if the separate governance project proves a small, stable implementation.