Repository navigation
docs(roadmap): extend the pipeline into 2027 with six sourced initiatives - #1294
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…ives Follows #1293, which landed the ten specs for the committed initiatives. That PR was merged before this work was pushed, so it ships separately. The roadmap ended at I-21. Three agents take work from it every day, so the pipeline needed depth, and depth is only useful if it is grounded. Six initiatives, each from a verified gap in a second market sweep covering angles the first pass missed - Discord, accessibility, cEDH meta sources, offline apps, collection apps and localisation: - I-22 Verification as a public surface. Six products generate decks and none publishes a verification contract. The validator is already deterministic and /api/v1 already exists. - I-23 The pod's own surface. Otterly MTG, Mana Grove and an open-source Commander bot already answer bracket questions in Discord. None carries a pod's declared Rule 0 agreement, which is I-15's artifact. - I-24 Decks a screen reader can play from. Blind players adapt cards with NFC tags read by a phone; braille fails because marked cards risk disqualification. No deckbuilder emits output shaped to be heard. - I-25 A third locale, chosen on evidence. Every AI deckbuilder found is English-only. Nine catalogues sit dormant here, and the spec refuses to pick from catalogue convenience. - I-26 Collections arriving from elsewhere. Scanning is already a non-goal, so import is the only honest way a collection is populated. - I-27 Learning while building. Tools assume the vocabulary and teaching lives in video. Nobody explains a rule at the moment it fires, and the repo already carries mtg-rules and mtg-learn skills. Four things the sweep ruled out are recorded so the next pass does not re-derive them. The most useful: tournament win rates stay blocked. EDHTop16, the best candidate, publishes commander meta share and entry counts but no win rates, no match-level results and no public API; MagicMeta and LucidPuzzle derive their tiers from it. The 2027 specs are deliberately less detailed than the Next-horizon ones. Committing to interface detail eighteen months early produces precision that ages rather than guides. Six and not twenty, stated in the roadmap: beyond these the sweep stopped producing gaps this product is positioned to fill, and inventing more would fill a roadmap without filling a pipeline. Verified on current dev: tsc clean, lint clean, 3510 tests passing, prettier clean, every relative link resolves. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
Codex Review Summary: ❌ FailedThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
|
Important Review skippedAuto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the
 |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
This branch was successfully deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
Follows #1293, which landed the ten specs for the committed initiatives. That PR was merged before this work was pushed, so it ships separately.
The roadmap ended at I-21. Three agents take work from it every day, so the pipeline needs depth — and depth is only useful if it is grounded.
Six initiatives, each from a verified gap
A second market sweep on 2026-11-08 covering the angles the first pass missed: Discord, accessibility, cEDH meta sources, offline apps, collection apps, localisation.
/api/v1already exists.mtg-rulesandmtg-learn.Four doors closed, with reasons recorded
So the next pass does not re-derive them. The most useful: tournament win rates stay blocked. EDHTop16, the best candidate found, publishes commander meta share and entry counts but no win rates, no match-level results and no public API; MagicMeta and LucidPuzzle derive their tiers from it. The existing block in the roadmap stands, and now says why.
The other three: card scanning (ManaBox owns it, native-camera capability, and I-06 defers it anyway), a table companion (served by Discord bots and the official app, a different product), marketplace and checkout (excluded by the existing non-goals).
Why six and not twenty
Stated in the roadmap itself. Beyond these, the sweep stopped producing gaps this product is positioned to fill. Adding more would be invention — it fills a roadmap without filling a pipeline, and three agents would then implement ungrounded bets. Extending 2027 further is the job of another dated sweep, not a longer list.
The 2027 specs are also deliberately less detailed than the Next-horizon ones, and each says so. Committing to interface detail eighteen months early produces precision that ages rather than guides.
Scope discipline
Documentation only. A
chore/docsPR becausedocs/product/roadmap.mdis touched. No initiative status changed, no scope box ticked — a spec is a plan, not a record.changelog.mdandprogress.mduntouched.Verification
Run against current
dev:npx tsc --noEmit— cleanpnpm lint— zero warningsTZ=UTC pnpm test— 344 files, 3510 tests passingprettier --check— cleandocs/product/specs/resolvesSKIP_E2E=1on the push: no Docker in this environment, Markdown-only diff.For review
Competitor rows are claims read from public pages on 2026-11-08, not evidence. Each spec says so, and each should be revalidated before a row justifies implementation.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code