Conversation
Add initial v2 documentation artifacts: - v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.md: investor-facing vision deck for Studio v2, covering the shadow SDLC graph, validated action engine, connector layer, killer workflows, competitive positioning, and expansion roadmap - v2/docs/domain-model.md: comprehensive domain model draft produced through structured brainstorm session, covering Object/Worker/Flow base model, GTS identifier conventions (vendor=cf), Contract schema, WorkerRun execution model, Tenant hierarchy, Kit extensibility, StatePolicy, Role/Policy/Authorization, AuditLog, Recommendation, Events/Notifications, and a full SDLC object type catalog (~95 core types across 16 domains) with 17 Mermaid diagrams Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
|
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR replaces the Studio vision deck and expands the Studio v2 domain model draft with entity definitions, lifecycle rules, authorization, auditing, recommendations, notifications, and object reference diagrams. ChangesStudio Vision Deck
Studio v2 Domain Model
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~15 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 8
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md`:
- Around line 56-61: The domain model is inconsistent because Tenant is listed
as a subtype of Object in the inheritance diagram while later documentation
treats Tenant as a separate Gears RG type with Object instances belonging to a
tenantId. Update the Mermaid relationship near the Tenant, Workspace, WorkerRun,
FlowRun, Role, and Recommendation declarations, and align the Tenant section so
it is either a peer root entity or explicitly modeled as an Object subtype
everywhere, with the tenantId ownership rule matching that choice.
- Around line 105-109: The domain model uses inconsistent naming for the worker
implementation entity: the Worker class currently references WorkerImpl, while
the rest of the spec uses WorkerImplementation. Update the Worker definition to
use the same implementation type name everywhere, including the implementationId
reference and any related diagram labels or mentions in the domain model, so
schema/tooling references stay consistent.
- Around line 1200-1410: Normalize the appendix so every type uses the same
canonical GTS identifier form as the earlier
`gts.cf.studio.core.object.v1~cf.studio.core.<type>.v1~` syntax. Update the
domain lists in `domain-model.md` so the referenced symbols (for example the
base types and entries like `cf.studio.core.document.v1~`,
`cf.studio.core.infra_config.v1~`, `cf.studio.core.prompt.v1~`, and the
domain-specific type names) are all expressed consistently in the chained
format, making this section machine-consistent with the rest of the spec.
- Around line 894-905: The StateTransitionEvent projection is referencing
WorkerRun.timestamp, but WorkerRun does not define that field in the worker
schema. Update the projection in the StateTransitionEvent definition to use an
existing WorkerRun time field such as createdAt or updatedAt from the Object
model, or introduce a real timestamp field on WorkerRun if that is the intended
source, and keep the field name consistent throughout the WorkerRun and
StateTransitionEvent descriptions.
In `@v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.md`:
- Around line 548-551: Fix the visible typo in the ROI metrics list by
correcting the misspelled bullet in STUDIO_VISION’s metrics section; update the
item containing “artficats” so it reads “artifacts” and keep the surrounding
metric wording consistent with the other bullets in that same list.
- Line 59: Tighten the opening problem-statement bullet in STUDIO_VISION.md so
it reads cleanly and professionally; fix the awkward phrasing and typos in the
paragraph about AI tools, especially the references to IDEs like Cursor/GitHub
and the “convinient”/“capabilitie…” wording. Update the text in that bullet to a
concise, polished version while preserving the original meaning about non-R&D
teams struggling with adoption and collaboration.
- Around line 700-731: The roadmap phase headings in STUDIO_VISION.md are using
a heading level that skips from the section title and triggers the MD001
warning. Update the Phase 1–4 headings in the roadmap block to use a consistent,
non-skipping ladder (for example, `##` or `###` relative to the surrounding
title) so the document remains lint-clean and easier to scan.
- Around line 24-27: Separate the desktop and mobile targets in the platform
list so the wording does not imply iOS/Android are desktop systems. Update the
affected bullet in STUDIO_VISION.md to clearly distinguish the desktop
application targets from the mobile targets, keeping the web app and CLI entries
unchanged.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: defaults
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: d8792195-9d3a-4490-88cd-8c62fadbcb75
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.mdv2/docs/domain-model.md
Comment on lines
+56
to
+61
| Object <|-- Tenant | ||
| Object <|-- Workspace | ||
| Object <|-- WorkerRun | ||
| Object <|-- FlowRun | ||
| Object <|-- Role | ||
| Object <|-- Recommendation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy lift
Resolve the Tenant/Object contradiction.
Tenant is shown as an Object subtype here, but the Tenant section later treats it as a separate Gears RG type and still says every Object belongs to exactly one tenantId. That leaves the root tenant model inconsistent.
Suggested fix
- Object <|-- Tenant
Object <|-- Workspace
...
- Every Object belongs to exactly one Tenant (`tenantId`).
+ Every tenant-scoped Object belongs to exactly one Tenant (`tenantId`).Also applies to: 702-717
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 56 - 61, The domain model is
inconsistent because Tenant is listed as a subtype of Object in the inheritance
diagram while later documentation treats Tenant as a separate Gears RG type with
Object instances belonging to a tenantId. Update the Mermaid relationship near
the Tenant, Workspace, WorkerRun, FlowRun, Role, and Recommendation
declarations, and align the Tenant section so it is either a peer root entity or
explicitly modeled as an Object subtype everywhere, with the tenantId ownership
rule matching that choice.
Comment on lines
+105
to
+109
| class Worker { | ||
| id: GTS Type ID | ||
| scope: local|project|workspace|published | ||
| implementationId: ref WorkerImpl | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Use the same implementation type name everywhere.
WorkerImpl only appears here; the rest of the spec uses WorkerImplementation. That mismatch will break schema/tooling references and makes the diagram read as if there are two different entities.
Suggested fix
- implementationId: ref WorkerImpl
+ implementationId: ref WorkerImplementation📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| class Worker { | |
| id: GTS Type ID | |
| scope: local|project|workspace|published | |
| implementationId: ref WorkerImpl | |
| } | |
| class Worker { | |
| id: GTS Type ID | |
| scope: local|project|workspace|published | |
| implementationId: ref WorkerImplementation | |
| } |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 105 - 109, The domain model uses
inconsistent naming for the worker implementation entity: the Worker class
currently references WorkerImpl, while the rest of the spec uses
WorkerImplementation. Update the Worker definition to use the same
implementation type name everywhere, including the implementationId reference
and any related diagram labels or mentions in the domain model, so
schema/tooling references stay consistent.
Comment on lines
+894
to
+905
| `StateTransitionEvent` is a **computed projection** over the WorkerRun tree. | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| StateTransitionEvent (projection) { | ||
| objectId: from WorkerRun input/output diff | ||
| property: derived | ||
| fromValue: WorkerRun.inputData[property] | ||
| toValue: WorkerRun.outputData[property] | ||
| workerRunId: WorkerRun.id | ||
| timestamp: WorkerRun.timestamp | ||
| evidence?: WorkerRun.outputData[evidence] | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Don't reference a field that WorkerRun doesn't define.
WorkerRun.timestamp is never introduced anywhere in the worker schema; the object model only gives you createdAt/updatedAt via Object. Pick one of those, or add an explicit timestamp field to WorkerRun.
Suggested fix
- timestamp: WorkerRun.timestamp
+ timestamp: WorkerRun.createdAt📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| `StateTransitionEvent` is a **computed projection** over the WorkerRun tree. | |
| ``` | |
| StateTransitionEvent (projection) { | |
| objectId: from WorkerRun input/output diff | |
| property: derived | |
| fromValue: WorkerRun.inputData[property] | |
| toValue: WorkerRun.outputData[property] | |
| workerRunId: WorkerRun.id | |
| timestamp: WorkerRun.timestamp | |
| evidence?: WorkerRun.outputData[evidence] | |
| } | |
| `StateTransitionEvent` is a **computed projection** over the WorkerRun tree. | |
🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 896-896: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 894 - 905, The StateTransitionEvent
projection is referencing WorkerRun.timestamp, but WorkerRun does not define
that field in the worker schema. Update the projection in the
StateTransitionEvent definition to use an existing WorkerRun time field such as
createdAt or updatedAt from the Object model, or introduce a real timestamp
field on WorkerRun if that is the intended source, and keep the field name
consistent throughout the WorkerRun and StateTransitionEvent descriptions.
Comment on lines
+1200
to
+1410
| ``` | ||
| gts.cf.studio.core.object.v1~cf.studio.core.<type>.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Base Types (abstract) | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.document.v1~ // base for all textual/structured artifacts | ||
| cf.studio.core.infra_config.v1~ // base for all infrastructure configurations | ||
| cf.studio.core.prompt.v1~ // base for all AI prompt artifacts | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 1 — Product / Requirements | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.prd.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.epic.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.user_story.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.requirement.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.acceptance_criteria.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.use_case.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.user_persona.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.product_roadmap.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.feature_spec.v1~ // → document (Studio SDLC FEATURE) | ||
| cf.studio.core.decomposition.v1~ // → document (Studio SDLC DECOMPOSITION) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 2 — Architecture / Design | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.design.v1~ // → document (Studio SDLC DESIGN) | ||
| cf.studio.core.adr.v1~ // → document (Architecture Decision Record) | ||
| cf.studio.core.component.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.interface_definition.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.api_spec.v1~ // OpenAPI / GraphQL / gRPC | ||
| cf.studio.core.data_model.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.architecture_diagram.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 3 — Source Code | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.repository.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.source_file.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.module.v1~ // package, namespace, library | ||
| cf.studio.core.complexity_metric.v1~ // cyclomatic/cognitive complexity | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 4 — Work Items | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.task.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.bug.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.spike.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.tech_debt_item.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.change_request.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 5 — Collaboration | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.comment.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.review_comment.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.decision.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.meeting_note.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.approval.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 6 — Version Control | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| // cf.studio.core.repository.v1~ // defined in Domain 3 | ||
| cf.studio.core.branch.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.commit.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.tag.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.pull_request.v1~ // canonical (PR + MR) | ||
| cf.studio.core.diff.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.merge_conflict.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 7 — CI/CD / Build | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.pipeline.v1~ // pipeline definition | ||
| cf.studio.core.pipeline_run.v1~ // execution instance | ||
| cf.studio.core.build.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.pipeline_job.v1~ // job within pipeline | ||
| cf.studio.core.pipeline_step.v1~ // step within job | ||
| cf.studio.core.test_run.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.test_case.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.test_result.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.code_coverage_report.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.build_artifact.v1~ // binary, package, image | ||
| cf.studio.core.deployment.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.deployment_status.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.runner.v1~ // GitHub runner, Jenkins agent, GitLab runner | ||
| cf.studio.core.performance_benchmark.v1~ // k6, Locust, JMH | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 8 — Artifacts / Packages | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.package.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.package_version.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.container_image.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.container_image_tag.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.sbom.v1~ // Software Bill of Materials | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 9 — Release | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.release.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.release_notes.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.changelog.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.version.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.release_candidate.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 10 — Operations / Incidents | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.incident.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.alert.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.runbook.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.postmortem.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.slo.v1~ // Service Level Objective | ||
| cf.studio.core.sli.v1~ // Service Level Indicator | ||
| cf.studio.core.on_call_schedule.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.escalation_policy.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.health_check.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.metric_definition.v1~ // metric schema/definition, not time-series data | ||
| cf.studio.core.quality_metric.v1~ // code quality, test coverage metrics | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 11 — Security | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.vulnerability.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.cve.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.security_finding.v1~ // pentest, code scan, secret scan | ||
| cf.studio.core.threat_model.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.security_review.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.dependency_vulnerability.v1~ // Dependabot, Snyk | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 12 — Compliance / Governance | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.audit_finding.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.compliance_check.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.compliance_check_result.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.policy_exception.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.compliance_report.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.cost_report.v1~ // AI cost, infrastructure cost | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 13 — People / Teams | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.person.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.team.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.org_unit.v1~ // department, division | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 14 — Infrastructure | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.environment.v1~ // dev, staging, prod | ||
| cf.studio.core.service.v1~ // microservice, cloud service | ||
| cf.studio.core.cluster.v1~ // K8s, ECS, EKS | ||
| cf.studio.core.resource.v1~ // generic cloud resource | ||
| cf.studio.core.namespace.v1~ // K8s namespace, logical grouping | ||
| cf.studio.core.secret_reference.v1~ // reference only: name, vault_path, provider — no value stored | ||
| cf.studio.core.certificate.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.infra_config.v1~ // base (abstract) | ||
| // narrowed by Kit: | ||
| // ~cf.studio.core.terraform_resource.v1~ | ||
| // ~cf.studio.core.helm_release.v1~ | ||
| // ~cf.studio.core.k8s_manifest.v1~ | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 15 — Documents | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.document.v1~ // base (abstract) | ||
| // narrowed types: | ||
| cf.studio.core.spec.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.guide.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.readme.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.wiki_page.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.api_documentation.v1~ // → document | ||
| cf.studio.core.glossary.v1~ // → document | ||
| // policy/governance docs use document with category tag | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### Domain 16 — AI / Agents | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.prompt.v1~ // base (abstract) | ||
| cf.studio.core.skill.v1~ // → prompt (reusable agent instruction) | ||
| cf.studio.core.system_prompt.v1~ // → prompt | ||
| cf.studio.core.prompt_template.v1~ // → prompt | ||
| cf.studio.core.prompt_variant.v1~ // → prompt (A/B variant) | ||
| cf.studio.core.ai_agent.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.ai_tool.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.evaluation_run.v1~ | ||
| cf.studio.core.evaluation_result.v1~ | ||
| // llm_model → reference to Gears Models Registry (no separate Object type) | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | 🏗️ Heavy lift
Normalize the appendix to one GTS identifier format.
The catalog switches from the chained gts.cf... syntax used earlier to bare cf.studio.core.* identifiers here. As written, this section is not a canonical source of truth because the IDs are not machine-consistent with the rest of the spec.
Representative normalization
- cf.studio.core.prd.v1~
+ gts.cf.studio.core.object.v1~cf.studio.core.prd.v1~🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 1200-1200: Fenced code blocks should be surrounded by blank lines
(MD031, blanks-around-fences)
[warning] 1200-1200: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1206-1206: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1214-1214: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1229-1229: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1241-1241: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1250-1250: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1260-1260: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1270-1270: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1282-1282: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1301-1301: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1311-1311: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1321-1321: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1337-1337: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1348-1348: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1359-1359: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1367-1367: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1384-1384: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
[warning] 1398-1398: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 1200 - 1410, Normalize the appendix so
every type uses the same canonical GTS identifier form as the earlier
`gts.cf.studio.core.object.v1~cf.studio.core.<type>.v1~` syntax. Update the
domain lists in `domain-model.md` so the referenced symbols (for example the
base types and entries like `cf.studio.core.document.v1~`,
`cf.studio.core.infra_config.v1~`, `cf.studio.core.prompt.v1~`, and the
domain-specific type names) are all expressed consistently in the chained
format, making this section machine-consistent with the rest of the spec.
Comment on lines
+24
to
+27
| - It is implemented as: | ||
| - A web application in a browser | ||
| - A desktop application for macOS, Linux, Windows, iOS/Android | ||
| - A CLI that can be used from other tools (less beneficial because all the existing tools were created for developers and will not benefit all other roles) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Separate the desktop and mobile targets.
iOS/Android are mobile platforms, so this currently reads like the deck promises a desktop app for mobile OSes. Splitting the targets will avoid a misleading product claim.
Suggested rewrite
- - A desktop application for macOS, Linux, Windows, iOS/Android
+ - Desktop application for macOS, Linux, Windows
+ - Mobile application for iOS/Android📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| - It is implemented as: | |
| - A web application in a browser | |
| - A desktop application for macOS, Linux, Windows, iOS/Android | |
| - A CLI that can be used from other tools (less beneficial because all the existing tools were created for developers and will not benefit all other roles) | |
| - It is implemented as: | |
| - A web application in a browser | |
| - Desktop application for macOS, Linux, Windows | |
| - Mobile application for iOS/Android | |
| - A CLI that can be used from other tools (less beneficial because all the existing tools were created for developers and will not benefit all other roles) |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.md` around lines 24 - 27, Separate the desktop and
mobile targets in the platform list so the wording does not imply iOS/Android
are desktop systems. Update the affected bullet in STUDIO_VISION.md to clearly
distinguish the desktop application targets from the mobile targets, keeping the
web app and CLI entries unchanged.
| AI coding tools help teams generate more code faster. | ||
| But complex software delivery still breaks across handoffs: | ||
|
|
||
| - Modern AI tools were created with the R&D in mind. Other organizations and functions - Product Management, GTM - are having a hard time adopting AI using R&D-centric tools (IDEs - such as Cursor or GitHub are not the native Product Management tools for example and they require a very steep learning curve and do not provide convinient and efficient collaboration capabilities). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Tighten the problem-statement copy.
This bullet has typos/awkward phrasing (convinient, capabilitie...) and is the first dense paragraph in the deck, so it should read cleanly.
Suggested rewrite
- - Modern AI tools were created with the R&D in mind. Other organizations and functions - Product Management, GTM - are having a hard time adopting AI using R&D-centric tools (IDEs - such as Cursor or GitHub are not the native Product Management tools for example and they require a very steep learning curve and do not provide convinient and efficient collaboration capabilities).
+ - Modern AI tools were created with R&D teams in mind. Other functions — such as Product Management and GTM — struggle to adopt AI using R&D-centric tools. IDEs such as Cursor or GitHub are not native Product Management tools, require a steep learning curve, and do not provide convenient, efficient collaboration capabilities.📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| - Modern AI tools were created with the R&D in mind. Other organizations and functions - Product Management, GTM - are having a hard time adopting AI using R&D-centric tools (IDEs - such as Cursor or GitHub are not the native Product Management tools for example and they require a very steep learning curve and do not provide convinient and efficient collaboration capabilities). | |
| - Modern AI tools were created with R&D teams in mind. Other functions — such as Product Management and GTM — struggle to adopt AI using R&D-centric tools. IDEs such as Cursor or GitHub are not native Product Management tools, require a steep learning curve, and do not provide convenient, efficient collaboration capabilities. |
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~59-~59: Ensure spelling is correct
Context: ...steep learning curve and do not provide convinient and efficient collaboration capabilitie...
(QB_NEW_EN_ORTHOGRAPHY_ERROR_IDS_1)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.md` at line 59, Tighten the opening problem-statement
bullet in STUDIO_VISION.md so it reads cleanly and professionally; fix the
awkward phrasing and typos in the paragraph about AI tools, especially the
references to IDEs like Cursor/GitHub and the “convinient”/“capabilitie…”
wording. Update the text in that bullet to a concise, polished version while
preserving the original meaning about non-R&D teams struggling with adoption and
collaboration.
Source: Linters/SAST tools
Comment on lines
+548
to
+551
| - Higher requirement-to-test coverage | ||
| - Fewer stale design/code mismatches | ||
| - Fewer rejected AI-generated artficats | ||
| - Lower AI cost per accepted change |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Fix the typo in the ROI metric.
artficats should be artifacts; this is a visible typo in a customer-facing slide.
Suggested rewrite
- - Fewer rejected AI-generated artficats
+ - Fewer rejected AI-generated artifacts📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| - Higher requirement-to-test coverage | |
| - Fewer stale design/code mismatches | |
| - Fewer rejected AI-generated artficats | |
| - Lower AI cost per accepted change | |
| - Higher requirement-to-test coverage | |
| - Fewer stale design/code mismatches | |
| - Fewer rejected AI-generated artifacts | |
| - Lower AI cost per accepted change |
🧰 Tools
🪛 LanguageTool
[grammar] ~550-~550: Ensure spelling is correct
Context: ...ismatches - Fewer rejected AI-generated artficats - Lower AI cost per accepted change </...
(QB_NEW_EN_ORTHOGRAPHY_ERROR_IDS_1)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.md` around lines 548 - 551, Fix the visible typo in the
ROI metrics list by correcting the misspelled bullet in STUDIO_VISION’s metrics
section; update the item containing “artficats” so it reads “artifacts” and keep
the surrounding metric wording consistent with the other bullets in that same
list.
Source: Linters/SAST tools
Comment on lines
+700
to
+731
| #### Phase 1: Studio CLI PoC | ||
|
|
||
| - Repo-local CLI setup and IDE agent integration | ||
| - SDLC kit: PRD → DESIGN → decomposition → FEATURE → implementation | ||
| - Deterministic checks for artifacts, traceability, language, and links | ||
| - Dependency map across documents, code, tests, and reviews | ||
|
|
||
| #### Phase 2: Validated actions | ||
|
|
||
| - Gap analysis | ||
| - Contradiction detection | ||
| - Autonomous bug-fixing | ||
| - PR validation | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # Expansion Roadmap | ||
|
|
||
| #### Phase 3: Centralized automation | ||
|
|
||
| - Team and role-based workspaces and collaboration | ||
| - Visual workflow builder and flow catalog | ||
| - UI/UX for workflows, approvals, exceptions, evidence, and handoffs | ||
| - Notifications and alerts for gaps, risks, stale work, and failures | ||
| - Dashboards for delivery health, AI cost, and release readiness | ||
|
|
||
| #### Phase 4: Enterprise control plane | ||
|
|
||
| - Insight integration at scale | ||
| - Private/on-prem deployment | ||
| - Advanced AI and world model | ||
| - Operations automation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Use a consistent heading ladder for the roadmap phases.
#### skips levels from the slide title and matches the MD001 warning. ## or ### will keep the deck lint-clean and easier to scan.
Suggested rewrite
-#### Phase 1: Studio CLI PoC
+## Phase 1: Studio CLI PoC
@@
-#### Phase 2: Validated actions
+## Phase 2: Validated actions
@@
-#### Phase 3: Centralized automation
+## Phase 3: Centralized automation
@@
-#### Phase 4: Enterprise control plane
+## Phase 4: Enterprise control plane📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| #### Phase 1: Studio CLI PoC | |
| - Repo-local CLI setup and IDE agent integration | |
| - SDLC kit: PRD → DESIGN → decomposition → FEATURE → implementation | |
| - Deterministic checks for artifacts, traceability, language, and links | |
| - Dependency map across documents, code, tests, and reviews | |
| #### Phase 2: Validated actions | |
| - Gap analysis | |
| - Contradiction detection | |
| - Autonomous bug-fixing | |
| - PR validation | |
| --- | |
| # Expansion Roadmap | |
| #### Phase 3: Centralized automation | |
| - Team and role-based workspaces and collaboration | |
| - Visual workflow builder and flow catalog | |
| - UI/UX for workflows, approvals, exceptions, evidence, and handoffs | |
| - Notifications and alerts for gaps, risks, stale work, and failures | |
| - Dashboards for delivery health, AI cost, and release readiness | |
| #### Phase 4: Enterprise control plane | |
| - Insight integration at scale | |
| - Private/on-prem deployment | |
| - Advanced AI and world model | |
| - Operations automation | |
| ## Phase 1: Studio CLI PoC | |
| - Repo-local CLI setup and IDE agent integration | |
| - SDLC kit: PRD → DESIGN → decomposition → FEATURE → implementation | |
| - Deterministic checks for artifacts, traceability, language, and links | |
| - Dependency map across documents, code, tests, and reviews | |
| ## Phase 2: Validated actions | |
| - Gap analysis | |
| - Contradiction detection | |
| - Autonomous bug-fixing | |
| - PR validation | |
| --- | |
| # Expansion Roadmap | |
| ## Phase 3: Centralized automation | |
| - Team and role-based workspaces and collaboration | |
| - Visual workflow builder and flow catalog | |
| - UI/UX for workflows, approvals, exceptions, evidence, and handoffs | |
| - Notifications and alerts for gaps, risks, stale work, and failures | |
| - Dashboards for delivery health, AI cost, and release readiness | |
| ## Phase 4: Enterprise control plane | |
| - Insight integration at scale | |
| - Private/on-prem deployment | |
| - Advanced AI and world model | |
| - Operations automation |
🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 700-700: Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time
Expected: h2; Actual: h4
(MD001, heading-increment)
[warning] 718-718: Heading levels should only increment by one level at a time
Expected: h2; Actual: h4
(MD001, heading-increment)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/STUDIO_VISION.md` around lines 700 - 731, The roadmap phase headings
in STUDIO_VISION.md are using a heading level that skips from the section title
and triggers the MD001 warning. Update the Phase 1–4 headings in the roadmap
block to use a consistent, non-skipping ladder (for example, `##` or `###`
relative to the surrounding title) so the document remains lint-clean and easier
to scan.
Source: Linters/SAST tools
… hierarchy and cross-references Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md`:
- Around line 1772-1775: The AuditLog Mermaid block is using freeform text
inside a class body, which is invalid classDiagram syntax. Update the AuditLog
definition in the domain model diagram so the class body contains only valid
Mermaid class members or move the “materialized view” and “over WorkerRun tree”
text into a proper note/comment/relationship syntax that Mermaid can parse.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
Comment on lines
+1772
to
+1775
| class AuditLog { | ||
| materialized view | ||
| over WorkerRun tree | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Fix the Mermaid syntax in AuditLog.
The freeform prose inside the class body (materialized view / over WorkerRun tree) is not valid classDiagram member syntax, so this block is likely to render incorrectly or fail to parse.
Suggested fix
class AuditLog {
- materialized view
- over WorkerRun tree
}📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| class AuditLog { | |
| materialized view | |
| over WorkerRun tree | |
| } | |
| class AuditLog { | |
| } |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 1772 - 1775, The AuditLog Mermaid block
is using freeform text inside a class body, which is invalid classDiagram
syntax. Update the AuditLog definition in the domain model diagram so the class
body contains only valid Mermaid class members or move the “materialized view”
and “over WorkerRun tree” text into a proper note/comment/relationship syntax
that Mermaid can parse.
- Add component_version, component_dependency, release_component types to complete the component and release domain models - Add 7 new cross-reference diagrams (D32-D38): component ownership, component↔docs, component↔people/teams, release cross-refs, release↔work-items traceability, full component→release→deployment chain, and component dependency graph - Fix Studio event GTS type: extend Gears platform event base type gts.cf.core.events.type.v1~ instead of defining a conflicting gts.cf.studio.core.event.v1~ base type - Verify all Studio GTS types against Gears base types; confirm Worker, Flow, Kit, Role remain first-class Studio types Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
… types and diagrams Add Domain 3a (Technology Stack) with 10 new object types: tech_stack, library, library_version, framework, runtime, database, database_instance, third_party_service, cloud_service, tech_dependency Add 5 cross-reference diagrams (D39-D43): D39 - tech stack type hierarchy (library, framework, runtime) D40 - data and external service dependencies D41 - component ↔ full technology stack D42 - library_version ↔ security/vulnerability chain D43 - tech stack ↔ release pinning and compliance (SBOM, license) Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
Add Domain 8a (SBOM) with 5 new object types:
sbom - SBOM document (SPDX / CycloneDX / SWID)
sbom_component - package/library entry within an SBOM
sbom_relationship - directed relationship between sbom_components
(CONTAINS, DEPENDS_ON, DESCRIBES, GENERATED_FROM,
VARIANT_OF, PATCH_OF)
sbom_license - SPDX license expression per component
sbom_checksum - cryptographic hash (SHA256, SHA1, MD5, BLAKE2)
Add 4 cross-reference diagrams (D44-D47):
D44 - SBOM document structure and relationships
D45 - sbom_component details (license, checksum, library_version mapping)
D46 - SBOM cross-references (artifact → sbom → component → vulnerability)
D47 - SBOM ↔ security scanning and license compliance chain
Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md`:
- Around line 1271-1282: Add a language tag to the unlabeled fenced blocks in
the domain model appendix so they no longer trigger MD040; update the fences in
the section containing the core entity list, and make the same change in the
other referenced appendix block, using a neutral tag like text. Locate the
affected markdown fences by the core symbols such as
cf.studio.core.tech_stack.v1, cf.studio.core.library.v1, and
cf.studio.core.tech_dependency.v1, and ensure every fenced block in those
appendix sections is explicitly labeled.
- Around line 2156-2161: The sbom_relationship enum is inconsistent with the
earlier SBOM relationship catalog because PATCH_OF is missing here. Update the
sbom_relationship definition to include PATCH_OF alongside the existing kinds so
the schema matches the catalog and uses one consistent allowed enum set across
the spec.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
Comment on lines
+1271
to
+1282
| ``` | ||
| cf.studio.core.tech_stack.v1~ // declared technology stack of a component/project | ||
| cf.studio.core.library.v1~ // software library / package (npm, PyPI, Maven, etc.) | ||
| cf.studio.core.library_version.v1~ // specific pinned version of a library | ||
| cf.studio.core.framework.v1~ // framework (React, Django, Spring, Rails, etc.) | ||
| cf.studio.core.runtime.v1~ // runtime environment (Node.js v20, Python 3.11, JVM 21) | ||
| cf.studio.core.database.v1~ // database technology (PostgreSQL, MongoDB, Redis, etc.) | ||
| cf.studio.core.database_instance.v1~ // specific deployed database instance | ||
| cf.studio.core.third_party_service.v1~ // external SaaS dependency (Stripe, SendGrid, Auth0) | ||
| cf.studio.core.cloud_service.v1~ // managed cloud service (AWS S3, GCP Pub/Sub, Azure SB) | ||
| cf.studio.core.tech_dependency.v1~ // directed: component uses library_version / database / service | ||
| ``` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📐 Maintainability & Code Quality | 🟡 Minor | ⚡ Quick win
Label these fences with a language.
These blocks trip MD040 as plain fenced code. Add a language tag such as text so the appendix stays lint-clean.
Suggested fix
-```
+```textAlso applies to: 1346-1356
🧰 Tools
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.22.1)
[warning] 1271-1271: Fenced code blocks should have a language specified
(MD040, fenced-code-language)
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 1271 - 1282, Add a language tag to the
unlabeled fenced blocks in the domain model appendix so they no longer trigger
MD040; update the fences in the section containing the core entity list, and
make the same change in the other referenced appendix block, using a neutral tag
like text. Locate the affected markdown fences by the core symbols such as
cf.studio.core.tech_stack.v1, cf.studio.core.library.v1, and
cf.studio.core.tech_dependency.v1, and ensure every fenced block in those
appendix sections is explicitly labeled.
Source: Linters/SAST tools
Comment on lines
+2156
to
+2161
| class sbom_relationship { | ||
| sbomId: ref sbom | ||
| sourceId: ref sbom_component | ||
| targetId: ref sbom_component | ||
| kind: CONTAINS|DEPENDS_ON|DESCRIBES|GENERATED_FROM|VARIANT_OF | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🗄️ Data Integrity & Integration | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Keep the SBOM relationship enum consistent.
PATCH_OF is listed in the earlier SBOM relationship catalog, but this schema omits it. That leaves the spec with two different allowed enums.
Suggested fix
- kind: CONTAINS|DEPENDS_ON|DESCRIBES|GENERATED_FROM|VARIANT_OF
+ kind: CONTAINS|DEPENDS_ON|DESCRIBES|GENERATED_FROM|VARIANT_OF|PATCH_OF📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
Suggested change
| class sbom_relationship { | |
| sbomId: ref sbom | |
| sourceId: ref sbom_component | |
| targetId: ref sbom_component | |
| kind: CONTAINS|DEPENDS_ON|DESCRIBES|GENERATED_FROM|VARIANT_OF | |
| } | |
| class sbom_relationship { | |
| sbomId: ref sbom | |
| sourceId: ref sbom_component | |
| targetId: ref sbom_component | |
| kind: CONTAINS|DEPENDS_ON|DESCRIBES|GENERATED_FROM|VARIANT_OF|PATCH_OF | |
| } |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@v2/docs/domain-model.md` around lines 2156 - 2161, The sbom_relationship enum
is inconsistent with the earlier SBOM relationship catalog because PATCH_OF is
missing here. Update the sbom_relationship definition to include PATCH_OF
alongside the existing kinds so the schema matches the catalog and uses one
consistent allowed enum set across the spec.
…, staleness, approvals
Address critical gaps identified in gap analysis vs STUDIO_VISION.md:
Object base type:
- Add ownerId, validationStatus, stalenessScore, externalRef to base Object
- stalenessScore = max(timeStaleness, dependencyStaleness, syncStaleness)
New registry entities:
- Validator (extends Worker): maxRetries, escalateTo, abortOnLimit
- Connector: OAGW-backed integration with field mapping, write-back policy,
sync protocol (push/pull), rate limiting, scope filter per Tenant
New Object types:
- ValidationSession: aggregates retry loop for one Validator run
- ValidationResult: per-attempt result with superseded/revoked lifecycle
- Evidence: structured proof of action/validation with valid/superseded/revoked
WorkerRun state machine: add escalated + aborted states
Staleness model (Section 20):
- stalenessPolicy in x-gts-traits per type (timeTTL, dependencyTypes, threshold)
- stale_artifact_detection Analyzer updates score async (15min + onEvent debounce)
Approval & Human Control (Section 21):
- Generic Approval with kind discriminator + typed payload per kind
- security_exception payload: expiresAt, mitigations, secondaryApprover, autoReviewAfter
- customerImpact optional field for customer-facing decisions
Flow Library Catalog (Section 22):
- 12 Analyzer Workers with runtime, profile, input Contract per Analyzer
- 2 Flows: bug_to_fix_pr_flow (Killer Workflow 1), release_readiness_review
- Worker metadata: displayName, description, category, profile
Traceability (Section 23):
- pull_request: closesIssues, implementsRequirements, conformsToDesign, verifiedBy
- test_case: verifiesRequirements, verifiesFeature
- pr_design_validator: hybrid Validator triggered on PR → review
Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
…domain model Signed-off-by: ainetx <viator@via-net.org>
|
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
1 participant
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.
Introduce the investor-facing vision deck and a comprehensive domain model draft for Studio v2, detailing key components and structures essential for understanding the project.
Summary by CodeRabbit