eric/ReleaseKit
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Adopt shared policies and align ReleaseKit documentation and licensing

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Eric Rakestraw
2026-10-05 14:39:49 +00:00
parent 4f914f10cf
commit 43c20b0f61
18 changed files with 2540 additions and 528 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

30
AGENTS.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
<!-- codebase-memory-mcp:start -->
# Codebase Knowledge Graph (codebase-memory-mcp)
This project uses codebase-memory-mcp to maintain a knowledge graph of the codebase.
ALWAYS prefer MCP graph tools over grep/glob/file-search for code discovery.
## Priority Order
1. `search_graph` — find functions, classes, routes, variables by pattern
2. `trace_path` — trace who calls a function or what it calls
3. `get_code_snippet` — read specific function/class source code
4. `query_graph` — run Cypher queries for complex patterns
5. `get_architecture` — high-level project summary
## When to fall back to grep/glob
- Searching for string literals, error messages, config values
- Searching non-code files (Dockerfiles, shell scripts, configs)
- When MCP tools return insufficient results
## Examples
- Find a handler: `search_graph(name_pattern=".*OrderHandler.*")`
- Who calls it: `trace_path(function_name="OrderHandler", direction="inbound")`
- Read source: `get_code_snippet(qualified_name="pkg/orders.OrderHandler")`
<!-- codebase-memory-mcp:end -->
Start with `docs/development.md` for orientation and use its policy reading guide
to select the policies applicable to the task. Do not read the entire suite by
default.
Read and follow `docs/policy/agents.md` before recommending, planning, or
implementing repository changes.

25
COPYRIGHT Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
ReleaseKit
Copyright (C) 2026 Eric Rakestraw
SPDX-License-Identifier: LGPL-3.0-or-later
This library is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
The GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 and its incorporated
GNU General Public License version 3 text are provided in LICENSE.
This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
Third-party code and assets are subject to their respective license terms.
Policy documents adapted from Standard Repository Policies, the root AGENTS.md
orientation, and the Policy Reading Guide in docs/development.md remain licensed
under CC-BY-SA-4.0. See docs/oss/attribution.md for the affected material,
upstream credit, and license links.

1118
LICENSE
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

21
README.md
View File

@@ -1,3 +1,22 @@
# ReleaseKit # ReleaseKit
ReleaseKit is an opinionated Go library that bundles common scripts and functions for releasing applications. ReleaseKit is being designed as an opinionated Go library and executable for a
shared release process. The repository currently contains policies, architectural
decisions, and implementation proposals. Go packages, commands, and release
automation have not been implemented.
## Documentation
- [ReleaseKit proposal](docs/roadmap/releasekit.md): proposed publication, builds,
version injection, and delivery, with the initial implementation plan.
- [Contributor guide](docs/development.md): orientation, validation, and selective
policy reading.
- [Architecture policy](docs/policy/architecture.md): responsibility and dependency
boundaries for development.
- [ADR 0001](docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md): the accepted public facade decision.
- [Policy adoption roadmap](docs/roadmap/policy.md): completed adoption and pending
release bootstrap work.
ReleaseKit is licensed under the [LGPL v3.0 or later](COPYRIGHT).
[Open Source attribution notices](docs/oss/attribution.md) are available.

2
docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md
View File

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
## Status ## Status
Accepted. Implementation pending. Accepted.
## Date ## Date

53
docs/development.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
# Developing ReleaseKit
ReleaseKit currently contains adopted policies and design documents. See the
[README](../README.md) for orientation and the [product roadmap](roadmap/releasekit.md)
for proposed capabilities and implementation sequencing.
Read the [agent policy](policy/agents.md) and inspect the worktree before editing.
Preserve unrelated changes and follow explicit instructions about commits.
The [architecture policy](policy/architecture.md) governs development boundaries;
[ADR 0001](adr/0001-public-facade.md) records the facade decision. The
[documentation policy](policy/documentation.md#canonical-ownership) owns the
documentation topic map.
## Policy Reading Guide
| Policy | Read before… |
| --- | --- |
| [Policy set provenance](policy/meta.md) | Adopting policies, checking upstream revisions, or updating the adopted policy set. |
| [Agents](policy/agents.md) | Recommending, planning, or implementing repository changes. |
| [Architecture](policy/architecture.md) | Planning or changing library or executable code or its structure. |
| [Testing](policy/testing.md) | Selecting validation for code changes, or adding, changing, removing, or evaluating tests. |
| [Documentation](policy/documentation.md) | Writing, revising, or reorganizing documentation. |
| [OSS](policy/oss.md) | Adding or updating dependencies or incorporated third-party material, or changing licensing or attribution. |
| [Release](policy/release.md) | Preparing or publishing a release, changing release procedures, or making versioning and compatibility decisions. |
- Read applicable policies before making decisions they govern; multiple policies
may apply.
- Select policies using the task triggers above. Follow cross-references to
relevant sections when needed to resolve a concrete question.
- Reuse policies already available in context; reread when changed or no longer
available.
- Expand reading when the task's scope expands.
- When revising a policy itself, read that policy and any provisions elsewhere
affected by the revision.
## Validation
For prose changes, review the diff and check local links, fragment destinations,
provenance, template residue, and consistency with current repository contents.
Check prose whitespace with:
```sh
git diff --check -- '*.md' COPYRIGHT
git diff --cached --check -- '*.md' COPYRIGHT
```
Verbatim license texts retain their supplied formatting. When changing those
texts, compare their bytes with the selected upstream source.
There is no `go.mod`, default test suite, or publication command yet. Add working
development commands here as implementation lands. Add `docs/release.md` with
the first working publication command; the [policy adoption roadmap](roadmap/policy.md#4-define-releasekits-own-release-path)
records the remaining bootstrap work.

16
docs/oss/attribution.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
# Open Source Attribution Notices
## Standard Repository Policies
Material: policy documents under `docs/policy/`, the root `AGENTS.md` orientation,
and the Policy Reading Guide in `docs/development.md`, adapted for this repository.
Copyright (C) 2026 Eric Rakestraw
SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
License and notices: [CC BY-SA 4.0](licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt) |
[COPYRIGHT](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/COPYRIGHT) |
[LICENSE](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/LICENSE).
[Source](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843).

170
docs/oss/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Creative Commons Corporation (“Creative Commons”) is not a law firm and does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related information available on an “as-is” basis. Creative Commons gives no warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the fullest extent possible.
Using Creative Commons Public Licenses
Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses.
Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are intended for use by those authorized to give the public permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any material not subject to the license. This includes other CC-licensed material, or material used under an exception or limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors.
Considerations for the public: By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of the licensed material may still be restricted for other reasons, including because others have copyright or other rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, such as asking that all changes be marked or described.
Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations for the public.
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License
By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.
Section 1 – Definitions.
a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.
b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.
c. BY-SA Compatible License means a license listed at creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses, approved by Creative Commons as essentially the equivalent of this Public License.
d. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights.
e. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements.
f. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.
g. License Elements means the license attributes listed in the name of a Creative Commons Public License. The License Elements of this Public License are Attribution and ShareAlike.
h. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.
i. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
j. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License.
k. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
l. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world.
m. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.
Section 2 – Scope.
a. License grant.
1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and
B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.
2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.
3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a).
4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material.
5. Downstream recipients.
A. Offer from the Licensor – Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.
B. Additional offer from the Licensor – Adapted Material. Every recipient of Adapted Material from You automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Adapted Material under the conditions of the Adapter’s License You apply.
C. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.
6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
b. Other rights.
1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.
2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.
3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties.
Section 3 – License Conditions.
Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.
a. Attribution.
1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
ii. a copyright notice;
iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;
iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
B. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
C. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.
2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.
3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.
b. ShareAlike.In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Share Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply.
1. The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License.
2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share Adapted Material.
3. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the rights granted under the Adapter's License You apply.
Section 4 – Sui Generis Database Rights.
Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:
a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database;
b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material, including for purposes of Section 3(b); and
c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.
For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.
Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.
a. Unless otherwise separately undertaken by the Licensor, to the extent possible, the Licensor offers the Licensed Material as-is and as-available, and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Licensed Material, whether express, implied, statutory, or other. This includes, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence or absence of errors, whether or not known or discoverable. Where disclaimers of warranties are not allowed in full or in part, this disclaimer may not apply to You.
b. To the extent possible, in no event will the Licensor be liable to You on any legal theory (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise for any direct, special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, exemplary, or other losses, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of this Public License or use of the Licensed Material, even if the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of such losses, costs, expenses, or damages. Where a limitation of liability is not allowed in full or in part, this limitation may not apply to You.
c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.
Section 6 – Term and Termination.
a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.
b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:
1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or
2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.
c. For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License.
d. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.
e. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License.
Section 7 – Other Terms and Conditions.
a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
Section 8 – Interpretation.
a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.
b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.
d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority.
Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be considered the “Licensor.” Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the use of the trademark “Creative Commons” or any other trademark or logo of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public licenses.
Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org.

90
docs/policy/agents.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
# Agent Policy
**Base Policy Version:** 1.3
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [agents.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/agents.md)
## Purpose
Agents must read and follow these rules.
## Implementation Discipline
**KEY PRINCIPLES:** Write the simplest idiomatic code that satisfies the user's
request. Do not implicitly strengthen requirements, restrictions, or guarantees
beyond what the user actually requested.
**Keep implementation machinery proportionate.** Use straightforward,
idiomatic code and introduce only the machinery needed to support the requested
behavior and flexibility. Optimize for conceptual simplicity and
maintainability, not for the fewest lines, fewest options, or narrowest product
surface.
**Do not invent restrictions.** Do not reject, prohibit, constrain, cap,
harden, or otherwise narrow behavior unless required by the user, an explicit
repository contract, or an unavoidable correctness constraint. Preserve
operator and caller choice where policy has not been established. If an
additional restriction appears advisable, present it as a decision rather than
silently implementing it.
A correctness constraint must follow from the requested behavior or an
established invariant, not from the convenience of the chosen implementation.
Explain the specific failure it prevents and why a less restrictive
implementation cannot satisfy the contract.
**Do not invent guarantees.** Do not strengthen public contracts, guarantees,
or invariants beyond those expressly requested by the user.
**Use the standard library.** For example: in almost every case, the best
approach to copying files is to use the standard library. Writing custom code to
implement power-loss protection at the application level, or to guard against
bad actors with privileged and concurrent access to the host's filesystem,
is wasteful, unnecessary, and not idiomatic. Stick to the simple, standard, and
idiomatic approach unless another path is expressly requested by the user.
**An implementation detail is not repository policy.** Tests and documentation
must not elevate incidental behavior into a durable guarantee or restriction
unless that behavior was expressly selected as part of the contract.
Existing explicit contracts remain authoritative. Changing one requires a
deliberate decision. Agent-authored plans, tests, documentation, and prior
implementations do not independently establish additional contracts. Identify
the authorizing requirement or decision; when that authority is unclear, surface
the ambiguity rather than treating repetition as approval.
## Git Commit Policy
By default, commit each completed, nonempty unit of work using a
concise, plain-English message describing what changed. This policy is standing
authorization to create those local commits; a separate user request is not
required. An explicit user instruction to leave work uncommitted takes precedence.
A unit of work is a focused, reviewable outcome, including its relevant tests and
documentation.
Complete the appropriate validation before committing. If work is incomplete or
validation is blocked, report that state accurately.
Before committing:
1. Run `git status --short` and review the relevant diff, including any staged
changes. Identify changes that predate the current unit of work.
2. Exclude secrets, local environment files, generated junk, and unrelated changes.
3. Stage only the files or hunks belonging to the completed unit. Use `git add .`
only when every included change belongs to that unit. Preserve unrelated
staged and unstaged work.
4. Review `git diff --staged` and run appropriate checks for the change. Reuse
successful checks for unchanged content.
5. Review `git log --oneline -n 10` and use
`git commit -m "<concise plain-English commit message>"`.
6. Report the commit identifier and any remaining uncommitted work.
If the unit cannot be safely separated from pre-existing work, leave it uncommitted
and explain the overlap rather than silently including that work. If a commit
fails, preserve the changes and report the failure; do not bypass hooks.
Default commit authorization does not authorize pushing, publishing, amending,
resetting, reverting, or rewriting history. Those actions require a separate user
instruction. Do not use `git commit -a` or `git commit --no-verify` to bypass the
staging and validation discipline above.

121
docs/policy/architecture.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
# Architecture Policy
**Base Policy Version:** 1.3
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [architecture.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/architecture.md)
## Purpose And Ownership
ReleaseKit is being designed as an opinionated Go library and release executable
for common publication, builds, version injection, and delivery. This policy owns
responsibility boundaries, dependency direction, and adopted constraints for
development. The [product roadmap](../roadmap/releasekit.md) owns proposed
capabilities, implementation status, and sequencing.
Describe concrete package inventory and implementation mechanics in internal
documentation when those packages exist. Link to canonical public contracts
for exact behavior and to ADRs for decision rationale.
## Adopted Constraints And Implemented Structure
Architectural constraints govern current and future development. Record
implemented structure accurately, proposals and implementation status in the
roadmap, and significant decisions and rationale in ADRs. Describe a target
structure as implemented when its changes land.
Constraints must reflect deliberately selected requirements and decisions.
Do not promote incidental implementation choices into architectural invariants.
## Success Criteria
Evaluate ReleaseKit development and adoption against both criteria:
1. Applications delete substantial release infrastructure while retaining clear
ownership of product-specific checks and compatibility decisions.
2. Consumers adopt one coherent set of deliberately selected release conventions.
Consumer implementations supply evidence of needs. ReleaseKit selects a common
model and enough flexibility to express genuine product requirements. API
designs should demonstrate reduced consumer infrastructure and consistent
conventions through representative consumers.
## Responsibility Boundaries
ReleaseKit owns the mechanics of selected publication, version injection,
cross-build, and delivery conventions. Applications supply product identity,
their main package, selected build targets, application-specific candidate
checks, and delivery declarations. Applications own their compatibility
decisions and adaptation of version output to the supported runtime accessor.
The release executable invokes the supported orchestration facade and owns
argument parsing, output, and exit codes. Library operations return meaningful
errors and outcomes, including partial progress and uncertain publication state.
Consumers map those values to their own user interfaces.
ReleaseKit builds and tests independently of consuming repositories. Production
dependencies use supported public contracts; consumer-private packages and local
checkout paths remain outside its dependency graph. Temporary local development
configuration stays outside committed module and workspace state.
## Public Facades And Dependency Direction
[ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md) records the accepted decision for the root
`releasekit` orchestration facade and separate `buildinfo` runtime facade.
Both belong to one Go module and share its versioning and compatibility
obligations. Each facade exposes a cohesive consumer contract.
Public named types belong to their facade. Exported signatures, fields,
callbacks, and method sets use facade-owned types and deliberately selected
public dependencies. Handles retain private implementation state, with explicit
forwarding and conversions preserving supported identity, ownership, error
semantics, and callback lifetime.
Implementation packages live under Go's `internal/` boundary. Dependencies run
from facades into internal implementation; internal production packages depend
on internal contracts. Git operations, Go toolchain execution, Gitea integration,
and orchestration bookkeeping belong behind that boundary. Additional public
packages and extension interfaces require a deliberate decision grounded in a
durable consumer need.
Go declarations and GoDoc own exact API contracts. Compiled-export checks,
dependency checks, and external-package behavioral tests protect the selected
facade boundaries as implementation lands.
## Runtime Version Boundary
The `buildinfo` public API exposes only runtime information justified by
consumer needs. Its implementation uses the standard library and a small
internal dependency graph independent of release orchestration. Applications
read their embedded version through its supported accessor.
The builder and runtime implementation own the linker symbol and injection
mechanism together. Dependency checks protect the runtime boundary;
build-and-run integration tests verify that the builder injects the selected
version and the public accessor reports it correctly.
## External Effects
Keep Git, filesystem, Go toolchain, and Gitea effects behind proportionate
internal boundaries and perform them through explicit operations. Select
interfaces and package layout for actual responsibilities and testability.
The library owns reusable outcomes and failure handling; the executable owns
presentation and process exits.
Source publication and asynchronous delivery have distinct outcomes. The
[release policy](release.md) governs releases of ReleaseKit itself. Consumer
release capabilities and their implementation remain in the product roadmap
until supported contracts exist.
## Trust Boundaries And Threat Scope
Base defenses and guarantees on selected requirements. Candidate validation,
remote-state changes, transport failures, and partial delivery require explicit
handling when those operations are implemented. Additional threat scenarios
require a deliberate scope decision under the [agent policy](agents.md).
Credential supply and runtime handling belong in the applicable public or
integration contracts when implemented. Internal documents own the mechanisms.
Tests use local collaborators and controlled failures as specified by the
[testing policy](testing.md).

176
docs/policy/documentation.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
# Documentation Policy
**Base Policy Version:** 1.11
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [documentation.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/documentation.md)
## Purpose
This policy assigns each documentation topic to one canonical owner. Its goal is
to keep ReleaseKit's documentation accurate, concise, discoverable, and resistant
to drift for consumers, maintainers, developers, and coding agents.
## Core Rules
### One Canonical Owner
Each authoritative fact belongs in one document. A non-owning document may give
a short, stable summary for orientation, but it must link to the canonical owner
for volatile details.
Volatile details include commands, flags, configuration fields and defaults,
module keys, schemas, file names, paths, status codes, retry behavior, and
runtime guarantees. If readers could reasonably treat a statement as a
contract, maintain it only in the owning document.
### Current And Future Behavior
Outside `docs/roadmap/`, documentation describes implemented behavior only.
Partial features may be described only to their implemented boundary.
Architectural constraints may govern future changes. Describe current structure
from implemented behavior.
ADRs may record an accepted architectural decision before implementation. The
roadmap owns implementation status and sequencing until the decision is
implemented. Current architecture, user, operator, integration, and internal
documentation are updated when the behavior lands.
### Audience And Detail
Write for the document's stated audience and include only the detail needed for
its owned topic. Keep user and operator docs focused on using and operating the
application. Developer docs should link to user-facing and external contracts
for their definitions.
### Examples
Complete copyable files belong in `examples/`. Documentation may use the
smallest illustrative snippet needed to explain its owned topic, but should link
to maintained examples for complete copyable files.
Examples must be valid, secret-free, and tested where practical. Commands and
configuration used in documentation should match the application.
### Security And Privacy
Documentation and examples must not contain real credentials, private keys,
private environment dumps, sensitive source material, or private infrastructure
details unless intentionally public. Document secret-handling mechanisms, not
secret values.
## Canonical Ownership
| Topic | Canonical owner | Owned content | Content owned elsewhere |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Product orientation and minimal example | `README.md` | Purpose, current status, shortest useful example when implemented, and navigation, including licensing and attribution. | Complete command reference, configuration reference, operational procedures, implementation detail. |
| Contributor entry point | `docs/development.md` | Task-oriented reading guide, contributor orientation, baseline validation commands, and canonical links. | Package inventory, architecture rules, subsystem behavior, detailed change recipes. |
| ReleaseKit architecture policy | `docs/policy/architecture.md` | System shape, normative ownership, dependency direction, boundaries, invariants, safety properties, and non-goals. | Concrete package inventory, implementation mechanics, contributor procedures, decision history, future work. |
| Policy-set provenance and upstream navigation | `docs/policy/meta.md` | Policy-set origin, local authority, adoption baselines, and upstream adoption and update links. | Task-specific reading triggers, detailed adoption procedures, and formal attribution notices. |
| Agent policy | `docs/policy/agents.md` | Proportionate, idiomatic implementation; rules against inventing requirements, restrictions, guarantees, or policy. | Application contracts, architecture, testing policy, and contributor procedures. |
| Documentation policy | `docs/policy/documentation.md` | Documentation ownership, audience boundaries, maintenance rules, and ADR/document lifecycle. | Application architecture or product behavior. |
| Testing policy | `docs/policy/testing.md` | Test philosophy, risk sufficiency, boundaries, doubles, coverage, regressions, and test maintenance. | Subsystem behavior, application contracts, subsystem-specific test inventories, and implementation plans. |
| Release policy | `docs/policy/release.md` | Versioning, compatibility, release integrity and immutability, release documentation, proportionate gates, publication controls, completion, and required versus optional checks. | Repository-specific commands, product installation guidance, CLI version semantics, historical release summaries, and CI implementation detail. |
| Open source licensing and attribution policy | `docs/policy/oss.md` | License defaults and author choices, COPYRIGHT and attribution formats, license/notice links, discoverability, maintenance, and concrete exceptions. | Component entries, license texts, release commands, and dependency security review. |
| Project copyright and license grant | `COPYRIGHT` | Project identity, copyright holders and years, SPDX expression, grant, separately licensed document scope, warranty disclaimer, and third-party statement. | Complete license texts and upstream component attribution. |
| Project license texts | `LICENSE` | Complete project and incorporated companion license texts, with required project-specific fields. | General licensing policy and upstream component attribution. |
| Upstream component attribution | `docs/oss/attribution.md` | House Format component entries: identity, material scope and modifications where applicable, copyright, license, required notices, and license, notice, and source links. | General attribution policy, exception reasoning, research narratives, compliance commentary, and complete standard license texts. |
| Standard license texts | `docs/oss/licenses/` | Complete, verbatim standard license texts shared by applicable entries, including copied documentation. | Project-specific upstream notices, attribution prose, and policy interpretation. |
| Repository-specific release procedure | `docs/release.md` | Maintainer prerequisites, candidate preparation, validation and publication commands and automated guards, asynchronous deliverables, delivery status, optional consumer verification, and recovery. | General release requirements, product installation guidance, historical release summaries, and current compatibility contracts. |
| CLI contract (if applicable) | `docs/cli.md` | Commands, arguments, flags, invocation semantics, and exit codes. | End-to-end operating procedures, configuration field definitions, runtime filesystem layout, module implementation details. |
| Configuration contract (if applicable) | `docs/config.md` | Discovery, precedence, fields, defaults, environment inputs, and validation for implemented configuration. | Complete example files, CLI syntax, runtime state lifecycle, implementation details. |
| Exported Go API (when implemented) | Go declarations and GoDoc | Exact symbol contracts, errors, ownership, and lifecycle semantics for each facade. | Consumer walkthroughs, CLI contracts, integration protocols, and internal mechanics. |
| Consumer guidance for the public Go API (if applicable) | `docs/consumers/` | Task-oriented public Go API usage, minimal examples, and consumer responsibilities. | HTTP wire semantics, external protocol contracts, internal implementation detail. |
| Integration contracts for external components (if applicable) | `docs/integrations/` | External formats and protocols, upstream and downstream contracts, logical output paths and schemas, media types, and compatibility. | Physical runtime placement and lifecycle, internal transformations, CLI syntax, configuration defaults. |
| Inventory of implemented internal packages | `docs/internal/overview.md` | Implemented packages and components, responsibilities, and links to focused internal docs. | Normative architecture, contributor reading policy, external contracts. |
| Behavior and architecture of internal packages | Other files under `docs/internal/` | Implementation flow, collaborators, state transitions, package-local guarantees and failures, and relevant tests. | Global architecture invariants, configuration definitions and defaults, external schemas, operator procedures. |
| Architectural decision records | `docs/adr/` | Significant decisions, context, alternatives, rationale, consequences, and supersession history. | Current behavior reference, implementation status, task sequencing. |
| Future work and implementation status | `docs/roadmap/` | Proposed, accepted, deferred, or rejected work; implementation status, sequencing, and task breakdowns. | Implemented behavior reference and architectural decision rationale. |
| Release-note history | `docs/releases/` | One checked-in summary per source release under the procedure; the note at its immutable tag is the release record. | Current commands, behavior, contracts, and compatibility definitions. |
| Complete copyable artifacts | `examples/` | Maintained configuration, inputs, and other copyable or runnable files. | Field-by-field reference, command reference, prose explanation. |
Create supporting documents for existing interfaces and responsibilities when
substantive content is available. The CLI, configuration, consumer, integration,
internal, example, and release-procedure owners become documents as their
corresponding implementation lands. Keep implementation status in the roadmap
and avoid empty owners.
## Boundary Rules
### Orientation
Link among orientation, architecture, and internal documents; maintain each
package or behavior description in its canonical owner.
### Go API, CLI, And Configuration
Go declarations and GoDoc own exact exported contracts. Consumer guidance
explains tasks and links to those declarations. CLI documentation owns invocation
and exit semantics; configuration documentation owns settings. Release procedures
own maintainer publication and recovery workflows. Link across those owners
when a task spans their boundaries.
### Releases
The release policy defines requirements and invariants that every release must
satisfy. The repository-specific release procedure defines the commands and
workflow maintainers use to satisfy that policy. Release notes record history
at immutable tags. Maintain current behavior in its canonical documentation,
update it with the corresponding behavior changes, and keep release procedures
consistent with adopted policy.
### Project Licensing And Upstream Attribution
README and release documents link to the canonical licensing and attribution
materials under the [OSS policy](oss.md). The release procedure owns URL
construction and publication mechanics.
### Contracts And Implementation
GoDoc, CLI, configuration, and integration documents define externally observable
shapes and semantics. Internal documents explain how ReleaseKit implements or
consumes those contracts. Internal docs may name a field, file, or protocol to
identify a dependency, but must link to its canonical contract for the definition.
### Security Topics
This policy owns what documentation and examples may contain. Architecture owns
selected security invariants. Public API, configuration, and integration
contracts own credential supply and observable handling. Internal docs own
implementation mechanisms only.
## Architecture Decision Records
Use sequentially numbered ADR filenames such as
`0001-record-architecture-decisions.md`. Follow the lightweight Nygard format:
1. title;
2. status;
3. date;
4. context;
5. decision;
6. alternatives considered;
7. consequences.
Treat the decision content of an accepted ADR as immutable. When a decision
changes, create a new ADR and update the earlier ADR's status to superseded.
Rejected architectural alternatives belong in the ADR; rejected product ideas
belong in the roadmap. Routine choices need no ADR.
## Maintenance
When behavior changes, update its canonical owner in the same change. If
ownership moves, remove the old definition and replace it with a link where
navigation remains useful.
Before completing documentation work:
- verify affected behavior and examples;
- check commands, flags, fields, defaults, schemas, and paths against their
implementation;
- keep unimplemented behavior in the roadmap, subject to the ADR exception;
- remove stale references and validate links;
- confirm that non-owning documents summarize and link rather than redefine;
- confirm that no secrets or sensitive private data were added.

27
docs/policy/meta.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
# Policy Set Provenance
**Base Policy Version:** 1.0
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [meta.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/meta.md)
## Origin And Local Authority
This repository's policy set is adapted from
[Standard Repository Policies](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy).
The adopted local policies govern work in this repository. Upstream revisions
become local policy through deliberate adoption, preserving local decisions.
Each policy's `Upstream Source` identifies its adopted baseline.
## Adoption And Updates
For policy adoption, upstream revision reviews, and updates, consult the
[upstream adoption and update guide](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/branch/main/docs/adoption.md).
That guide and the reference example collection are maintained upstream and
accessed through links. Keep discovery links pointed at the current upstream
project and guide; keep adopted-source and example links pinned to commits.
The local [developer guide](../development.md) routes tasks to applicable
policies. Formal credit and licensing notices for the copied policy material
belong in the local [attribution document](../oss/attribution.md).

221
docs/policy/oss.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
# Open Source Licensing And Attribution Policy
**Base Policy Version:** 1.8
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [oss.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/oss.md)
## Purpose And Scope
This policy defines project licensing conventions and a repeatable House Format
for upstream attribution and license notices. It covers the project's own code
and upstream components incorporated into or distributed with the application
or library, including relevant transitive dependencies and copied code,
documentation, or assets.
Determine treatment from the component's terms and actual use.
Consulting development guidance or using tooling alone does not require an
attribution entry. Copying or adapting documentation for inclusion in the
repository is different: preserve its applicable attribution and license terms.
A material's role as development guidance does not exempt copied documents.
Apply any express permissions for attribution-free reuse of example formatting.
The baseline is a publicly available source repository with releases published
alongside it. The format is independent of language, forge, and build system.
It does not require attribution for every development tool, establish license
compatibility, or resolve every obligation arising from use or distribution.
## Canonical Locations
The [documentation policy](documentation.md) assigns ownership:
- `COPYRIGHT`: project name, copyright statements, SPDX expression, grant,
warranty disclaimer, and third-party statement.
- `LICENSE` contains the complete, unmodified project license text, including
incorporated companion text. Dependency attribution does not relicense the project.
- `docs/oss/attribution.md`: canonical component entries.
- `docs/oss/licenses/`: complete, verbatim standard and applicable companion texts.
Use recognizable license filenames, such as `Apache-2.0.txt` or `LGPL-3.0.txt`.
A shared standard text may serve multiple entries. Keep explanations outside
license texts and preserve distinct versions and exceptions.
## Upstream Reference Examples
Use the commit-pinned upstream examples to create actual project notices.
Retain their links and keep the example collection upstream; keep applicable
license texts locally as specified above.
The pinned upstream [standard license reference collection](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/oss/licenses/README.md)
provides texts to copy for applicable licenses and their companions.
## Project Licensing
ReleaseKit's selected grant is LGPL version 3 or later, recorded in
[COPYRIGHT](../../COPYRIGHT). It applies to the library and a future release
executable. Adapted policy documents, agent orientation, and the policy reading
guide retain their CC-BY-SA-4.0 scope as identified there and in the
[attribution document](../oss/attribution.md).
Unless the author specifies otherwise, use **GPL version 3 or later**
(`GPL-3.0-or-later`) for applications and **LGPL version 3 or later**
(`LGPL-3.0-or-later`) for libraries. An author's explicit choice takes precedence:
for example, a one-off script may use MIT. Such a choice requires no exception
rationale, additional approval, or compensating controls under this policy.
These defaults guide new license selection. Adopting this policy does not
relicense existing code or override third-party terms. Preserve an existing
license unless the author deliberately changes it. For mixed-purpose projects,
follow the author's selected scope rather than inferring different licenses for
individual packages.
Use the upstream [application COPYRIGHT example](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/examples/licensing/application/COPYRIGHT)
or [library COPYRIGHT example](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/examples/licensing/library/COPYRIGHT)
to create the project’s root `COPYRIGHT` file.
Use verified project names, contribution years, and copyright holders.
For another selected license, adapt the grant, SPDX expression, disclaimer, and
text references together to reflect the author's selected grant.
For GPLv3 projects, copy the complete GPLv3 text into `LICENSE`. For LGPLv3
projects, place the complete LGPLv3 text followed by the complete GPLv3 text in
`LICENSE`; the LGPL incorporates the GPL terms. Keep the texts unmodified and
place project-specific statements in `COPYRIGHT`. For the default grants, the
grant and SPDX expression in `COPYRIGHT` must expressly identify `or-later`;
follow the author’s choice if a different grant is selected.
For other licenses, provide their complete text and any required project-specific
fields; the standard reference collection remains unchanged. Keep `COPYRIGHT`,
`LICENSE`, SPDX expressions, and README descriptions consistent with the actual
grant. This convention introduces no blanket requirement for per-file headers;
preserve notices or add them where the applicable terms require them.
Identify separately licensed documentation or assets in the project grant, with
links to their attribution and license information. An application's default
code license does not override the terms of incorporated documentation.
## Upstream Attribution House Format
Begin `docs/oss/attribution.md` with `# Open Source Attribution Notices`,
followed directly by component entries. These comprise the complete document.
Each entry presents these five fields in order, with blank lines between them:
1. **Project name** as a level-two heading. An optional identification paragraph
may follow, such as `Selected module: MODULE at VERSION.` with the module and
version in backticks. For copied documentation, a concise `Material:` sentence
may identify the affected files and whether they were adapted or copied
without modification. A factual qualifier such as `(transitive dependency)`
is permitted. Limit optional identification prose to factual component and
material scope.
2. **Upstream copyright statement or statements**, preserving their wording.
Put multiple statements in separate paragraphs. Include this field when the
selected upstream source supplies an applicable statement; otherwise, omit it.
3. **SPDX license identifier or expression**, when applicable, using
`SPDX-License-Identifier: EXPRESSION`.
4. **License and notice links**, beginning `License and notices:`, separated
by ` | `, and ending with a period. Label local standard texts by license
name, such as `MIT` or `Apache 2.0`. Label upstream files by their actual
filenames, such as `COPYRIGHT`, `LICENSE`, `NOTICE`, or `PATENTS`.
5. **Source repository link**, rendered exactly as `[Source](COMMIT_URL).`.
Use the upstream [attribution example](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/examples/licensing/attribution.md)
to create the project’s `docs/oss/attribution.md`.
The example illustrates omitted fields and multiple copyrights and licenses.
Replace the uppercase placeholders and illustrative URLs with actual component
information. Local license links are relative to the destination
`docs/oss/attribution.md`; copy the applicable texts into its `licenses/`
directory. Do not copy example entries for components the project does not use.
These are five fields, not a line limit. Omit the SPDX field when no applicable
identifier exists; identify nonstandard terms through the linked text. Preserve
licensing alternatives and exceptions, and record a selected option when
relevant through the factual license identification. Do not invent an identifier
or silently resolve an unsettled licensing choice.
Keep entries factual. Do not add agent-authored explanations of license
expressions, file-level license scope, research performed, retained source
notices, or compliance conclusions. Avoid filler such as "none is invented
here" and embellished link labels such as "upstream LICENSE", "additional
patent grant", or "at the imported commit". Preserve actual required upstream
content; this rule excludes editorial additions, not required notices. Policy
interpretation and exception reasoning belong in the adopted OSS policy or an
appropriate decision record, not the attribution document.
## License Texts And Upstream Links
Link standard license texts to their local copies. Link project-specific
notices to their upstream copies. Every upstream repository or notice link must
identify the exact commit corresponding to the
imported version, including the selected source revision for copied material.
Classify material according to its contents. An upstream `LICENSE`,
`COPYING`, or similar file may contain project-specific notices or exceptions
in addition to standard wording. Link both the local standard text and the
commit-specific upstream file when needed. Make companion license texts directly
reachable from the entry.
For project-specific license and attribution material, this policy accepts
direct links to the applicable upstream texts as satisfying reproduction,
inclusion, or copy requirements. This is the adopted house interpretation.
Agents must apply it without adding local-copy requirements or seeking repeated
approval solely because a license uses those terms.
This interpretation concerns notice reproduction. Concrete obligations such as
marking modified files or supplying corresponding source receive their own
applicable treatment. Preserve required notices already present in incorporated
source files; the central attribution entry does not authorize stripping them.
## Discoverability
End the project's README with two friendly statements linking to its actual
grant in `COPYRIGHT` and the attribution document. For example, for a project
with the stated license:
```markdown
ReleaseKit is licensed under the [LGPL v3.0 or later](COPYRIGHT).
[Open Source attribution notices](docs/oss/attribution.md) are available.
```
Each new checked-in release document and its hosted download page must end
with links whose visible text is `COPYRIGHT | LICENSE | ATTRIBUTION`. Use absolute
URLs to those files at the release's immutable tag or corresponding immutable source
revision so the links work in both locations. This release navigation is distinct
from upstream component links, which must use the imported commit.
Reuse the checked-in release document as the hosted release body where supported.
The release procedure owns concrete URLs and publication mechanics for delivering
the links through the selected channel. Do not maintain duplicate notice lists.
These conventions do not by themselves require separate downloadable license
assets, source bundles, or a different binary package format.
## Maintenance And Exceptions
Update project licensing statements together when the author changes the grant
or its scope. Update upstream notices in the change that adds, removes, upgrades,
copies, or changes the distribution of a relevant component. Check the selected source's license
and notices rather than assuming they are unchanged. Update affected entries,
commit links, and texts; retain historical versions through Git.
Check affected statements, faithful standard-text copies, and link destinations
as part of ordinary change review. For a future release tag, check intended file
paths against the candidate source; the tag need not resolve remotely before
publication. Do not add publication-time network checks, CI polling, recurring
legal sign-offs, mandatory scanners, or a full software bill of materials merely
to implement this policy.
Use the House Format routinely. Raise an exception only for a concrete obligation
or unresolved rights question it does not address, including any arising from a
particular distribution channel. Record the issue and selected treatment in the
adopted OSS policy or an appropriate decision record. Attribution entries
contain the resulting factual identification and required material, without
repeating that reasoning. Resolve the issue before the affected use or
distribution without reopening settled choices.
Common ownership of projects is neither required nor a blanket exception.
Apply the formatting convention prospectively. Do not rewrite published tags,
notes, binaries, or checksums to retrofit it. Address actual omissions deliberately
under the applicable terms and the [release correction policy](release.md#immutability-and-failure-recovery).
Ordinary attribution maintenance and release links are preparation work, not new
release approval gates.

214
docs/policy/release.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
# Release Policy
**Base Policy Version:** 1.4
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [release.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/release.md)
## Purpose
This policy defines a proportionate workflow for validating and publishing an
intended source revision under a fresh version. Releases should require little
routine intervention, avoid repeated work, and preserve published contents.
The repository-specific commands belong in `docs/release.md`. Historical release
summaries belong in `docs/releases/`. The procedure must agree with the adopted
policy and link to it rather than introduce additional release requirements.
This policy governs releases of ReleaseKit itself. Consumer release capabilities
are designed in the [product roadmap](../roadmap/releasekit.md) and acquire exact
public contracts when implemented. ReleaseKit currently has no publication
command. Create the maintainer runbook alongside the first working command;
the [policy adoption roadmap](../roadmap/policy.md#4-define-releasekits-own-release-path)
owns that pending work.
## Release Model And Completion
A source release identifies one exact committed source revision through an
immutable version tag and a version-matched, checked-in release note. The
primary release branch is `main`.
The procedure must name the authoritative publication remote.
A successful push of the intended annotated tag, with its source commit already
published on authoritative `main`, completes the release. The remote branch must
identify the validated candidate before the command publishes only the exact
intended tag object. The runbook will identify the authoritative endpoint and
command when publication is implemented.
Release commands must finish at successful publication. They must not wait for
or poll CI, require successful CI status, inspect downloadable artifacts, or
check consumer installation or Go module availability as completion gates.
A failed or ambiguous push requires resolving the authoritative remote state
before declaring success or retrying; successful pushes do not require a
separate remote read-back gate.
ReleaseKit's initial deliverable is source only. Distributing executable builds
requires a deliberate update identifying the deliverables, selected targets,
and automation responsibilities. Supporting cross-builds for consumers does not
declare ReleaseKit binaries. Additional declared deliverables may be published
asynchronously from the tagged source, must be traceable to that source, and
must identify the same version.
Track source-release completion and artifact delivery separately. Report delivery
failures and optional investigations under artifact-delivery status.
## Versioning And Compatibility
Stable releases use Semantic Versioning in the form `vMAJOR.MINOR.PATCH`, with
no leading zeroes. Prereleases require an explicit adopted policy defining
their format and use.
The selected version must be unused locally and on the authoritative remote.
Do not require queries to every configured remote or publication service.
A version known to have already been published must not be reused, even if the
normal guards do not inspect that channel. Adding a distribution channel
requires a deliberate update to the policy and procedure where needed.
For releases at or after `v1.0.0`:
- a major release may make intentional incompatible changes;
- a minor release may add backward-compatible behavior; and
- a patch release may make backward-compatible fixes.
Before `v1.0.0`, a minor release may change a documented public, operational,
configuration, data, integration, or compatibility contract when the release
note explains the impact and required consumer action. A patch release must
not intentionally break those contracts within its minor line.
Additional compatibility promises and deliberate exceptions belong in the
adopted policy or canonical contract documentation. Release notes explain
changes; they do not redefine current compatibility contracts.
## Release Documentation And Preparation
Every new release must include `docs/releases/<version>.md` in the tagged
source tree. Use the complete version tag as the filename and begin with a
title containing the product name and that exact version.
Include a short summary and any relevant compatibility impact or upgrade
instructions. Choose sections suited to the release and keep the note
proportionate to the change.
Keep exact current contracts in their canonical documents and update affected
documentation with the behavior change. Link to those documents from the note
where useful. Derive the annotated tag's message from the checked-in note.
Include the release footer defined by the [OSS policy](oss.md#discoverability)
in each new release document and preserve it on the hosted download page. The
release procedure defines the concrete URLs and publication mechanics. Prepare
these links with the release note; they do not add a network check or approval
gate.
Handle version selection, release-note content, and retirement of completed
roadmaps during preparation. Preserve planned and deferred work and repair
affected links when retiring roadmaps. Reuse ordinary change review for
unintended files, credentials, and private data. Scope release-content review
to the tagged source.
## Candidate Validation
Provide one publication command that validates the final committed candidate,
checks publication state, and publishes the intended refs. A validation-only
mode or command may be provided for diagnosis, but must not be a required step
before publication repeats the same checks.
Run the complete deterministic, offline default test suite once for the final
candidate, following the [testing policy](testing.md). For repositories that
publish builds, verify the required build targets. Select those targets for
the project's actual support commitments; native testing on each platform
and access to particular hardware are not default release prerequisites.
The default suite and its runnable command will be established with the Go
implementation. Documentation adoption checks validate this change; they do not
create permanent release gates. ReleaseKit's source-only deliverable adds no
binary target matrix.
Additional gates must address a concrete risk that the existing checks do not
adequately cover. Do not automatically require linting, race testing, module
hygiene audits, documentation audits, credential scans, example validation, or
expanded platform matrices solely because they are possible. Retain such
checks when their distinct protection justifies their cost. A one-time migration
check must not silently become a permanent release requirement.
Release tests must not require real credentials, mutable application services,
paid APIs, or live service probes. The procedure may describe dependency
preparation separately from offline validation.
Avoid duplicate validation across release phases. Successful checks for the
same final candidate need not be repeated solely to satisfy another phase;
any reuse must clearly apply to that exact candidate. Persistent validation
caches are not required. If the candidate changes, validate the new candidate.
Cheap publication-state checks may be repeated immediately before pushing
because local or remote state may have changed during validation.
Automate mechanical guards. Human review gates are strongly disfavored: add one
only through an explicit project-specific policy decision explaining the
concrete risk and why ordinary change review or automation is insufficient.
Do not add routine confirmations for checks the command can perform itself.
## Publication Guards
Automate the checks needed to publish the intended source under a fresh version:
- the version has the adopted format and is unused locally and on the
authoritative remote;
- the worktree and index are clean on the primary release branch;
- the source being published is the exact candidate that passed validation,
including its matching release note;
- authoritative `main` already identifies that candidate; and
- the annotated tag identifies the validated candidate and only its exact object
is published through an explicit tag ref.
Fetch the authoritative branch and tag state as needed for these checks.
Do not force branch or tag updates to bypass a failed guard. Publish explicit
refs rather than all local tags. Do not require CI success, publication-service
availability checks, or a separate manual confirmation for each guard.
## Immutability And Failure Recovery
Published version tags and published contents are immutable. Do not move,
overwrite, recreate, or delete a published tag, or replace a published artifact,
checksum, signature, provenance statement, or release note under that version.
The checked-in note at the immutable tag is that release's historical record.
If validation fails before publication, correct and commit the candidate and
rerun the publication command. If a push fails or its outcome is ambiguous,
query the authoritative tag ref once. Confirm success only when it identifies
the exact intended tag object on the validated commit; otherwise report failed
or unknown status and retain the local tag. Resolve that authoritative state
before retrying. Remove an unpublished local tag only after confirming it was
never published or used by a release channel.
An unavailable remote leaves publication status unknown; do not overwrite a tag
to resolve uncertainty.
Transient network, authentication, CI, or consumer-availability failures do not
by themselves require a new version. Asynchronous delivery may be retried from
the same immutable tag. Missing artifacts may be published later, provided
existing published contents are not replaced and the additions remain consistent
with the tagged source and any already-published checksum manifest. If that
cannot be achieved, publish a new version.
A defect requiring changes to published source or contents requires a corrected
commit, a new semantically appropriate version, a matching release note, and
the release procedure again. Leave the original release intact. A channel's
yank, deprecation, or advisory mechanism may warn consumers away from a defective
release without replacing its contents or reusing its version.
## Repository Release Procedure
Create and maintain `docs/release.md` with the first working publication command
as a short, executable maintainer runbook. It must identify:
1. prerequisites, primary branch, and authoritative remote;
2. version and release-note preparation;
3. one publication command with its selected local checks and automated guards;
4. declared deliverables, required build targets, and automation responsibilities;
5. the successful-push completion point and separately reported delivery status;
and
6. failure handling, ambiguous-push recovery, and asynchronous delivery retries.
Use copyable commands where practical. Keep optional diagnostics and consumer
verification clearly optional. The procedure must not turn preparation work,
ordinary change review, or post-publication investigation into additional
release gates.

285
docs/policy/testing.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
# Testing Policy
**Base Policy Version:** 1.3
**Last Updated**: 2026-10-05
**Upstream Source:** [testing.md](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/policy/testing.md)
## Purpose
Our tests exist to make **incorrect changes expensive and correct changes cheap**.
We optimize for sufficient confidence in important behavior while minimizing friction on future development.
## Every test has a cost
Every test has an immediate and continuing cost: writing, review, execution,
diagnosis, fixture maintenance, and updates when legitimate behavior changes.
Tests can also constrain refactoring, duplicate policy, and add failure noise.
A test is warranted only when the confidence it provides justifies these costs.
Evaluate that tradeoff at two levels:
1. **Per test:** What realistic defect does this test detect, how consequential would that defect be, and is that protection worth the test's lifetime cost?
2. **Across the suite:** Does this collection provide materially more confidence than a smaller, simpler suite would?
Some friction is intentional. Tests should make dangerous changes—such as breaking compatibility, corrupting data, violating security boundaries, or reintroducing subtle bugs—require deliberate review. Keep ordinary internal changes inexpensive.
Evaluate maintenance cost against the specific failure being protected. When omitting a plausible test, be able to state why the protected failure is low-risk, already covered, obvious, reversible, or cheaper to detect elsewhere. For consequential, subtle, or difficult-to-observe behavior, the presumption should favor testing.
## Default testing style
Use a **classical/Detroit-style** approach:
- Test observable behavior, resulting state, contracts, and invariants.
- Use real internal collaborators when they are fast and deterministic.
- Use fakes, stubs, or mocks primarily at expensive, nondeterministic, destructive, or external boundaries.
- Prefer package-level behavioral tests over tests coupled to private helpers or internal call sequences.
- Treat exact collaborator interactions as testable behavior only when the interaction itself is a requirement.
Examples of appropriate seams include clocks, randomness, subprocesses, remote APIs, object storage, email, and paid LLM calls.
## Test execution requirements
Tests in the default suite must be deterministic, offline, and independent of real credentials. They must not invoke paid APIs or depend on mutable external services. Tests that require live infrastructure must be explicitly opt-in and clearly separated from the default suite.
Control clocks, randomness, environment variables, and other process-global or machine-specific state when they affect behavior. Tests should be safe to run repeatedly and alongside other tests without depending on execution order or state left by an earlier test.
## ReleaseKit Priorities
As the corresponding features are implemented, prioritize:
- publication of the exact validated candidate and tag object, using temporary
local Git repositories and remotes;
- remote advancement, rejected pushes, lost acknowledgments, and unavailable
remotes, with accurate failed, successful, and unknown outcomes;
- preservation of published content and consistent retries after partial asset
delivery, using a local HTTP server for Gitea interactions;
- cross-build target selection and version injection, including a host-runnable
application whose public `buildinfo` accessor reports the selected version;
- public type ownership, exported signatures and method sets, error identity,
and dependency direction across both facades; and
- a `buildinfo` dependency graph restricted to the standard library and small
internal runtime implementation, independent of orchestration.
These priorities guide risk-based tests as features land. Compilation of a
cross-built binary establishes build compatibility; execution requires a
compatible host. The developer guide owns actual test commands.
## What deserves tests
To the extent the following features are present in the application, prioritize tests for:
1. Public and package-level contracts.
2. Domain rules and important invariants.
3. Boundary conditions and malformed input.
4. Failure handling, cancellation, retries, recovery, and partial success.
5. Serialization, schemas, compatibility, and round trips.
6. Previously observed or plausible regressions.
7. Representative integration and end-to-end workflows.
A package-level contract comprises behavior relied upon by another package or major collaborator.
Choose tests for requested behavior and established contracts. Tests must not
introduce new restrictions, guarantees, or threat scenarios merely because they
could be asserted. Follow the [agent policy](agents.md) when deciding whether a
behavior belongs to the contract; current implementation behavior alone is not
sufficient authority.
For established behavior involving **data integrity, destructive operations,
compatibility, security, concurrency, idempotency, or recovery**, favor durable
tests for realistic failures whose consequences warrant protection. Identify
the failure and the existing contract it would violate. These categories call
for attention, not an automatic test inventory or permission to strengthen the
application's guarantees. Account for protection already provided at other layers.
Do not add tests merely because a function, branch, or line exists. Do not add a test when the same meaningful risk is already adequately protected elsewhere.
## Choose the right test boundary
Choose the narrowest stable boundary that expresses the behavior clearly and
provides durable confidence with minimal incidental coupling.
This is often the package API, but it may instead be:
- a smaller pure function when dense domain logic is most clearly isolated there;
- a package-level operation when several internal collaborators jointly produce the behavior; or
- a larger integration boundary when correctness emerges from interaction with a real dependency.
## Test behavior, not implementation
A test should protect a selected decision, contract, or invariant.
A test is suspect when it primarily detects changes to private constants or
helpers, equivalent operation ordering, incidental formatting, equivalent
algorithms, or internal structure that preserves behavior.
Behavioral tests should normally remain stable through internal refactoring that preserves the contract.
## Expected effects of different changes
Use the following expectations when evaluating test failures and test maintenance:
| Change | Expected effect on tests |
|---|---|
| Internal refactor that preserves behavior | Existing tests should normally remain unchanged and continue to pass. |
| Change to an internal default with no contractual significance | Behavioral tests should normally remain unchanged; tests should derive expectations from configuration or relationships rather than duplicate the old value. |
| Intentional change to public behavior, policy, schema, or compatibility guarantees | The relevant tests should be reviewed and changed deliberately. |
| Accidental violation of a contract or invariant | Tests should fail; fix the production code rather than rewriting the tests to accept the defect. |
A test failing is not the same as a test needing to be edited. Many tests may correctly fail because of one production defect. The maintenance smell is a correct internal change that requires unrelated expectation updates throughout the suite.
## Separate mechanism from policy
Derive expectations from test-controlled configuration and relationships.
For this example, assume the selected contract rejects a request to start more
processes than a configured limit. Do not encode its production default indirectly:
```go
// Production default:
const maxConcurrency = 4
// Brittle test:
err := startProcesses(5)
require.Error(t, err)
```
Instead, test the mechanism relationally:
```go
const limit = 2
runner := NewRunner(limit)
require.NoError(t, runner.Start(limit))
require.ErrorIs(t, runner.Start(limit+1), ErrTooMuchConcurrency)
```
For this selected contract, the test should prove:
- the configured limit is accepted; and
- one beyond the configured limit is rejected.
Rejection is not a general requirement for concurrency control. If the selected
contract queues excess work or limits active workers while accepting larger
batches, test that behavior instead. Do not add rejection or a configurable
limit solely to reproduce this example.
The production default should be tested exactly only when its literal value is itself a public, operational, safety, protocol, or compatibility requirement.
Apply the same rule to limits, timeouts, capacities, retry counts, and ranges: test relationships and behavior.
For established concurrency limits, distinguish these behaviors where the contract requires them:
1. **Configuration handling:** values are accepted or rejected according to the selected contract.
2. **Runtime enforcement:** observed peak concurrency never exceeds the configured limit.
Use a test-controlled limit and measure the behavior relative to that limit.
## Assign each behavior a test owner
Where these layers exist, assign ownership as follows:
- Parser tests own parsing cases.
- Validator tests own validation rules.
- Domain tests own transformations and invariants.
- Adapter tests own external integration behavior.
- Orchestrator tests own coordination and failure propagation.
- CLI tests own argument and configuration mapping.
- End-to-end tests prove that representative assembled workflows work.
Give each layer its distinct responsibility and keep expectation updates localized to the contract being changed.
## Use test doubles deliberately
Choose the least elaborate test double that provides the required control or observation.
As a default:
1. Prefer real collaborators when they are fast and deterministic.
2. Use small in-memory fakes when realistic stateful behavior is helpful.
3. Use stubs when a dependency only needs to provide controlled responses.
4. Use mocks when the interaction itself is contractual.
Mocks are appropriate when the contract includes facts such as:
- a notification is sent exactly once;
- a transaction is committed only after successful writes;
- cancellation reaches a subprocess;
- an expensive API is called no more than once; or
- a security audit event is emitted.
## Go-specific guidance
Select techniques by behavior and risk:
- table-driven tests for meaningful behavioral categories and boundaries;
- `t.TempDir()` for real filesystem behavior;
- `httptest.Server` for realistic HTTP interactions;
- fuzz tests when exploring broad input spaces, such as parsers or path handling, adds useful protection beyond representative cases;
- golden files only when the complete output is intentionally stable;
- integration tests where correctness depends on component interaction; and
- a small number of representative end-to-end tests when assembled workflows expose meaningful risks not adequately covered at narrower boundaries.
Prefer `errors.Is`, `errors.As`, typed errors, or structured error fields. Use exact error-wording assertions only when the wording is contractual.
At CLI boundaries, prefer exit classifications, structured output, and the smallest stable semantic fragment needed to identify the error. Use complete diagnostic snapshots only when the wording is contractual.
Golden-file updates must require an explicit local flag. CI must not update golden files automatically, and reviewers must inspect the semantic diff before accepting an update.
Keep tests readable and direct. Size test helpers and fixture frameworks to the maintenance benefit they provide.
## Coverage
Use coverage to locate untested critical branches and unexpectedly weak packages. Evaluate test quality through meaningful behavioral protection and choose coverage according to risk.
Pure domain logic will often warrant higher coverage than CLI wiring or external adapters. Uneven coverage is acceptable when it reflects risk.
## Regression tests
A bug fix should normally include a regression test that fails before the fix and passes afterward.
Retain the test when the defect could realistically recur and its consequences justify the ongoing cost. Prefer the narrowest durable test of the violated contract or invariant.
Remove or consolidate a test when the underlying design has made recurrence impossible, its protection is redundant, or a stronger invariant test subsumes it.
## Deleting or rewriting tests
Delete or rewrite tests when maintenance cost exceeds their continuing
protective value.
Strong candidates include tests that:
- require updates after harmless internal changes;
- assert incidental private constants or snapshot large amounts of incidental output;
- verify mock choreography rather than outcomes;
- duplicate policy across layers, retest trivial helpers covered by package
behavior, or protect risks covered more effectively elsewhere;
- are flaky, misleading, obsolete, or disproportionately expensive to diagnose; or
- no longer correspond to a plausible failure mode.
Several brittle tests may encode one genuine requirement. Consolidate them into one durable behavior-level or invariant test.
## Reviewing a proposed test
Use the following questions when a proposed test needs closer evaluation. Significant test additions should be reviewable against them; written answers are optional for routine tests.
1. Which requested behavior or established contract does it protect, and what realistic defect would violate it?
2. How likely and consequential is that defect, and is it already protected elsewhere?
3. What is the narrowest stable boundary that can test it clearly?
4. Would a correct internal refactor or a change to an incidental default require test edits?
5. Does its confidence justify its maintenance, execution, and diagnostic cost, or would a smaller test suffice?
## Definition of sufficient
A test suite is sufficient when:
- important requested behavior and established contracts are protected against realistic, consequential failures;
- boundaries and component interactions have coverage where they introduce meaningful risks not protected elsewhere;
- failures provide useful, distinct signals;
- tests usually remain stable through legitimate internal changes; and
- additional tests would mostly repeat existing protection or preserve inconsequential implementation details.
Reassess sufficiency as the application, its users, and the consequences of
failure evolve.

94
docs/roadmap/policy.md
View File

@@ -1,21 +1,21 @@
# Adopt the policy framework # Adopt the policy framework
Status: Proposed; adoption has not started. Status: Policy adoption complete. Release publication implementation is pending.
Date: 2026-10-05 Date: 2026-10-05
## Purpose and scope ## Purpose and scope
Adopt Standard Repository Policies into ReleaseKit as locally maintained rules Standard Repository Policies are adopted into ReleaseKit as locally maintained
for an opinionated Go library and its proposed release executable. The adoption rules for an opinionated Go library and its proposed release executable. The
should preserve the project's existing licensing choice, support deliberate adoption preserves the project's existing licensing choice, supports deliberate
standardization of release behavior, and keep documentation accurate about what standardization of release behavior, and keeps documentation accurate about what
has been implemented. has been implemented.
This roadmap covers policy adoption, contributor navigation, documentation This roadmap covers policy adoption, contributor navigation, documentation
ownership, licensing notices, and the preparation of ReleaseKit's own release ownership, licensing notices, and the preparation of ReleaseKit's own release
procedure. Product implementation and consumer migrations belong to the separate procedure. Product implementation and consumer migrations belong to the separate
[ReleaseKit proposal](../../ideas.md). [ReleaseKit proposal](releasekit.md).
## Upstream baseline and references ## Upstream baseline and references
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ of adaptation rather than copying their product-specific requirements.
## Policy adaptations ## Policy adaptations
Adopt all seven policies under `docs/policy/`: All seven policies are adopted under `docs/policy/`:
| Policy | Base version | ReleaseKit adaptation | | Policy | Base version | ReleaseKit adaptation |
| --- | --- | --- | | --- | --- | --- |
@@ -48,11 +48,11 @@ Adopt all seven policies under `docs/policy/`:
| `oss.md` | 1.8 | Preserve the library licensing choice, apply the attribution format, and identify separately licensed copied policy material. | | `oss.md` | 1.8 | Preserve the library licensing choice, apply the attribution format, and identify separately licensed copied policy material. |
| `release.md` | 1.4 | Govern releases of ReleaseKit itself, with explicit deliverables and justified checks. Distinguish its maintainer procedure from the release standard offered to consumers. | | `release.md` | 1.4 | Govern releases of ReleaseKit itself, with explicit deliverables and justified checks. Distinguish its maintainer procedure from the release standard offered to consumers. |
## Proposed architectural constraints ## Adopted architectural constraints
The public facade decision is accepted in The [architecture policy](../policy/architecture.md) owns the adopted boundaries,
[ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md). Policy adoption will incorporate that including [ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md) and the runtime version
decision alongside the remaining proposed constraints below. constraints. The following summarizes those rules for this adoption record.
Evaluate ReleaseKit against both of ConfigKit's relevant success criteria: Evaluate ReleaseKit against both of ConfigKit's relevant success criteria:
applications should delete substantial infrastructure, and consumers should adopt applications should delete substantial infrastructure, and consumers should adopt
@@ -82,41 +82,42 @@ API semantics, and implemented behavior must be documented when they exist.
### 1. Copy and tailor policies ### 1. Copy and tailor policies
- [ ] Copy the seven policies from the selected baseline. - [x] Copy the seven policies from the selected baseline.
- [ ] Preserve each `Base Policy Version`, set `Last Updated` to the actual - [x] Preserve each `Base Policy Version`, set `Last Updated` to the actual
adoption date, and add an `Upstream Source` link to that file at the full commit. adoption date, and add an `Upstream Source` link to that file at the full commit.
- [ ] Customize the policies for ReleaseKit and remove their `Base Policy - [x] Customize the policies for ReleaseKit and remove their `Base Policy
Template` sections. Template` sections.
- [ ] Adapt upstream `agents/AGENTS.md` into root `AGENTS.md`, preserving the - [x] Adapt upstream `agents/AGENTS.md` into root `AGENTS.md`, preserving the
existing knowledge-graph discovery instructions. existing knowledge-graph discovery instructions.
- [ ] Create `docs/development.md` with contributor orientation and the selective - [x] Create `docs/development.md` with contributor orientation and the selective
policy reading guide. Route tasks to applicable policies instead of requiring policy reading guide. Route tasks to applicable policies instead of requiring
the entire suite for every task. the entire suite for every task.
### 2. Establish documentation ownership ### 2. Establish documentation ownership
- [ ] Move the substantive contents of `ideas.md` to - [x] Move the substantive contents of `ideas.md` to
`docs/roadmap/releasekit.md`, preserving the proposal, and retain `ideas.md` as a `docs/roadmap/releasekit.md`, preserving the proposal, and retain `ideas.md` as a
navigation pointer. Update this roadmap's proposal link in the same change. navigation pointer. Update this roadmap's proposal link in the same change.
- [ ] Update README with accurate current status and navigation. - [x] Update README with accurate current status and navigation.
- [ ] Define ownership for GoDoc, consumer guidance, architecture constraints, - [x] Define ownership for GoDoc, consumer guidance, architecture constraints,
internal implementation, release procedures, ADRs, and unfinished work. internal implementation, release procedures, ADRs, and unfinished work.
- [ ] Create consumer, CLI, configuration, integration, and internal documents - [x] Reserve consumer, CLI, configuration, integration, and internal ownership
when substantive implemented responsibilities justify them. Avoid empty owners in the documentation policy. Their documents await corresponding implementation;
and speculative command or API references. no empty owners or speculative command references were created.
### 3. Complete notices and attribution ### 3. Complete notices and attribution
- [ ] Add root `COPYRIGHT` using the upstream library example and verified project - [x] Add root `COPYRIGHT` using the upstream library example and verified project
details. The recommended grant is `LGPL-3.0-or-later`, consistent with the two details. The grant is `LGPL-3.0-or-later`, consistent with the existing library
library examples; preserve any established author choice. licensing choice and the two library examples.
- [ ] Verify the existing LGPLv3 and incorporated GPLv3 texts in `LICENSE` are - [x] Restore the complete, verbatim LGPLv3 and incorporated GPLv3 texts in
complete and faithful. Keep project-specific grant statements in `COPYRIGHT`. `LICENSE`; the original contained reformatted text and a customized appendix.
- [ ] Add `docs/oss/attribution.md` with the supplied policy attribution entry, Keep project-specific grant statements in `COPYRIGHT`.
- [x] Add `docs/oss/attribution.md` with the supplied policy attribution entry,
describing the actual adapted policies, agent orientation, and reading guide. describing the actual adapted policies, agent orientation, and reading guide.
- [ ] Copy the CC-BY-SA 4.0 text to `docs/oss/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt` and identify - [x] Copy the CC-BY-SA 4.0 text to `docs/oss/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt` and identify
the copied material's separate licensing scope in `COPYRIGHT`. the copied material's separate licensing scope in `COPYRIGHT`.
- [ ] Add README links to the project grant and attribution document. Keep source - [x] Add README links to the project grant and attribution document. Keep source
and notice links pinned to the adopted commit and reference examples upstream. and notice links pinned to the adopted commit and reference examples upstream.
The library's selected license remains the project grant. A future executable The library's selected license remains the project grant. A future executable
@@ -125,18 +126,24 @@ policy has separate defaults for applications and libraries.
### 4. Define ReleaseKit's own release path ### 4. Define ReleaseKit's own release path
- [ ] Adopt the general versioning, compatibility, integrity, immutability, and - [x] Adopt the general versioning, compatibility, integrity, immutability, and
successful-tag-push completion rules. successful-tag-push completion rules.
- [ ] Select ReleaseKit's own deliverables explicitly. Supporting downstream - [x] Select source only as ReleaseKit's initial deliverable in the release
cross-builds does not by itself require ReleaseKit to distribute binaries. policy. Supporting downstream cross-builds does not declare ReleaseKit binaries.
- [ ] Add `docs/release.md` alongside the first working publication command, - [ ] Add `docs/release.md` alongside the first working publication command,
documenting real prerequisites, authoritative remote, branch, validation, documenting real prerequisites, authoritative remote, branch, validation,
publication, and failure recovery. publication, and failure recovery.
- [ ] Account for the first-release bootstrap before a released ReleaseKit tool - [x] Account for first-release bootstrap: the initial publication command must
is available for its own publication. run from the captured candidate source with dependencies prepared separately.
The first release uses that source execution path before a released ReleaseKit
tool exists. Document and verify the actual command when it is implemented.
- [ ] Add executable delivery declarations and target checks when corresponding - [ ] Add executable delivery declarations and target checks when corresponding
deliverables exist. Keep source completion and asynchronous delivery status deliverables exist. Keep source completion and asynchronous delivery status
separate. separate. This task is deferred unless executable deliverables are selected.
The publication command, its automated guards and offline candidate validation,
and the executable maintainer runbook remain product implementation work. This
adoption does not claim an available release command or perform publication.
## Validation and completion ## Validation and completion
@@ -154,3 +161,18 @@ Do not inherit PromptKit's or ConfigKit's extra release gates automatically.
Select additional checks only for identified ReleaseKit risks, recording their Select additional checks only for identified ReleaseKit risks, recording their
justification in the adopted policy. Upstream synchronization, recurring license justification in the adopted policy. Upstream synchronization, recurring license
approval, and CI polling are not additional adoption or release gates. approval, and CI polling are not additional adoption or release gates.
## Adoption result
The seven policies, root agent orientation, developer reading guide, documentation
ownership, project grant, attribution, and license texts are in place. The product
proposal lives at `docs/roadmap/releasekit.md`; `ideas.md` remains a navigation
pointer. Future capabilities retain their proposed status, and facade
implementation remains pending in the product roadmap.
Verification covers local file and fragment links, per-policy source revision and
base version, removed template adoption sections, attribution scope and pinned
notice destinations, verbatim license bytes, and prose whitespace. The preserved
ADR decision and relocated proposal are checked against their pre-adoption source.
Release automation and its runbook remain pending under stage 4 as permitted by
this roadmap's completion criteria.

203
docs/roadmap/releasekit.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
# ReleaseKit: shared release process
This is a proposal based on a review of PromptKit, ConfigKit, Audita, Notarius,
Narratio, and Scriptorium on 2026-09-29. Product capabilities remain proposed.
The public facade architecture is accepted in
[ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md), with implementation pending.
## Opportunity
All six repositories follow the same base release policy. Their release scripts
repeat stable-version parsing, candidate and release-note checks, local and
remote tag checks, validation of one captured commit, explicit Git publication,
and recovery guidance for uncertain pushes. They differ in publication approach,
tag type, validation commands, and artifact delivery. The mechanics of embedding
a release version and cross-building an application are further candidates for
standardization.
If the projects deliberately standardize publication approach and tag type,
ReleaseKit can own most of the repeated release-process code. The current six
repositories contain 942 lines of release shell scripts and 742 lines of
dedicated release tests, or 1,684 lines total. A directional estimate is that
roughly 1,000–1,250 lines could leave those repositories: about 450–500 lines
of publication scripts, 150–250 lines of checks and builders, and 400–500 lines
of repeated publication tests. ReleaseKit would gain its own implementation and
tests, so this is a reduction in local code, not a net line-count saving.
## Proposed publication standard
1. Prepare and commit a version-matched note at `docs/releases/<version>.md`.
2. Publish the candidate commit to authoritative `main` before invoking the
release command.
3. Run one command that checks the candidate and unused stable version, runs
that repository's offline candidate validation once, and rechecks mutable
state.
4. Create an annotated tag at the validated commit with a message derived from
the checked-in note. Push only that exact tag object to the authoritative
endpoint. A successful tag push completes the source release.
5. Treat hosted release pages and binary assets as asynchronous delivery with
their own status. Do not poll CI or require artifact availability to declare
the source release complete.
This would replace Audita's atomic branch-and-tag push, ConfigKit's and
Notarius's branch push during the release command, and Audita's, Notarius's,
and Narratio's lightweight tags. Those changes require updates to each
repository's adopted release policy and procedure; they are not merely code
cleanup.
## Architecture
[ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md) owns the accepted facade decision.
The [architecture policy](../policy/architecture.md) owns the adopted responsibility
and dependency rules, including the runtime version boundary. The facades remain
unimplemented.
The root `releasekit` package will provide the public facade for publication,
builds, and delivery. A separate public `buildinfo` package will provide the
lightweight facade for runtime version information.
Each facade owns its public named types and documented contracts. Public
operations, inputs, outcomes, errors, and callbacks express deliberately
selected consumer needs. Handles retain private implementation state; explicit
forwarding and conversions connect the public contracts to internal
representations.
Git operations, Go toolchain execution, Gitea integration, and orchestration
bookkeeping belong under Go's `internal/` boundary. Dependency direction runs
from the facades into internal implementation, with internal collaborators using
contracts defined inside that boundary. Implementation packages can evolve
while the supported public contracts retain their compatibility obligations.
The `buildinfo` facade keeps runtime version access lightweight. Applications
read their embedded version through its supported accessor. ReleaseKit's builder
and runtime implementation own the linker symbol and injection mechanism
together.
The `buildinfo` facade follows three constraints:
- Its public API exposes only runtime information justified by consumer needs.
- Its implementation uses the standard library and a small internal dependency
graph independent of release orchestration.
- Dependency checks protect that boundary, and build-and-run integration tests
verify that the builder injects the selected version and the public accessor
reports it correctly.
The release executable calls the orchestration facade and handles command
parsing, output, and exit codes. Library errors and outcomes report meaningful
publication state, including partial progress and uncertainty. Go declarations
and GoDoc own exact public API contracts; additional public packages and
extension interfaces require a deliberate decision grounded in durable consumer
needs.
Compiled-export and dependency checks will protect facade ownership.
External-package behavioral tests will protect error identity, value ownership,
callback lifetime, and observable outcomes across forwarding and conversions.
## Shared tool boundary
Provide a versioned ReleaseKit executable backed by a Go library. Existing
shell entry points can become short invocations of that executable. A library
alone would still require a caller in every shell-driven repository.
ReleaseKit should own:
- stable-version parsing and committed-note identity checks;
- authoritative Git endpoint resolution, candidate capture, clean `main` and
remote-branch agreement checks, and unused local/remote tag checks;
- one validation invocation bound to the captured candidate, followed by cheap
rechecks before publication;
- annotated-tag creation and verification, explicit tag-object push, and one
bounded authoritative-ref check after a failed or ambiguous push;
- a standard version accessor in the public `buildinfo` facade, backed by
release-build injection of the selected tag;
- a cross-build API that accepts the application's main package and selected
targets, initially Linux amd64, Linux arm64, and macOS arm64 (Go's
`darwin/arm64`), including an empty set for source-only projects;
- consistent release build flags and asset naming, plus a host-runnable build
that checks the executable's reported version; and
- Git publication tests using temporary local remotes, including remote
advancement, rejected pushes, lost acknowledgments, and unavailable remotes.
Each repository should retain its product name, compatibility decisions,
candidate-specific checks, main package, selected build targets, delivery
declaration, and a small test of its ReleaseKit wiring. For example, PromptKit
exercises its consumer examples. Applications would adapt their existing
version output to use the `buildinfo` accessor; one agreed version command
or flag would let ReleaseKit smoke-test a host-runnable build the same way.
Cross-built binaries would use the same injection mechanism, but compilation
alone would not establish that they run correctly on another platform.
ReleaseKit should run the selected checks and builds without silently adding
binary gates to source-only projects.
The build API should own the mechanics rather than require each application to
provide a custom linker symbol or shell loop. The initial target list reflects
the current projects, not a permanent limit on future platforms. It should
support both candidate cross-build checks and artifact builds from the tagged
source, using the same version and target selection.
## Woodpecker and Gitea delivery
A common tag-triggered Woodpecker workflow can run ReleaseKit against the
tagged source. Repository-local YAML should declare the pinned tool image and
credentials; each repository's ReleaseKit configuration should declare its
main package and target set. ReleaseKit can own version injection, cross-builds,
checksum generation, and delivery. The source-only repositories can declare
zero binary assets.
For projects that declare a hosted Gitea release, a shared delivery command
could create or find the release for the tag, use the checked-in note, and add
the declared assets and checksum manifest. A retry should inspect existing
assets, verify matching content, add only missing items, and stop on a conflict.
An existing checksum manifest must remain consistent with any later addition.
The release and its attachments are separate remote operations, so partial
delivery must be expected and reported clearly.
Audita, Narratio, and Scriptorium currently use the Woodpecker release plugin
with `file-exists: skip` and `overwrite: false`. Those settings avoid deliberate
replacement by filename, but they do not prove that a rebuilt file has the
same bytes as a previously published file. Content comparison would be a
reason to implement a shared Gitea delivery client rather than rely solely on
the plugin's skip behavior.
Requiring a hosted Gitea release for PromptKit, ConfigKit, or Notarius would
add a deliverable and credentials to their current source-only policies. That
decision can be made separately from standardizing delivery for projects that
already publish hosted assets.
## Failure states
ReleaseKit should report source publication and artifact delivery separately:
| Event | Result |
| --- | --- |
| Candidate validation or a pre-push guard fails | No release was published; correct and validate the candidate again. |
| Tag push reports success | Source release is complete; delivery may still be pending. |
| Tag push fails or its acknowledgment is lost | Query the authoritative ref once. Confirm success only if the exact intended tag object is present on the intended commit; otherwise report failed or unknown status and retain the local tag. |
| Woodpecker or Gitea delivery fails after tag publication | Keep the source release successful. Retry missing delivery from the immutable tag after checking existing content. |
| Published source or content needs correction | Publish a new version; never replace content under the published version. |
## First implementation slice
Pilot the common publication path with PromptKit and Scriptorium, which already
require `main` to equal the candidate and publish annotated tags. Develop the
pilot through the root `releasekit` facade, with implementation behind its
internal boundary and tests exercising the supported consumer contract. Their
different validation and remote configuration will test the proposed boundary.
Migrate the other projects after the shared Git contract is exercised against
temporary remotes. Add common delivery only after publication behavior is
settled, using one of the existing binary-publishing projects as the first
delivery pilot.
## Reviewed implementations
- [PromptKit release script](../../../promptkit/scripts/release.sh),
[checker](../../../promptkit/scripts/release-check.sh)
- [ConfigKit release script](../../../ConfigKit/scripts/release.sh),
[checker](../../../ConfigKit/scripts/release-check.sh)
- [Audita release script](../../../audita/scripts/release.sh),
[Woodpecker job](../../../audita/.woodpecker/release.yml)
- [Notarius release script](../../../notarius/scripts/release.sh),
[checker](../../../notarius/scripts/check-release-source.sh)
- [Narratio release script](../../../narratio/scripts/release.sh),
[Woodpecker job](../../../narratio/.woodpecker/release.yml)
- [Scriptorium release script](../../../scriptorium/scripts/release.sh),
[Woodpecker job](../../../scriptorium/.woodpecker/release.yml)

202
ideas.md
View File

@@ -1,200 +1,4 @@
# ReleaseKit: shared release process # ReleaseKit ideas
This is a proposal based on a review of PromptKit, ConfigKit, Audita, Notarius, The [ReleaseKit proposal](docs/roadmap/releasekit.md) owns the shared release
Narratio, and Scriptorium on 2026-09-29. Product capabilities remain proposed. process ideas, proposed capabilities, and implementation plan.
The public facade architecture is accepted in
[ADR 0001](docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md), with implementation pending.
## Opportunity
All six repositories follow the same base release policy. Their release scripts
repeat stable-version parsing, candidate and release-note checks, local and
remote tag checks, validation of one captured commit, explicit Git publication,
and recovery guidance for uncertain pushes. They differ in publication approach,
tag type, validation commands, and artifact delivery. The mechanics of embedding
a release version and cross-building an application are further candidates for
standardization.
If the projects deliberately standardize publication approach and tag type,
ReleaseKit can own most of the repeated release-process code. The current six
repositories contain 942 lines of release shell scripts and 742 lines of
dedicated release tests, or 1,684 lines total. A directional estimate is that
roughly 1,000–1,250 lines could leave those repositories: about 450–500 lines
of publication scripts, 150–250 lines of checks and builders, and 400–500 lines
of repeated publication tests. ReleaseKit would gain its own implementation and
tests, so this is a reduction in local code, not a net line-count saving.
## Proposed publication standard
1. Prepare and commit a version-matched note at `docs/releases/<version>.md`.
2. Publish the candidate commit to authoritative `main` before invoking the
release command.
3. Run one command that checks the candidate and unused stable version, runs
that repository's offline candidate validation once, and rechecks mutable
state.
4. Create an annotated tag at the validated commit with a message derived from
the checked-in note. Push only that exact tag object to the authoritative
endpoint. A successful tag push completes the source release.
5. Treat hosted release pages and binary assets as asynchronous delivery with
their own status. Do not poll CI or require artifact availability to declare
the source release complete.
This would replace Audita's atomic branch-and-tag push, ConfigKit's and
Notarius's branch push during the release command, and Audita's, Notarius's,
and Narratio's lightweight tags. Those changes require updates to each
repository's adopted release policy and procedure; they are not merely code
cleanup.
## Architecture
[ADR 0001](docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md) owns the accepted facade decision.
The root `releasekit` package will provide the public facade for publication,
builds, and delivery. A separate public `buildinfo` package will provide the
lightweight facade for runtime version information.
Each facade owns its public named types and documented contracts. Public
operations, inputs, outcomes, errors, and callbacks express deliberately
selected consumer needs. Handles retain private implementation state; explicit
forwarding and conversions connect the public contracts to internal
representations.
Git operations, Go toolchain execution, Gitea integration, and orchestration
bookkeeping belong under Go's `internal/` boundary. Dependency direction runs
from the facades into internal implementation, with internal collaborators using
contracts defined inside that boundary. Implementation packages can evolve
while the supported public contracts retain their compatibility obligations.
The `buildinfo` facade keeps runtime version access lightweight. Applications
read their embedded version through its supported accessor. ReleaseKit's builder
and runtime implementation own the linker symbol and injection mechanism
together.
The `buildinfo` facade follows three constraints:
- Its public API exposes only runtime information justified by consumer needs.
- Its implementation uses the standard library and a small internal dependency
graph independent of release orchestration.
- Dependency checks protect that boundary, and build-and-run integration tests
verify that the builder injects the selected version and the public accessor
reports it correctly.
The release executable calls the orchestration facade and handles command
parsing, output, and exit codes. Library errors and outcomes report meaningful
publication state, including partial progress and uncertainty. Go declarations
and GoDoc own exact public API contracts; additional public packages and
extension interfaces require a deliberate decision grounded in durable consumer
needs.
Compiled-export and dependency checks will protect facade ownership.
External-package behavioral tests will protect error identity, value ownership,
callback lifetime, and observable outcomes across forwarding and conversions.
## Shared tool boundary
Provide a versioned ReleaseKit executable backed by a Go library. Existing
shell entry points can become short invocations of that executable. A library
alone would still require a caller in every shell-driven repository.
ReleaseKit should own:
- stable-version parsing and committed-note identity checks;
- authoritative Git endpoint resolution, candidate capture, clean `main` and
remote-branch agreement checks, and unused local/remote tag checks;
- one validation invocation bound to the captured candidate, followed by cheap
rechecks before publication;
- annotated-tag creation and verification, explicit tag-object push, and one
bounded authoritative-ref check after a failed or ambiguous push;
- a standard version accessor in the public `buildinfo` facade, backed by
release-build injection of the selected tag;
- a cross-build API that accepts the application's main package and selected
targets, initially Linux amd64, Linux arm64, and macOS arm64 (Go's
`darwin/arm64`), including an empty set for source-only projects;
- consistent release build flags and asset naming, plus a host-runnable build
that checks the executable's reported version; and
- Git publication tests using temporary local remotes, including remote
advancement, rejected pushes, lost acknowledgments, and unavailable remotes.
Each repository should retain its product name, compatibility decisions,
candidate-specific checks, main package, selected build targets, delivery
declaration, and a small test of its ReleaseKit wiring. For example, PromptKit
exercises its consumer examples. Applications would adapt their existing
version output to use the `buildinfo` accessor; one agreed version command
or flag would let ReleaseKit smoke-test a host-runnable build the same way.
Cross-built binaries would use the same injection mechanism, but compilation
alone would not establish that they run correctly on another platform.
ReleaseKit should run the selected checks and builds without silently adding
binary gates to source-only projects.
The build API should own the mechanics rather than require each application to
provide a custom linker symbol or shell loop. The initial target list reflects
the current projects, not a permanent limit on future platforms. It should
support both candidate cross-build checks and artifact builds from the tagged
source, using the same version and target selection.
## Woodpecker and Gitea delivery
A common tag-triggered Woodpecker workflow can run ReleaseKit against the
tagged source. Repository-local YAML should declare the pinned tool image and
credentials; each repository's ReleaseKit configuration should declare its
main package and target set. ReleaseKit can own version injection, cross-builds,
checksum generation, and delivery. The source-only repositories can declare
zero binary assets.
For projects that declare a hosted Gitea release, a shared delivery command
could create or find the release for the tag, use the checked-in note, and add
the declared assets and checksum manifest. A retry should inspect existing
assets, verify matching content, add only missing items, and stop on a conflict.
An existing checksum manifest must remain consistent with any later addition.
The release and its attachments are separate remote operations, so partial
delivery must be expected and reported clearly.
Audita, Narratio, and Scriptorium currently use the Woodpecker release plugin
with `file-exists: skip` and `overwrite: false`. Those settings avoid deliberate
replacement by filename, but they do not prove that a rebuilt file has the
same bytes as a previously published file. Content comparison would be a
reason to implement a shared Gitea delivery client rather than rely solely on
the plugin's skip behavior.
Requiring a hosted Gitea release for PromptKit, ConfigKit, or Notarius would
add a deliverable and credentials to their current source-only policies. That
decision can be made separately from standardizing delivery for projects that
already publish hosted assets.
## Failure states
ReleaseKit should report source publication and artifact delivery separately:
| Event | Result |
| --- | --- |
| Candidate validation or a pre-push guard fails | No release was published; correct and validate the candidate again. |
| Tag push reports success | Source release is complete; delivery may still be pending. |
| Tag push fails or its acknowledgment is lost | Query the authoritative ref once. Confirm success only if the exact intended tag object is present on the intended commit; otherwise report failed or unknown status and retain the local tag. |
| Woodpecker or Gitea delivery fails after tag publication | Keep the source release successful. Retry missing delivery from the immutable tag after checking existing content. |
| Published source or content needs correction | Publish a new version; never replace content under the published version. |
## First implementation slice
Pilot the common publication path with PromptKit and Scriptorium, which already
require `main` to equal the candidate and publish annotated tags. Develop the
pilot through the root `releasekit` facade, with implementation behind its
internal boundary and tests exercising the supported consumer contract. Their
different validation and remote configuration will test the proposed boundary.
Migrate the other projects after the shared Git contract is exercised against
temporary remotes. Add common delivery only after publication behavior is
settled, using one of the existing binary-publishing projects as the first
delivery pilot.
## Reviewed implementations
- [PromptKit release script](../promptkit/scripts/release.sh),
[checker](../promptkit/scripts/release-check.sh)
- [ConfigKit release script](../ConfigKit/scripts/release.sh),
[checker](../ConfigKit/scripts/release-check.sh)
- [Audita release script](../audita/scripts/release.sh),
[Woodpecker job](../audita/.woodpecker/release.yml)
- [Notarius release script](../notarius/scripts/release.sh),
[checker](../notarius/scripts/check-release-source.sh)
- [Narratio release script](../narratio/scripts/release.sh),
[Woodpecker job](../narratio/.woodpecker/release.yml)
- [Scriptorium release script](../scriptorium/scripts/release.sh),
[Woodpecker job](../scriptorium/.woodpecker/release.yml)