Skip to content

feat: add PM readiness analysis - #301

Merged
seonghobae merged 1 commit into
developfrom
feat/pm-analysis-286
Jul 11, 2026
Merged

seonghobae merged 1 commit into
developfrom
feat/pm-analysis-286

Conversation

@seonghobae

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Add deterministic PM readiness analysis for requirements/RFI/RFP readiness, WBS estimation coverage, dependency risk, and procurement-package section coverage from the existing tasks source of truth.
  • Preserve the source PDFs/standards used for this slice under docs/research/pm-analysis/ without Git LFS.
  • Add unit and E2E coverage for the new analysis surface and keep the static-app governance checks aligned with the existing dependency-review/OSV companion lanes.

Closes #286

Research and standards basis

Governance notes

  • No new runtime dependency or LLM/external estimator is introduced; analysis is auditable and local.
  • No new standalone product/repository split is justified in this slice because the feature depends on ScopeWeave's existing WBS model and UI panel.
  • PDF and standards artifacts are committed directly; git check-attr filter reports filter: unspecified for all preserved PM-analysis PDFs and standards files.

Verification

  • npm run test:unit
  • python3 -m pytest tests/config
  • node --check analytics.js && node --check tests/unit/pm-analysis.test.mjs && git diff --check
  • git check-attr filter -- docs/research/pm-analysis/papers/*.pdf docs/research/pm-analysis/standards/*
  • npm run test:e2e (72 passed)

@github-advanced-security

Copy link
Copy Markdown

You are seeing this message because GitHub Code Scanning has recently been set up for this repository, or this pull request contains the workflow file for the Code Scanning tool.

What Enabling Code Scanning Means:

  • The 'Security' tab will display more code scanning analysis results (e.g., for the default branch).
  • Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results.
  • You will be able to see the analysis results for the pull request's branch on this overview once the scans have completed and the checks have passed.

For more information about GitHub Code Scanning, check out the documentation.

@opencode-agent

opencode-agent Bot commented Jul 11, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

OpenCode Review Overview

  • Head SHA: cd8f5a246da38d5f6c1c8ed292d12b9f26d6e1d4
  • Workflow run: 29148594946
  • Workflow attempt: 1
  • Gate result: APPROVE (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/osvscanner.yml, ARCHITECTURE.md, CHANGELOG.md, README.md, analytics.js, and 11 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/osvscanner.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Adds PM readiness analysis with tests and standards
  • Head SHA: cd8f5a246da38d5f6c1c8ed292d12b9f26d6e1d4
  • Workflow run: 29148594946
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: osvscanner.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: osvscanner.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (6 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (6 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (10 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (10 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (3 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

@opencode-agent opencode-agent Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

OpenCode reviewed the current-head bounded evidence and found no blocking issues.

Findings

No blocking findings.

Summary

Approval sufficiency: bounded evidence supplied affirmative approval evidence for changed files, coverage/docstring posture, risk surfaces, and current-head verification; approval is not based merely on the absence of known blockers.
Verification posture: CodeGraph evidence was initialized and bounded current-head evidence reviewed for changed-file evidence including .github/workflows/osvscanner.yml, ARCHITECTURE.md, CHANGELOG.md, README.md, analytics.js, and 11 more.
Linter/static: workflow/static review evidence is bounded by the current-head GitHub Checks gate and changed-file evidence.
TDD/regression: coverage execution evidence and focused changed hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Coverage: coverage execution evidence reports supported repository test suites passed.
Docstring coverage: coverage execution evidence reports configured repository docstring gates passed or docstring coverage was advisory.
DAG: CodeGraph/source-backed behavior map connects .github/workflows/osvscanner.yml to the affected review, runtime, or workflow path and required checks.
PoC/execution: coverage-evidence job executed on the current head and reported PASS.
DDD/domain: workflow and repository-governance invariants were reviewed against changed files in bounded evidence.
CDD/context: CodeGraph evidence, changed-file history, and focused hunks were reviewed from bounded-review-evidence.md.
Similar issues: changed-file history evidence was reviewed for comparable local precedents.
Claim/concept check: bounded evidence, repository source, current-head workflow evidence, and, where numeric, scientific, statistical, or literature-backed claims are affected, original-paper/formula evidence and parameter-recovery expectations were used for claims.
Standards search: standards and external-source checks are delegated to configured OpenCode web_search/Context7/DeepWiki sources when applicable; no evidence-backed standards blocker is present in bounded evidence.
Compatibility/convention: changed workflow/script conventions, object naming, and reserved-word safety for schema/API/config/code surfaces were checked in bounded evidence.
Breaking-change/backcompat: deployment evidence and changed-file history were checked for backward-compatibility risk.
Performance: changed surfaces were checked for performance risk in bounded evidence.
Developer experience: changed automation, review, test, setup, and maintenance surfaces were checked for helpful or obstructive DX impact in bounded evidence.
User experience: connected user, operator, API, CLI, documentation, review-comment, status-check, rendering, and workflow-reader behavior was checked for contradictions against code, docs, and tests in bounded evidence.
Visual/DOM: Playwright visual, DOM locator, ARIA snapshot, console, and responsive evidence were checked when a web UI surface was present; for non-web surfaces, API/CLI/log/docs/workflow interaction evidence was reviewed instead.
Accessibility/i18n: accessibility, localization, and human-readable text surfaces were checked where UI, CLI, API message, docs, logs, or review text changed.
Supply-chain/license: dependency, package, model, container, and external-tool changes were checked in bounded evidence.
Packaging: package, build, test, lint, and security contracts were checked in bounded evidence.
Security/privacy: workflow-token, review-gate, and repository-automation security/privacy boundaries were checked in bounded evidence.

  • Result: APPROVE
  • Reason: Adds PM readiness analysis with tests and standards
  • Head SHA: cd8f5a246da38d5f6c1c8ed292d12b9f26d6e1d4
  • Workflow run: 29148594946
  • Workflow attempt: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Workflow: osvscanner.yml"]
  S1 --> I1["GitHub Actions review job"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Workflow: osvscanner.yml"]
  R1 --> V1["actionlint plus required checks"]
  Evidence --> S2["Changed file (6 files)"]
  S2 --> I2["repository behavior"]
  I2 --> R2["Review risk: Changed file (6 files)"]
  R2 --> V2["required checks"]
  Evidence --> S3["Docs (10 files)"]
  S3 --> I3["operator or user guidance"]
  I3 --> R3["Review risk: Docs (10 files)"]
  R3 --> V3["docs review"]
  Evidence --> S4["Test (3 files)"]
  S4 --> I4["regression suite"]
  I4 --> R4["Review risk: Test (3 files)"]
  R4 --> V4["targeted test run"]
Loading

@seonghobae
seonghobae enabled auto-merge July 11, 2026 10:05
@seonghobae
seonghobae merged commit c95fac4 into develop Jul 11, 2026
30 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

scopeweave PM: requirements/RFI/RFP + WBS/estimation

2 participants