docs: product-technical gap baseline (spec/PRD/TRD/UML + open-PR gap analysis) - #1025
docs: product-technical gap baseline (spec/PRD/TRD/UML + open-PR gap analysis)#1025seonghobae wants to merge 97 commits into
Conversation
…n-PR analysis) Derives the functional specification, PRD/TRD deltas, and UML supplements from ADRs (ARCHITECTURE.md, docs/plans), brand story, security policy, and current code state; explicitly includes the open PR series inventory and classifies remaining gaps into a prioritized buyer-visible backlog with acceptance criteria. All code claims were verified against develop@acdbea63 via grep/read; verification commands are recorded in section 9 for future loop runs.
|
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 1 included review per hour; 0 remain after this review. 📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughBandScope의 제품·기술 Gap 기준선 문서를 2026-08-28 기준 revision과 검증 자료에 맞게 갱신했다. Demucs 실행 경로, 기술 Gap, acceptance criteria, 참고문헌 및 재검증 명령을 수정했다. Changes제품·기술 기준선
Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to This change only adds product and technical baseline documentation; no actionable merge-blocking risk remains beyond normal checks and review. 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Full details: Docstring CoverageExplanation No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.) ✨ Finishing Touches 💡 1🛠️ Fix failing CI checks 💡
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Current-head documentation/code consistency finding on |
|
Correction to my earlier current-head handoff on The executable non-CPU host-conversion repair belongs to canonical #866. Fresh #866 live head is |
…sition-prior calibration sources - JS workspaces measured 100% on 2026-08-25 (desktop + shared-types); the gap is the 90% gate threshold, not current coverage. Backlog item reworded accordingly. - Add finding (k): central Strix provider-routing outage (openai-direct fallback inherited the NVIDIA NIM API base) and its root-cause fix tracked in ContextualWisdomLab/.github#1324; dependency CVEs unified under canonical owner #783. - Expand (c) with a literature-grounded calibration method for HMM chord transition priors and add APA 7th entries (Burgoyne et al. 2011; Harte 2010; Logan & Chu 2000; Pauwels & Peeters 2013).
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@opencode-agent Repair only the still-current documentation-consistency findings on the existing |
|
@opencode-agent Continue only on the existing canonical Receiving-code-review verification on this exact head confirms four still-current documentation correctness defects: threads Verification-before-completion: execute every documented command you modify from the repository root, run the repository docs checks, and keep claims tied to observed output. Resolve only those four threads after the resulting exact-head checks are green. Documentation is not license to invent missing product evidence; if any command disproves a claim, correct the claim to the evidence rather than shaping the command to preserve a number. |
|
Re-review request for exact head |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Exact-head review request for 7b081ba. The change is documentation-only: current REST PR inventory, exact-head governance traceability, and Security Notes. Please review this current head and report APPROVED or CHANGES_REQUESTED. |
docs(gap): record tempo stability current-head evidence
| jq -n --argjson pr "$pr" --arg protected_base_sha "$base_sha" \ | ||
| --argjson check_runs "$checks" --argjson reviews "$reviews" \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Snapshot command rejects every SHA
Running the snapshot script passes the SHA through --argjson, but an unquoted Git SHA is invalid JSON. The script exits before writing its snapshot.
Prompt for agents
Fix the exact-head snapshot script in docs/product-technical-gap-baseline.md. Both jq commands around lines 664 and 669 pass base_sha with --argjson, but git ls-remote returns a plain SHA string. Use jq string arguments consistently in both invocations, then verify the complete pasted script produces open-pr-snapshot.json.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
| snapshot_dir="${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/bandscope-pr-snapshot" | ||
| mkdir -p "$snapshot_dir" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Reruns retain closed pull requests
Rerunning the snapshot in an existing directory leaves old pr-*.json files intact. Closed pull requests remain in the output and corrupt its count.
| snapshot_dir="${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/bandscope-pr-snapshot" | |
| mkdir -p "$snapshot_dir" | |
| snapshot_dir="${TMPDIR:-/tmp}/bandscope-pr-snapshot" | |
| mkdir -p "$snapshot_dir" | |
| rm -f "$snapshot_dir"/pr-*.json |
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
| ## 4. 현재 열린 PR 기반 Gap 분석 (Open-PR Gap Analysis) | ||
|
|
||
| 현재 open PR은 136건이다(2026-08-29 Asia/Seoul 기준 REST inventory). 아래 표는 그중 대표적인 PR을 뽑은 snapshot이며, 대부분은 동일 패턴의 시리즈다. | ||
|
|
||
| ### 4.1 2026-08-29 exact-head 운영 snapshot | ||
|
|
||
| 아래 표는 protected base `develop@749511c3ad4000090048718f685c6bee6b3d2c25`에 대해 GitHub REST API로 다시 읽은 대표 PR의 current head와 그 head의 Checks/review 상태다. Capture 시각은 `2026-08-29T08:11:32Z` (`2026-08-29 17:11:32 Asia/Seoul`)이며, 이후 재실행 결과는 이 snapshot의 증적으로 재사용하지 않는다. 아래 재실행 명령은 capture 시각의 open PR 전체에 대해 각 current head, 동일 SHA의 check-runs, reviews, protected base를 JSON으로 묶는다. 이전 SHA의 Checks는 현재 증적으로 재사용하지 않았다. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔍 Volatile evidence is manually duplicated
PR states and capabilities appear across several prose snapshots. Future updates can leave the table, backlog, and reconciliation inconsistent; isolate dated evidence or generate it.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
| ## 9. 검증 방법 (Verification Method) | ||
|
|
||
| 각 절의 근거와 재실행 명령. 아래 명령은 저장소 루트에서 실행한다. | ||
|
|
||
| - Repo root: `git rev-parse --show-toplevel` -> `<repo-root>` | ||
| - 문서 소스 read: `ARCHITECTURE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `docs/brand-story.md`, `docs/security/app-security.md`, `docs/workflow/one-day-delivery-plan.md`, `docs/engineering/acceptance-criteria.md`, `docs/plans/2026-03-27-bandscope-roadmap-completion.md` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔍 Verification is not cross-platform
The promised rerunnable checks rely on shell-specific find, xargs, grep, and here-string behavior. Package them in a repository script for supported platforms.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
| ## 1. 목적과 범위 (Purpose & Scope) | ||
|
|
||
| 이 문서는 ADR/설계 문서(`ARCHITECTURE.md`, `docs/plans/*`), 브랜드 소스(`docs/brand-story.md`), 보안 소스(`docs/security/app-security.md`), 그리고 현재 저장소 상태(코드, 열린 PR 136건, 열린 이슈)를 대조하여 다음을 한 곳에 모은 baseline이다. | ||
|
|
||
| - 기능 명세(functional spec)와 PRD/TRD로 승격되지 않은 요구사항의 공백 | ||
| - 구현된 코드와 문서가 선언하는 제품 범위 사이의 기술 Gap | ||
| - 누락된 UML/다이어그램 산출물 | ||
| - 구매자가 체감하는 제품 Gap 우선순위 Backlog | ||
|
|
||
| 범위에는 현재 열려 있는 PR 세트를 명시적으로 포함한다. 특히 `feat(workspace): name tonight's first X on the map` 시리즈는 아직 merge되지 않았으므로, 이 문서에서는 해당 시리즈가 착지했을 때 남는 Gap까지 함께 기술한다. | ||
|
|
||
| 검증 원칙: 본 문서의 코드 관련 주장은 전부 실제 repo에 대해 `grep`/`glob`/파일 read로 확인했다. 확인 방법은 9장에 재실행 가능한 명령으로 남긴다. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔍 Baseline uses authority-heavy language
Dense operational and academic wording conflicts with the required practical, rehearsal-first tone for product specifications. Simplify it or scope it explicitly as engineering evidence.
Was this helpful? React with 👍 or 👎 to provide feedback.
|
Superseded by canonical current baseline PR #1116. I compared this PR's unique requirements and review history before disposition. The replacement on #1116 carries forward the PRD/TRD/UML scope, DDD/product boundaries, Rust-core migration target, real-audio accuracy evidence, security/privacy, accessibility/design parity, release/operability, research traceability, and re-runnable verification requirements while removing the stale manually duplicated live-queue snapshot machinery that produced unresolved correctness findings here. This PR's discussion remains historical evidence; closing it does not treat its stale head/checks as merged or delete its branch. Future baseline edits should land on #1116 (or its protected successor after merge) to avoid competing writers on the same path. |
1 participant
Product outcome
Single authoritative baseline for what BandScope is today vs. what the
ADRs, brand story, and security policy promise — including an explicit
analysis of the currently open PR series and a prioritized backlog of
buyer-perceivable gaps with acceptance criteria.
Contents
Current exact head:
46c7f6f630be03d012da85d6eb38ffe9b6b8f99f; base:develop@749511c3ad4000090048718f685c6bee6b3d2c25. Future loops can re-run theverification section against a moving PR queue.
Security Notes
Summary by CodeRabbit