This repository now has two milestone layers:
M1-M2define the bootstrap and structure baselineM3-M14define the operational repo-refactor program
The numbering keeps the earlier bootstrap work intact and extends it with the milestone sequence you defined.
Define the single source of truth for the repository refactor and scaffold the first canonical folder structure.
- project brief
- safety boundaries
- milestone definitions
- showcase information architecture
- root README repositioning
- initial
docs/,portfolio/, andprojects/folders
- bootstrap documents under
docs/bootstrap/ - information architecture document
- updated root README
- scaffolded project folder for
community-operations-platform
- a contributor can understand the target repo shape from the repository itself
- the new structure exists without breaking the current root app workflow
- planning decisions are recorded in files instead of only chat history
Completed in the current planning phase.
Make projects/community-operations-platform/ the planned canonical home for the first curated project without forcing a risky big-bang move.
- create canonical project subfolders
- define migration intent
- keep legacy root folders temporarily intact
- project folder scaffold
- transition-safe repo navigation
- the intended canonical project location is obvious
- the repo can continue into research and migration milestones without structural ambiguity
Started through scaffolding; full migration belongs to later milestones.
Understand how strong GitHub showcase repositories are structured, documented, and curated.
- repository landing pages
- project index patterns
- project-level README structures
- evidence and architecture note patterns
- portfolio presentation conventions
- best-practice findings
- candidate patterns to adopt
- anti-pattern list to avoid
- we can justify the target repo structure using external best-practice evidence instead of taste alone
- collecting too many examples without extracting actionable structure rules
Create a reliable view of the current repository as it actually exists.
- file and folder inventory
- artifact classification
- duplicate or ambiguous content
- existing reviewer entrypoints
- current pain points
- current-state map
- artifact inventory
- known structural weaknesses
- we know what exists, what matters, and what should not survive into the curated target state
- hidden duplication between legacy root content and newly scaffolded canonical paths
Turn research findings and current-state facts into the target repository design.
- naming conventions
- canonical paths
- migration rules
- project reviewer journeys
- legacy-to-target mapping
- target-state repository design
- mapping from current artifacts to target destinations
- migration sequence proposal
- every important current artifact has a planned destination in the target repo
- overdesign before we verify the actual inventory
Create a restorable backup before structural migration begins.
- git-level safety
- local snapshot or archive
- backup verification
- confirmed backup artifact
- short restore note
- we can proceed with structural moves without relying on memory or luck
- incomplete backup that misses untracked but important files
Create the full target folder framework for the curated repository.
- root navigation
- portfolio-level structure
- project-level structure
- templates or placeholder docs where needed
- skeleton tree
- canonical entry docs
- placeholder files for target locations
- the target repo shape exists even before all real artifacts are migrated
- placeholders may linger too long and look unfinished if M8 is delayed
Populate the skeleton with the actual repository content that deserves to be showcased.
- move or rewrite key docs
- move or rewrite evidence files
- move or package code extracts
- update links and navigation
- populated project folders
- reduced placeholder usage
- clearer reviewer flow
- a reviewer can meaningfully navigate the project without relying on placeholder documents
- artifact quality may vary and require additional polishing
Check whether the repository still contains embarrassing errors, weak decisions, or obviously poor presentation choices.
- wording quality
- structural awkwardness
- broken links or confusing navigation
- suspicious artifacts
- low-quality or misleading claims
- hardening findings list
- prioritized fix list
- obvious quality issues are identified before the repo is treated as publication-ready
- "looks fine" bias if review is too close to implementation work
Measure how far the repository still deviates from the planned target design.
- path-level comparison
- content-level comparison
- reviewer-flow comparison
- unresolved gaps and leftovers
- drift analysis
- gap list
- recommended corrective actions
- remaining differences are explicit instead of implicit
- target-state definition may need refinement if reality exposes new constraints
Translate drift findings into concrete measures and validate them against information-security-minded publication practices.
- sanitization posture
- evidence exposure rules
- metadata hygiene
- reviewable but safe documentation choices
- corrective action plan
- info-security guidance relevant to the repo
- proposed fixes are not only aesthetic but also publication-safe
- over-hardening may remove too much useful technical signal
Apply the approved improvements to the repository.
- structural fixes
- documentation fixes
- sanitization fixes
- evidence cleanup
- updated repository
- proof of completed measures
- the repo reflects the planned corrective actions with visible artifacts
- late-stage fixes may create new drift if not tracked carefully
Run one final validation pass before release preparation.
- final structure review
- final quality review
- final drift check
- final comparison note
- residual risks
- go or no-go recommendation
- the repository is judged against the target state in a concrete, documented way
- unresolved minor issues may still require a final polish round
Package the finished milestone work into a clean terminal-driven git workflow.
- review changed files
- organize commit boundaries
- prepare commit messages
- prepare push sequence
- commit plan
- push-ready repository state
- the repository changes can be committed and pushed in a disciplined, understandable sequence
- poor commit grouping can make the refactor harder to review later
M3: learn what good looks likeM4: understand what currently existsM5: design the target state from those factsM6: create the safety netM7: build the structureM8: populate it with curated artifactsM9: perform the embarrassment and quality passM10: run the drift analysisM11: plan corrections and info-security measuresM12: implement correctionsM13: do the final target-state comparisonM14: prepare commit and push
For active execution, use a rolling three-milestone view:
- fully specify the next milestone in detail
- outline the immediately following planned milestone only at a high level
- outline one fixed fallback milestone for known errors, weak implementation, or cleanup if the active milestone reveals issues
This keeps planning concrete without overcommitting too far ahead.
Every actively executed milestone should carry one reserved corrective follow-up milestone.
That fallback milestone is used only if one or more of these appear:
- implementation mistakes
- broken links or paths
- low-quality curation decisions
- weak wording or presentation
- structural regressions
- newly discovered sanitization or publication concerns
If no such issues appear, the fallback milestone can be closed quickly or merged into the next planned milestone.
M14- Prepare commit and push
- none currently planned beyond commit and push preparation
M14-FIX- Commit-plan cleanup and packaging correction
Your original list contained two milestones labeled M8. To keep the program consistent, this plan interprets:
M8as placeholder replacement and artifact migration- the second
M8asM9hardening review
All later milestones were shifted by one number accordingly.