Team Adoption Criteria

Team Adoption Criteria

Use this after one or more maintainer pilots to decide whether Forgeflow is ready to expand beyond one maintainer.

For a decision worksheet that compares pilot evidence against these criteria, use Pilot Adoption Comparison.

Decision States

State	Meaning	Next Step
repeat pilot	useful signal, but evidence is thin or friction remains	run another bounded branch trial
expand to small team	useful signal with manageable friction	invite one or two more maintainers
stop and fix	blocking setup, privacy, routing, or quality issue	fix the blocker before more trials
defer broader rollout	pilot works, but the team does not need more automation yet	keep Forgeflow as an opt-in maintainer tool

Minimum Evidence

Before expanding, collect:

• at least two real branch reviews, or one review with a clear material finding
• one completed Maintainer Pilot summary
• one selected sharing level from Team Privacy Boundaries
• support issues classified with Support Triage
• local evidence of install and health status

Use public summaries when possible, but do not require public sharing for private teams.

Expand Criteria

Expand to one or two more maintainers when all of these are true:

• setup can be repeated from docs without live hand-holding
• /forgeflow-health or Codex discovery checks have clear pass, warn, or fix output
• findings are specific enough for maintainers to confirm or reject
• false positives are not high enough to make maintainers avoid rerunning Forgeflow
• local state and summary sharing boundaries are understood
• any support issue has an owner, a category, and a next step

Stop Criteria

Stop and fix before expanding when any of these are true:

• a maintainer cannot reach first review after following install and recovery docs
• raw local state must be shared to explain the result
• routing repeatedly selects the wrong review mode for similar branches
• review findings repeatedly lack file references or evidence
• context artifacts are too large or too specific to handle safely
• privacy or disclosure approval is unclear

Evidence Summary

Keep this note local unless the team approves sharing it:

pilot_count:
runtimes:
project_types:
health_results:
confirmed_findings:
rejected_findings:
average_review_minutes:
setup_blockers:
support_categories:
sharing_level:
decision: repeat-pilot | expand-small-team | stop-and-fix | defer
decision_reason:
owner:
next_review_date:

Expansion Path

If the decision is expand-small-team:

1. Pick one additional maintainer and one bounded branch.
2. Reuse Maintainer Pilot.
3. Keep Team Privacy Boundaries unchanged unless the team explicitly revises them.
4. Track support with Support Triage.
5. Keep CI and headless review deferred with CI And Headless Deferrals until maintainers ask for automation.
6. Revisit this decision after the next two reviews.