docs: expand roadmap with issue tracking and new initiatives

[jackgranatowski]

Summary

Expanded docs/roadmap.md with comprehensive issue tracking references, clarifications on overlapping work, and a substantial set of new under-consideration items covering utilities, components, tooling, and design-token infrastructure.

Key changes

• Post-1.0 components clarification — added issue references (Components: second batch #384, Ship the staged .sf-btn component system (currently commented out until v0.8) #493, Ship the staged .sf-card component system (currently commented out until v0.8) #494, Add outline button variant(s) #486) to the components layer section and documented an existing scope overlap between Components: second batch #384 (consolidated tranche) and Ship the staged .sf-btn component system (currently commented out until v0.8) #493/Ship the staged .sf-card component system (currently commented out until v0.8) #494 (individual button/card tracking) that should be consolidated before v0.8 implementation.

• New curated core utility set — documented the planned slashed.utilities layer (Utilities: curated core set #248) shipping enabled core utilities (visibility, text-alignment, flex/grid item-alignment, gap, content-width) distinct from the staged optional utilities.

• Expanded under-consideration items — added 20+ new initiatives across multiple domains:

  • Component variants: outline button (Add outline button variant(s) #486), skeleton shapes, form components
  • Utilities: z-index, hover-transform (Add hover-transform utility classes (grow/shrink/float/slide/sink) #487), overflow-detection debug (Add an overflow-detection debug utility #495), decorative animations
  • Layout primitives: boxed-section (Add boxed-section layout primitive (counterpart to full-bleed/breakout) #485), flex-based grid alternative (Add flex-based grid alternative for unbalanced/wrapping item layouts #488), concave corners (Explore: concave/inverted corner utility #484)
  • Macros: background media overlay (Unified media-background + overlay macro with automatic z-index #489), concrete recipe macros (#490)
  • Configurator UX: live hover preview in CheatsheetPanel (Configurator: live hover preview in CheatsheetPanel #470)
  • Tooling & infrastructure: versioned token manifest + JSON Schema (Tooling: publish a versioned token manifest + JSON Schema #360), Stylelint plugin (Tooling: shippable Stylelint plugin/config for consumers #363), AI-assistant context file (Ship a distilled AI-assistant context file (llms.txt) generated from the LLM guide #472), MCP server (Explore: MCP server exposing live token/class data to AI coding assistants #473)
  • Design tokens: W3C/DTCG export (Tooling: DTCG / W3C design-tokens export #361), container-relative fluid scale (Fluid type/space scale is viewport-relative while layout is container-relative #497)

• Cross-references — linked skeleton shapes, first component tranche, remaining optional components, and outline button variant to their tracking issues for better discoverability.

Notes

No version changes or CI-gated files modified beyond the roadmap itself. The check:version script should pass without changes.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01Sg35d8wNVerSUss6UXQMm1

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Updated the roadmap with clearer status notes for upcoming work.
  • Added more explicit tracking details for component overlap and current availability.
  • Expanded the list of items under consideration with additional product ideas and UX directions.
  • Clarified several roadmap entries with more context and cross-references.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@jackgranatowski, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 15 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 78ebeb44-749d-4fcd-9d67-cdeda2ef7290

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 3319d7c and 82c172f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/roadmap.md

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This PR updates docs/roadmap.md only. It clarifies Post-1.0 tracking notes for .sf-btn/.sf-card with an overlap warning between issues, adds a Curated core utility set bullet, and expands the Under consideration section with new and revised roadmap items.

Changes

Roadmap documentation refinements

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Post-1.0 tracking notes and curated utility set docs/roadmap.md	Adds detailed tracking notes for .sf-btn/.sf-card including an overlap warning between issue #384 and #493/#494, and adds a new "Curated core utility set" bullet describing the enabled slashed.utilities layer tracked under issue #248.
Under consideration list expansion docs/roadmap.md	Expands the Skeleton shape component and First component tranche bullets with new modifiers and cross-references, and replaces an earlier subset of bullets with a larger set covering utility/component ideas, configurator UX, token/export workflows, and layout/recipe concepts.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• codeslash-dev/SLASHED#5: Both PRs directly edit docs/roadmap.md to restructure and refresh roadmap tracking items and wording.
• codeslash-dev/SLASHED#18: Both PRs are documentation-only updates to the roadmap covering the same "Under consideration" and utility scope areas.
• codeslash-dev/SLASHED#437: Aligns with the main PR's roadmap notes on .sf-btn/.sf-card status and skeleton tranche/modifier details for the same component families.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately summarizes the roadmap expansion, issue tracking clarifications, and added initiatives in docs/roadmap.md.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch claude/issues-roadmap-sync-lxk7a9

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Expand roadmap with issue links and new initiatives

📝 Documentation 🕐 20-40 Minutes

AI Description

• Add GitHub issue links and clarify overlapping tracking for upcoming components work.
• Document a planned curated core utilities layer distinct from optional utilities.
• Expand the “Under consideration” section with new initiatives, each cross-referenced to issues.

Diagram

graph TD
  A["docs/roadmap.md"] --> B["Components notes"] --> E[/"GitHub Issues"/]
  A --> C["Core utilities plan"] --> E
  A --> D["Under-consideration list"] --> E

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Use a GitHub Project/roadmap as the primary roadmap surface

• ➕ Single source of truth directly tied to issues/PRs
• ➕ Built-in status fields, prioritization, and automation
• ➖ Less friendly as long-form narrative documentation
• ➖ Harder to communicate nuanced context (e.g., scope overlaps) without extra docs

2. Generate docs/roadmap.md from labeled issues in CI

• ➕ Avoids manual drift; roadmap stays synchronized with issue metadata
• ➕ Enforces consistent formatting and link hygiene
• ➖ Requires label taxonomy discipline and build tooling
• ➖ Generated output can be less curated/readable than hand-written prose

Recommendation: The current approach (manual roadmap updates with explicit issue cross-references and overlap notes) is the best near-term tradeoff: it preserves curated narrative while improving discoverability. If roadmap drift becomes a recurring problem, consider moving to an issue-driven GitHub Project or a CI-generated roadmap later, once labels/status conventions stabilize.

Files changed (1) +87 / -5

Documentation (1) +87 / -5

roadmap.mdAdd issue tracking links and expand roadmap initiatives +87/-5

Add issue tracking links and expand roadmap initiatives

• Adds explicit issue references for Post-1.0 components work, including a note about overlapping tracking across issues. Introduces a curated core utilities layer plan and substantially expands the “Under consideration” section with new initiatives, each linked to a tracking issue for discoverability.

docs/roadmap.md

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📎 Requirement gaps (0) 📜 Skill insights (0)

Context used

✅ Tickets: 🎫 Ship a distilled AI-assistant context file (llms.txt) generated from the LLM guide 🎫 Add an overflow-detection debug utility 🎫 Tooling: DTCG / W3C design-tokens export

✅ Compliance rules (platform): 12 rules

1. Stale button class name ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

Description

In docs/roadmap.md, the “First component tranche” bullet still lists .sf-button, but the newly
added issue-tracking note in the same bullet uses .sf-btn, which is the renamed/canonical class
per the changelog and the staged component file.

Code

docs/roadmap.md[R57-63]

- **First component tranche** — implement `.sf-button`, `.sf-card`, `.sf-badge`,
  and `.sf-tag` first, using `optional/tokens.components.css` and existing
-  `.is-*` states where appropriate.
+  `.is-*` states where appropriate. Tracked in
+  [#384](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/384); `.sf-btn`/`.sf-card`
+  specifically in [#493](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/493) /
+  [#494](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/494) (see Post-1.0 note
+  on overlapping tracking above).

Relevance

⭐⭐⭐ High

Rename .sf-button→.sf-btn enforced repo-wide in PR #439 (incl CHANGELOG); roadmap should match
canonical name.

PR-#439
PR-#437

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The changelog documents a rename from .sf-button to .sf-btn, and the staged components file is
written under .sf-btn, while the roadmap still references .sf-button in the tranche list.

docs/roadmap.md[55-63]
CHANGELOG.md[134-135]
optional/components.css[13-18]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
`docs/roadmap.md` mixes `.sf-button` and `.sf-btn` in the “First component tranche” item. Per the changelog, the button component class was renamed to `.sf-btn`, and the staged component implementation uses `.sf-btn`.

## Issue Context
Leaving `.sf-button` in the roadmap risks users implementing the deprecated name.

## Fix Focus Areas
- docs/roadmap.md[55-63]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

2. Post-1.0/v0.8 mismatch ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ≡ Correctness

Description

In docs/roadmap.md, the Components layer is described as shipping “after v1.0” while the newly added
text says the implementation is commented out “pending v0.8” and suggests consolidating tracking
before “v0.8 implementation starts,” which contradicts the timeline in the same bullet.

Code

docs/roadmap.md[R12-23]

- **Components layer** — the `slashed.components` layer and its stubs are already
  declared; the eight `.sf-*` components land incrementally after v1.0, additive
-  only.
+  only. Tracked in [#384](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/384)
+  (consolidated tranche), with `.sf-btn` and `.sf-card` broken out individually
+  in [#493](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/493) /
+  [#494](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/494) — both fully
+  written but commented out in `optional/components.css` pending v0.8. An
+  outline `.sf-btn` variant is queued as a follow-on in
+  [#486](https://github.com/codeslash-dev/SLASHED/issues/486) once the base
+  variant set ships. **Note:** #384 and #493/#494 currently overlap in scope
+  (same button/card work tracked twice) — worth consolidating before v0.8
+  implementation starts.

Relevance

⭐⭐ Medium

Roadmap fixes mixed; token-name correction in roadmap rejected in PR #156; no precedent on
version-timeline contradictions.

PR-#156
PR-#437

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The roadmap’s Components layer bullet explicitly combines “after v1.0” with “pending v0.8,” while
other repo docs/code describe the components file as staged/commented-out until v0.8 (i.e.,
pre-v1.0).

docs/roadmap.md[10-23]
optional/components.css[1-8]
docs/components.md[3-8]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

## Issue description
`docs/roadmap.md` has an internal timeline inconsistency: the Components layer is labeled “Post-1.0” / “after v1.0” while the new added note references work starting in v0.8 (and being commented out pending v0.8).

## Issue Context
The repo already treats `optional/components.css` as staged/commented-out until v0.8, so referencing v0.8 inside a “Post-1.0” item is confusing and can mislead planning.

## Fix Focus Areas
- docs/roadmap.md[10-23]

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---