Repository navigation
Release Readiness
github-actions[bot] edited this page Oct 13, 2026
·
2 revisions
Canonical source:
docs/RELEASE_READINESS_SCORECARD.md— this page is rendered from it on every publish; edit the source.
Each dimension is scored 1-10 based on what is ACTUALLY implemented and verified in the codebase. Scores reflect current state, not planned features.
- 9-10: Production-ready, minimal gaps
- 7-8: Functional with known gaps, safe for internal use
- 5-6: Partially implemented, needs work before any real use
- 3-4: Scaffolded but largely incomplete
- 1-2: Missing or non-functional
| # | Dimension | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Product Clarity | 8/10 | Clear purpose (local AI orchestration), good UI with 17+ pages, model selector, file picker, context packs. Coherent vision well-executed. |
| 2 | UX Trust | 7/10 | Routing transparency (decision visible to user), model attribution in responses. Missing: memory injection indicators, no "thinking" state for context assembly. |
| 3 | Backend Completeness | 8/10 | All services (17 at the time) operational. Context assembly, memory extraction, connector management, routing policies all wired. Real business logic, not stubs. |
| 4 | Frontend Completeness | 8/10 | 17 pages, model selector, file attachment picker, context packs, settings, admin panel. Library wrapping rule followed. i18n present. |
| 5 | Routing Correctness | 7/10 | Ollama-assisted routing decisions, routing policies wired, multi-connector support. Gap: stale health cache may route to down connectors, no model existence verification. |
| 6 | Anti-Hallucination | 7/10 | temperature=0 defaults, Zod validation on all inputs, model allowlist. Gap: no runtime check that selected model actually exists on connector, no output validation. |
| 7 | Memory/Context | 7/10 | Memory extraction from conversations is real, deduplication added, context injection during message handling. Gap: no contradiction detection, no memory decay/relevance scoring. |
| 8 | File Support | 6/10 | Chunking pipeline real (JSON/CSV/Markdown/text), internal retrieval endpoint, file IDs in message DTO. Gap: no vector embeddings, no semantic search, no PDF support, brute-force chunk injection. |
| 9 | Observability | 8/10 | Comprehensive structured logging across all services, 10 audit event types, usage ledger for token tracking, pino with redaction, client log batching. Gap: no distributed tracing, no alerting. |
| 10 | Docker/DevOps | 9/10 | 22+ containers orchestrated, install scripts (bash+PowerShell), health checks on all containers, hot reload, Prisma auto-migration, single .env management. Gap: no production Dockerfiles. |
| 11 | Security | 7/10 | JWT + refresh rotation, RBAC (3 roles), rate limiting (all services), Helmet, Zod, Prisma ORM, AES-256-GCM encryption, log redaction. Gap: no TLS, no circuit breaker, no service-to-service auth. |
| 12 | Performance | 6/10 | No load testing performed. 7 PostgreSQL instances (6 relational + pgvector) is heavy for a single machine. No caching strategy beyond Redis sessions. No connection pooling config. |
| 13 | Reliability | 6/10 | No message retry mechanism. No Dead Letter Queue for RabbitMQ failures. No circuit breaker between services. Health checks exist but no automated recovery. |
| 14 | Test Coverage | 6/10 | Tests in 10 of the services (58 files at the time), Jest framework. But: no E2E tests, no integration tests, two services with 0 tests, CI tolerates test failures, no coverage thresholds. |
| 15 | Business Readiness | 7/10 | Clear value proposition (local-first AI orchestration). Usage ledger for cost tracking. Admin panel for management. Gap: no billing integration, no user onboarding flow, no documentation for end users. |
| 16 | Release Risk | 5/10 | Medium risk. Internal use is safe (auth works, data is isolated, Docker is solid). Production needs: TLS, circuit breakers, DLQ, integration tests, secret management, backup strategy. |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Score | 112 / 160 |
| Average Score | 7.0 / 10 |
| Highest Scoring | Docker/DevOps (9), Backend (8), Frontend (8), Observability (8), Product Clarity (8) |
| Lowest Scoring | Release Risk (5), Performance (6), Reliability (6), Test Coverage (6), File Support (6) |
9-10 ████████░░ 1 dimension (Docker/DevOps)
7-8 ████████░░ 9 dimensions (Product, UX, Backend, Frontend, Routing, Anti-Hallucination, Memory, Observability, Security, Business)
5-6 ████████░░ 5 dimensions (File Support, Performance, Reliability, Test Coverage, Release Risk)
3-4 ░░░░░░░░░░ 0 dimensions
1-2 ░░░░░░░░░░ 0 dimensions
The platform is ready for internal deployment within a controlled environment:
- Authentication and authorization are solid
- All services are functional and interconnected
- Docker orchestration makes deployment trivial
- Observability provides sufficient visibility for internal debugging
- Rate limiting prevents accidental abuse
The platform can be rolled out to a small external audience IF:
- TLS is added (non-negotiable for any network-exposed deployment)
- Circuit breakers are added between services
- Dead Letter Queues are configured for RabbitMQ
- Integration tests are added and passing in CI
- Database backup strategy is implemented
- Secret management is implemented (no plaintext .env in production)
The platform is NOT ready for public production deployment due to:
- No TLS/HTTPS
- No production Dockerfiles or deployment pipeline
- No load testing or performance benchmarks
- No disaster recovery / backup strategy
- Test failures tolerated in CI
- No dependency vulnerability scanning
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data loss from RabbitMQ failure | Medium | High | P1 — Add DLQ |
| Cascading service failure | Medium | High | P1 — Add circuit breaker |
| Token interception (no TLS) | High (on network) | Critical | P0 — Add TLS |
| Database loss (no backups) | Low | Critical | P1 — Add backup automation |
| Performance degradation under load | Unknown | Medium | P2 — Load test first |
| Dependency vulnerability exploit | Medium | High | P2 — Add scanning |
| Silent test regression | High | Medium | P1 — Enforce test failures in CI |
- Add TLS to Nginx
- Make test failures block CI
- Add tests to 0-test services
- Add circuit breaker (e.g., cockatiel, opossum)
- Add DLQ for RabbitMQ
- Add database backup cron
- Add production Dockerfiles
- Add secret management
- Add integration test CI job
- Run load tests
- Add Playwright E2E tests for critical flows
- Add dependency vulnerability scanning
- Final release sign-off
ClawAI Wiki · source-controlled under wiki/ · generated/mirrored from the current repository knowledge layer.
ClawAI Wiki
Product
- Product-Vision
- Flagship-Features
- Business-Overview
- Requirements-Register
- Drift-Log
- Runtime-Managed-Connector-Providers
- Threads
- ADR-Index
Architecture
- System-at-a-Glance
- Architecture-Map
- System-Architecture
- Message-Flow
- End-to-End-Data-Flow
- Routing-Engine
- Event-Bus
- Security-Architecture
Platform
- Backend-Services
- Frontend-Architecture
- Shared-Packages
- Database-Reference
- API-Reference
- Provider-Catalog
- Memory-and-Context-Architecture
- File-Support-Architecture
- Research-and-Web-Crawling
Runtime & Ops
- Docker-Guide
- Nginx-Reference
- CI-CD-Pipeline
- Logging-and-Observability
- Operational-Runbooks
- Troubleshooting
Quality
Engineering OS
- AI-Native-Engineering-OS
- Generated-Manifests
- Rules-Catalog
- Skills-Catalog
- Context-Layer
- Engineering-Memory
- Tooling-and-Automation
- Scripts-and-Operations
- ESLint-and-Architecture-Enforcement
- Extended-Work-Skills
Agents
Reference