Compare commits
10 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
 Jon Chery
|
072ac83ef6 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
c6036ca433 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
38eb01d266 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
0404988465 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
dbca694f55 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
71f0f1a05d | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
ce751313a7 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
5b5e24d535 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
85c500e45a | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
301aa2c8d8 |
@@ -1,11 +1,12 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"phase": 0,
|
||||
"stage": "plan",
|
||||
"milestone": "v1.21",
|
||||
"milestone": "v1.22",
|
||||
"phase_role": "pre_execution",
|
||||
"attempts": 0,
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-11T00:01:00Z",
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-11T14:38:00Z",
|
||||
"milestone_complete": false,
|
||||
"requirements": ["REQ-245","REQ-246","REQ-247","REQ-248","REQ-249","REQ-250","REQ-251","REQ-252","REQ-253"],
|
||||
"notes": "v1.21 P0 plan stage complete. PLAN.md v1.21 section written. 5 execution phases (P1 strategic-docs, P2 slides, P3 marp+talking-points+README, P4 pipeline-hardening, P5 render+verify) + P6 final-review-ship. Wave 1 (P1/P2/P4 parallelizable), Wave 2 (P3), Wave 3 (P5), Wave 4 (P6). CLARIFY+RESEARCH minimal at full autonomy — domain known, requirements confirmed with user. Proceeding to P0 ship then execution."
|
||||
"tag": null,
|
||||
"requirements": ["REQ-254","REQ-255","REQ-256","REQ-257","REQ-258","REQ-259","REQ-260","REQ-261","REQ-262"],
|
||||
"notes": "v1.22 PLAN complete. 7 phases, 4 waves. Plan persisted to PLAN.md. Tags on v1.21.x line."
|
||||
}
|
||||
+120
-24
@@ -1,34 +1,128 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
project: acdl
|
||||
milestone: v1.18
|
||||
generated_at: 2026-08-06
|
||||
milestone: v1.22
|
||||
generated_at: 2026-08-11
|
||||
generator: lead-developer
|
||||
verification_toolchain:
|
||||
typecheck: "python3 -m py_compile core/submission_readiness.py mcp/atelier/server.py && python3 -m jsonschema schemas/submission-readiness.schema.json"
|
||||
test: "pytest tests/test_submission_readiness.py tests/test_atelier_mcp.py # REQ-220 + REQ-225"
|
||||
build: "bash scripts/render_deck.sh docs/presentations/nova-no-humans-platform-marp.md # HTML + PPTX (D-142)"
|
||||
typecheck: "python3 -m py_compile tests/test_slides_pipeline.py"
|
||||
test: "pytest tests/test_slides_pipeline.py # REQ-254..262"
|
||||
build: "bash scripts/render_slides.sh nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery # HTML + PPTX"
|
||||
note: |
|
||||
v1.18 adds the Citizen Developer & Production-Grade Guidance surface:
|
||||
submission-readiness gate, Atelier-derived skills, the Atelier MCP server
|
||||
(plugin-registry, stdio), and PPTX-as-first-class-artifact deck automation.
|
||||
Three active personas: lead-developer (coordination + decks + RACI/scope
|
||||
docs), backend-engineer (MCP server + submission-readiness validator +
|
||||
render/attach scripts), data-engineer (submission-readiness schema if it
|
||||
touches contract storage / DynamoDB shape). frontend-engineer stays
|
||||
deactivated (v1.18 has no frontend; decks are markdown = lead-developer
|
||||
territory). The MCP plugin-registry is a backend pattern, so a separate
|
||||
mcp-engineer persona is NOT added — it folds into backend-engineer.
|
||||
v1.22 is the Nova Deck Layout Fix — a docs-only NFR milestone. Two
|
||||
active personas: lead-developer (theme CSS + deck markdown + talking
|
||||
points + README + .ciagent metadata), backend-engineer (render scripts
|
||||
+ tests). frontend-engineer stays deactivated (decks are markdown =
|
||||
lead-developer territory, per v1.17/v1.18 precedent). No data-engineer
|
||||
(no schema/DB changes). No new personas (the work is CSS + bash +
|
||||
markdown + pytest, all within the two active personas' range).
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# ACDL — Persona Roster (v1.18 Citizen Developer & Production-Grade Guidance)
|
||||
# ACDL — Persona Roster (v1.22 Nova Deck Layout Fix)
|
||||
|
||||
> v1.18 roster. Three active personas + one deactivated. The MCP server
|
||||
> plugin-registry (D-140) is a backend pattern, not a new persona — it
|
||||
> folds into backend-engineer. v1.17 precedent (frontend-engineer
|
||||
> deactivated, decks are markdown = lead-developer territory) is upheld.
|
||||
> v1.22 roster. Two active personas + one deactivated. This is a docs-
|
||||
> only NFR milestone: the work is theme CSS, render scripts, mermaid
|
||||
> diagrams, deck markdown, and tests. frontend-engineer stays
|
||||
> deactivated (decks are markdown = lead-developer territory, per
|
||||
> v1.17/v1.18 precedent). No data-engineer (no schema/DB changes).
|
||||
|
||||
## Active personas
|
||||
|
||||
### lead-developer
|
||||
- **Domain:** coordination + deck content
|
||||
- **Active:** true
|
||||
- **Phase-specific:** false
|
||||
- **Frameworks:** [] (no framework — owns process + narrative + CSS + markdown)
|
||||
- **Constraints:** ["pragmatic", "battle-tested defaults", "no fabrication (NORTH_STAR honesty model)", "do not change the 4-beat arc", "do not re-introduce badges/version/internal citations"]
|
||||
- **Territory:**
|
||||
- `docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css` (REQ-254,255,256 — theme CSS)
|
||||
- `docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` (REQ-261 — deck content)
|
||||
- `docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md` (REQ-261 — source of truth)
|
||||
- `docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md` (REQ-261)
|
||||
- `docs/presentations/README.md` (REQ-261 — slide-count convention)
|
||||
- `docs/presentations/assets/mmd/*.mmd` (REQ-259,260 — mermaid re-layout)
|
||||
- `.ciagent/**` (PROJECT, ROADMAP, REQUIREMENTS, RESEARCH, PLAN, GRILL, PERSONAS, REVIEW, CHECKPOINT)
|
||||
- **Reason:** Owns the theme CSS (the root cause), the deck markdown
|
||||
(trim/split overflowing slides), the mermaid re-layout, the talking
|
||||
points, the README, and all CIAgent metadata. Is the only persona
|
||||
that touches `.ciagent/**` and the deck markdown/CSS.
|
||||
- **Phase-specific flag:** none (active for all of P0–P6).
|
||||
|
||||
### backend-engineer
|
||||
- **Domain:** render scripts + tests
|
||||
- **Active:** true
|
||||
- **Phase-specific:** false
|
||||
- **Frameworks:** ["bash", "pytest", "marp-cli", "mermaid-cli"]
|
||||
- **Constraints:** ["pin CLI versions (no @latest)", "2x scale + transparent bg for mermaid", "tests must catch layout regressions", "no raw curl with shell-env tokens"]
|
||||
- **Territory:**
|
||||
- `scripts/render_slides.sh` (REQ-257,258 — pin versions, 2x scale)
|
||||
- `scripts/render_deck.sh` (REQ-257 — DELETE)
|
||||
- `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py` (REQ-262 — layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural tests)
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/slides.yml` (if references to render_deck.sh need removal)
|
||||
- **Reason:** Owns the render pipeline (bash scripts) and the test
|
||||
suite. The layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural tests (REQ-262) are
|
||||
the gap that let this regression through — backend-engineer owns
|
||||
closing that gap. Pinning CLI versions and adding 2x scale are
|
||||
backend/scripting tasks.
|
||||
- **Phase-specific flag:** none (active for P2, P5; light touch on P0/P6).
|
||||
|
||||
## Deactivated personas
|
||||
|
||||
### frontend-engineer
|
||||
- **Active:** false
|
||||
- **Domain:** frontend
|
||||
- **Frameworks:** ["react", "next.js"] (inert — no territory)
|
||||
- **Constraints:** ["component-first", "server-components", "minimal-client-js"] (inert)
|
||||
- **Territory:** [] (no territory in v1.22)
|
||||
- **Reason:** v1.22 has no frontend; decks are markdown (lead-developer
|
||||
territory); deactivated per PERSONAS.md v1.17/v1.18 precedent. The
|
||||
theme CSS is a Marp stylesheet, not a React/Next.js component system
|
||||
— it stays lead-developer territory. No reactivation trigger.
|
||||
|
||||
### data-engineer
|
||||
- **Active:** false
|
||||
- **Domain:** data
|
||||
- **Frameworks:** [] (inert)
|
||||
- **Constraints:** [] (inert)
|
||||
- **Territory:** [] (no territory in v1.22)
|
||||
- **Reason:** v1.22 has no schema/DB/ORM changes. The milestone is
|
||||
docs + scripts + tests only. No reactivation trigger.
|
||||
|
||||
## Roster decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### D-148 (0.95): Theme CSS is lead-developer territory, not frontend-engineer
|
||||
The `nova-sp-theme.css` is a Marp stylesheet (CSS for a markdown-to-
|
||||
slide renderer), not a React/Next.js component system. The v1.17/v1.18
|
||||
precedent (decks are markdown = lead-developer territory) extends to
|
||||
the deck's CSS theme. frontend-engineer's frameworks (react, next.js)
|
||||
are irrelevant to Marp CSS. **Decision:** theme CSS stays lead-developer
|
||||
territory. Confidence 0.95 — the only counter-argument is that CSS is
|
||||
"frontend," but Marp CSS is a static stylesheet, not a component system.
|
||||
|
||||
### D-149 (0.9): No new personas for v1.22
|
||||
The work is CSS + bash + markdown + mermaid + pytest. All of this is
|
||||
within the two active personas' range (lead-developer: CSS + markdown +
|
||||
mermaid; backend-engineer: bash + pytest). Creating a separate "css-
|
||||
engineer" or "slides-engineer" persona would fragment ownership of the
|
||||
theme CSS + deck markdown (both lead-developer) and the render scripts
|
||||
+ tests (both backend-engineer). **Decision:** no new personas.
|
||||
Confidence 0.9.
|
||||
|
||||
### Territory-overlap resolution (co-ownership)
|
||||
|
||||
| Path | Primary | Co-owner | Why |
|
||||
|------|---------|----------|-----|
|
||||
| `docs/presentations/assets/mmd/*.mmd` | lead-developer (mermaid re-layout) | backend-engineer (re-render via render_slides.sh) | The .mmd content is lead-developer (diagram narrative); the PNG re-render is backend-engineer (script invocation). |
|
||||
| `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py` | backend-engineer (test code) | lead-developer (assertions reflect deck structure) | The test code is backend; the assertions (slide count, theme rules, aspect ratios) reflect lead-developer's deck/theme decisions. |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Historical rosters
|
||||
|
||||
<details>
|
||||
<summary>v1.18 roster (Citizen Developer & Production-Grade Guidance) — superseded by v1.22</summary>
|
||||
|
||||
### Active personas (v1.18)
|
||||
|
||||
### lead-developer
|
||||
- **Domain:** coordination
|
||||
- **Active:** true
|
||||
@@ -97,7 +191,7 @@ verification_toolchain:
|
||||
is backend; the schema it validates against is data).
|
||||
- **Phase-specific flag:** none (active for P3 schema + ingestor wiring).
|
||||
|
||||
## Deactivated personas
|
||||
### Deactivated personas (v1.18)
|
||||
|
||||
### frontend-engineer
|
||||
- **Active:** false
|
||||
@@ -111,7 +205,7 @@ verification_toolchain:
|
||||
frontend / dashboard"). The MCP server exposes tools to an AI agent,
|
||||
not a web UI. No reactivation trigger in this milestone.
|
||||
|
||||
## Roster decisions
|
||||
### Roster decisions (v1.18)
|
||||
|
||||
### D-143 (0.90): Fold mcp-engineer into backend-engineer
|
||||
The MCP plugin-registry (D-140: `plugins/<name>.py register(mcp)`) is a
|
||||
@@ -127,10 +221,12 @@ that MCP is a distinct protocol skill, but the SDK v2 API surface
|
||||
range (it's the same Pydantic/FastAPI-style pattern the persona already
|
||||
knows).
|
||||
|
||||
### Territory-overlap resolution (co-ownership)
|
||||
### Territory-overlap resolution (v1.18)
|
||||
|
||||
| Path | Primary | Co-owner | Why |
|
||||
|------|---------|----------|-----|
|
||||
| `docs/submission-readiness.md` | lead-developer (narrative + examples) | backend-engineer (reason-code catalog, REQ-218 codes) | The doc is citizen-developer-facing copy (lead) but the reason-code catalog (MISSING_TAGS, ENV_MISSING_MANDATORY, AGENTIC_MISSING_INTENT, MISSING_APP_SOURCE, POLICY_PRECONDITION_MISSING) is backend (it mirrors the validator's return codes). |
|
||||
| `core/lambda/contract_ingestor.py` | backend-engineer (dispatch wiring) | data-engineer (the schema it validates against) | D-133 places the `--check-readiness` subcommand on the ingestor (backend dispatch), but the readiness schema it loads is data-engineer territory. |
|
||||
| `schemas/submission-readiness.schema.json` | data-engineer (schema artifact) | backend-engineer (the validator must match it) | The schema is data-engineer's; the validator (REQ-218) is backend-engineer's and must stay in sync with it. |
|
||||
| `schemas/submission-readiness.schema.json` | data-engineer (schema artifact) | backend-engineer (the validator must match it) | The schema is data-engineer's; the validator (REQ-218) is backend-engineer's and must stay in sync with it. |
|
||||
|
||||
</details>
|
||||
+357
-2
@@ -1098,5 +1098,360 @@ NOT exercised here.
|
||||
8. **No new frontend (frontend-engineer deactivated).** v1.18 has no
|
||||
frontend; decks are markdown (lead-developer territory); the MCP
|
||||
server exposes tools to an AI agent, not a web UI. The
|
||||
frontend-engineer persona stays deactivated (PERSONAS.md v1.18
|
||||
roster). No reactivation trigger in this milestone.
|
||||
frontend-engineer persona stays deactivated (PERSONAS.md v1.18
|
||||
roster). No reactivation trigger in this milestone.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Nova — Phase Plan v1.22 (Nova Deck Layout Fix)
|
||||
|
||||
> **Milestone:** v1.22 — Nova Deck Layout Fix
|
||||
> **Branch:** `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix` → merge to `main` at P6.
|
||||
> Phase branches: `phase/00-pre-execution`, `phase/01-theme-css`,
|
||||
> `phase/02-render-scripts`, `phase/03-mermaid-relayout`,
|
||||
> `phase/04-deck-content`, `phase/05-render-and-test`,
|
||||
> `phase/06-final-review-ship`.
|
||||
> **Tag line:** `v1.21.x` patch line — `v1.21.0` (P0) →
|
||||
> `v1.21.1..v1.21.5` (P1–P5) → `v1.21.6` (P6 final = milestone release).
|
||||
> v1.22 is an NFR milestone (all phases are fix/docs/test) →
|
||||
> progressive patches.
|
||||
> **Phase count:** 7 (P0 pre-execution + 5 execution + 1 final).
|
||||
> **Source of truth for requirements:** `.ciagent/REQUIREMENTS.md` §v1.22
|
||||
> (REQ-254..262, 9 requirements).
|
||||
> **Source of truth for research:** `.ciagent/RESEARCH.md` §v1.22 (8
|
||||
> findings, 5 assumptions, 5 CLARIFY decisions).
|
||||
> **Source of truth for personas:** `.ciagent/PERSONAS.md` v1.22 roster
|
||||
> (2 active: lead-developer + backend-engineer; 2 deactivated:
|
||||
> frontend + data).
|
||||
|
||||
## Wave Ordering
|
||||
|
||||
| Wave | Phases | Rationale |
|
||||
|------|--------|-----------|
|
||||
| Wave 1 | P1, P2 (**parallel**) | P1 (theme CSS: padding, overflow, image, title chrome) + P2 (render scripts: delete render_deck.sh, pin versions, 2x scale). Zero file overlap: P1 touches `docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css`; P2 touches `scripts/render_slides.sh` + deletes `scripts/render_deck.sh`. P1 establishes the padding/overflow/image budget that P4's content trimming relies on; P2 fixes the render pipeline that P3's PNG re-render depends on. |
|
||||
| Wave 2 | P3, P4 (**parallel**) | P3 (mermaid re-layout: telemetry LR, platform-pipeline 2-row wrap) + P4 (deck content: trim/split 8 overflowing slides, remove header). P3 depends on P2 (2x scale flag); P4 depends on P1 (padding budget). Zero file overlap: P3 touches `docs/presentations/assets/mmd/*.mmd` + PNGs; P4 touches `docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` + source `.md` + talking-points + README. |
|
||||
| Wave 3 | P5 | Re-render HTML + PPTX + add tests. Depends on all above (P1 theme, P2 scripts, P3 diagrams, P4 content). Re-renders via the fixed `render_slides.sh`; adds the layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural tests (the gap that let this through). |
|
||||
| Wave 4 | P6 | Final review + audit + milestone ship. Merge to main, tag `v1.21.6`, create release, attach PPTX. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P0 — pre-execution (DONE)
|
||||
|
||||
SPECIFY → CLARIFY → RESEARCH → PLAN. Validated v1.22 requirements
|
||||
(REQ-254..262). Established `active_milestone: "v1.22"`. Root-cause
|
||||
investigation persisted to RESEARCH.md (8 findings). Persona roster
|
||||
updated (2 active, 2 deactivated). 5 CLARIFY decisions auto-resolved.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P1 — theme-css (fix) — lead-developer
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** REQ-254, REQ-255, REQ-256
|
||||
**Branch:** `phase/01-theme-css`
|
||||
**Territory:** `docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css`
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **REQ-254 — section padding + overflow:**
|
||||
- Add `section { padding: 48px 56px 40px; }` (top reserves header
|
||||
space; bottom reserves footer).
|
||||
- Add `section { overflow: auto; }` as an authoring-time signal
|
||||
(dense content scrolls instead of silently clipping). Document
|
||||
that the real fix is content trimming (P4), not runtime scroll.
|
||||
2. **REQ-255 — aspect-ratio-aware image rules:**
|
||||
- Replace `img { display: block; margin: 0 auto; max-height: 320px }`
|
||||
with `img { display: block; margin: 0 auto; max-width: 100%;
|
||||
max-height: 380px; object-fit: contain; }`.
|
||||
- Add `.wide` class: `img.wide { max-height: 280px; }` (for ultra-wide
|
||||
diagrams).
|
||||
- Add `.tall` class: `img.tall { max-height: 480px; }` (for tall
|
||||
diagrams that need more vertical room).
|
||||
3. **REQ-256 — title chrome + spacing tightening:**
|
||||
- Add `section.title header, section.title footer { display: none; }`.
|
||||
- Add `section h2 + p { margin-top: 0.2em; }`.
|
||||
- Add `section p { margin: 0.4em 0; }`.
|
||||
- Add `ol` styling: `ol { margin-top: 0.3em; }` (match `ul`).
|
||||
- Add `table.dense td, table.dense th { padding: 4px 8px; }` (for
|
||||
tables with ≥8 rows).
|
||||
- Add `@media print { section { overflow: hidden; } }` (PPTX export
|
||||
fidelity — no scrollbars in exported slides).
|
||||
|
||||
### Verify (inline)
|
||||
- `python3 -c "from pathlib import Path; css = Path('docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css').read_text(); assert 'padding:' in css and 'section.title header' in css and 'object-fit' in css and 'table.dense' in css; print('theme CSS OK')"`
|
||||
- `pytest tests/test_slides_pipeline.py -k "theme" -q` (existing theme
|
||||
color tests still pass).
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.1`, merge `phase/01-theme-css` → `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P2 — render-scripts (fix) — backend-engineer
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** REQ-257, REQ-258
|
||||
**Branch:** `phase/02-render-scripts`
|
||||
**Territory:** `scripts/render_slides.sh`, `scripts/render_deck.sh` (DELETE)
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **REQ-257 — delete render_deck.sh + pin CLI versions:**
|
||||
- `git rm scripts/render_deck.sh` (the README already documents
|
||||
`render_slides.sh` as canonical; `render_deck.sh` omits `--theme`
|
||||
and produces unthemed output).
|
||||
- Pin marp-cli and mermaid-cli versions in `render_slides.sh`:
|
||||
replace `@marp-team/marp-cli@latest` with a pinned version (e.g.
|
||||
`@marp-team/marp-cli@4.0.0` — determine the working version by
|
||||
testing during execution) and `@mermaid-js/mermaid-cli@latest`
|
||||
with a pinned version (e.g. `@mermaid-js/mermaid-cli@10.9.1`).
|
||||
- Remove any references to `render_deck.sh` from
|
||||
`.github/workflows/slides.yml`, `docs/presentations/README.md`,
|
||||
and `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py` (if any test references it).
|
||||
2. **REQ-258 — 2x scale + transparent bg for mermaid:**
|
||||
- In `render_slides.sh` lines 51-55, add `-s 2 -b transparent` to
|
||||
the mermaid-cli invocation (matches README line 193 spec).
|
||||
|
||||
### Verify (inline)
|
||||
- `test ! -f scripts/render_deck.sh && echo "render_deck.sh deleted OK"`
|
||||
- `grep -q "marp-cli@" scripts/render_slides.sh && grep -q "mermaid-cli@" scripts/render_slides.sh && echo "versions pinned OK"`
|
||||
- `grep -q -- "-s 2" scripts/render_slides.sh && grep -q -- "-b transparent" scripts/render_slides.sh && echo "2x + transparent OK"`
|
||||
- `pytest tests/test_slides_pipeline.py -k "render" -q` (existing
|
||||
render-script tests still pass; update if they reference
|
||||
`render_deck.sh`).
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.2`, merge `phase/02-render-scripts` → `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P3 — mermaid-relayout (fix) — lead-developer
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** REQ-259, REQ-260
|
||||
**Branch:** `phase/03-mermaid-relayout`
|
||||
**Territory:** `docs/presentations/assets/mmd/telemetry-live-ops.mmd`,
|
||||
`docs/presentations/assets/mmd/platform-pipeline.mmd`, PNG re-render
|
||||
(via `render_slides.sh` — backend-engineer co-owns the script
|
||||
invocation).
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **REQ-259 — telemetry-live-ops.mmd TB → LR:**
|
||||
- Rewrite `docs/presentations/assets/mmd/telemetry-live-ops.mmd` from
|
||||
`flowchart TB` to `flowchart LR` with subgraph row-wrapping (per
|
||||
README line 168). Target aspect ratio ∈ [1.2, 2.5].
|
||||
- Re-render PNG: `bash scripts/render_slides.sh nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery`
|
||||
(now with 2x scale + transparent bg from P2).
|
||||
- Update the Marp deck's `![w:900]` directive on slide 9 to match
|
||||
the new dimensions (or replace with `![h:320]` if the diagram
|
||||
remains taller than wide after re-layout — but LR should produce
|
||||
a wide diagram).
|
||||
2. **REQ-260 — platform-pipeline.mmd 2-row wrap:**
|
||||
- Rewrite `docs/presentations/assets/mmd/platform-pipeline.mmd` to
|
||||
wrap the 10-node LR chain into 2 rows via mermaid subgraphs (or
|
||||
split into two stages: static-scan row + runtime-scan row). Target
|
||||
aspect ratio ∈ [1.2, 2.5].
|
||||
- Re-render PNG (same command as above).
|
||||
|
||||
### Verify (inline)
|
||||
- `python3 -c "from PIL import Image; import os; d='docs/presentations/assets/png'; [print(f, Image.open(os.path.join(d,f)).size) for f in os.listdir(d) if f.endswith('.png')]"` (check aspect ratios — or use a stdlib-only check if PIL unavailable).
|
||||
- Verify both re-rendered PNGs have aspect ratio ∈ [1.2, 2.5].
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.3`, merge `phase/03-mermaid-relayout` → `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P4 — deck-content (fix) — lead-developer
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** REQ-261
|
||||
**Branch:** `phase/04-deck-content`
|
||||
**Territory:** `docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md`,
|
||||
`docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md`,
|
||||
`docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md`,
|
||||
`docs/presentations/README.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Split slide 3** (Objectives + Anti-Goals) into:
|
||||
- Slide 3a — Strategic Objectives (4 objectives + nested sub-list).
|
||||
- Slide 3b — Anti-Goals (4 anti-goals + benefit).
|
||||
Main slide count 18 → 19.
|
||||
2. **Split slide 8** (Attestation Matrix) into:
|
||||
- Slide 8a — Attestation: QA (3 qa rows + separation-of-duties note).
|
||||
- Slide 8b — Attestation: Prod/DR (7 prod/dr rows + benefit).
|
||||
Main slide count 19 → 20.
|
||||
3. **Trim slide 5** (RACI): apply `table.dense` class (from P1) to
|
||||
reduce cell padding; keep 8 rows.
|
||||
4. **Trim slide 6** (Pipeline): reduce to 3 bullets (the 4th is covered
|
||||
by the diagram, now legible after P3).
|
||||
5. **Trim slide 9** (Telemetry): reduce to 3 bullets; image now legible
|
||||
after P3.
|
||||
6. **Trim slide 12** (Deferred): reduce to 6 rows (merge the 3 "Live
|
||||
AWS re-provisioning" blockers into one row).
|
||||
7. **Trim slide 15** (Quarter-by-Quarter): drop the "Grounding" column
|
||||
(redundant with strategic objectives); 4 columns fit better.
|
||||
8. **Trim Appendix A1** (Glossary): apply `table.dense` class (16px
|
||||
font); keep 13 rows.
|
||||
9. **Remove `header:` from frontmatter** (keep `footer:` + `paginate:
|
||||
true` only). The full 51-char deck title in BOTH header and footer
|
||||
is redundant chrome; the footer alone suffices.
|
||||
10. **Update talking-points.md** to match the new 20 main + 1 appendix
|
||||
slide structure.
|
||||
11. **Update README.md** "18 main + 1 appendix" convention (line 130)
|
||||
→ "20 main + 1 appendix".
|
||||
12. **Update `test_marp_deck_slide_count`** in
|
||||
`tests/test_slides_pipeline.py` to assert 20 main + 1 appendix
|
||||
(this test is co-owned with backend-engineer per PERSONAS.md, but
|
||||
the assertion value reflects lead-developer's deck structure
|
||||
decision — lead-developer makes the edit here).
|
||||
|
||||
### Verify (inline)
|
||||
- `pytest tests/test_slides_pipeline.py -k "slide_count" -q` (updated
|
||||
test passes with 20 main + 1 appendix).
|
||||
- `grep -c "## Slide " docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` → 20.
|
||||
- `grep -c "## Appendix " docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` → 1.
|
||||
- `grep -q "^header:" docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md && echo "FAIL: header still present" || echo "header removed OK"`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.4`, merge `phase/04-deck-content` → `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P5 — render-and-test (test) — backend-engineer
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** REQ-262
|
||||
**Branch:** `phase/05-render-and-test`
|
||||
**Territory:** `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py` (test code — backend),
|
||||
re-render invocation (backend). Assertions reflect lead-developer's
|
||||
deck/theme decisions (co-owned).
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Re-render HTML + PPTX:**
|
||||
- `bash scripts/render_slides.sh nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery` →
|
||||
re-renders all mermaid PNGs (2x transparent) + HTML + PPTX.
|
||||
- Verify slide count (20 main + 1 appendix = 21 `<section>` elements
|
||||
in the HTML + 1 title = 22 total — or however Marp counts the title
|
||||
slide; verify against the marp deck).
|
||||
- Verify media embedding (PPTX has embedded PNGs).
|
||||
2. **Add tests to `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py`:**
|
||||
- `test_theme_css_has_section_padding` — assert `section` rule in
|
||||
`nova-sp-theme.css` contains `padding`.
|
||||
- `test_theme_css_suppresses_title_chrome` — assert
|
||||
`section.title header` and `section.title footer` have
|
||||
`display: none`.
|
||||
- `test_png_aspect_ratios_sane` — for every PNG in `assets/png/`,
|
||||
assert aspect ratio ∈ [1.2, 2.5] (catches the 13.52× and 0.63×
|
||||
outliers). Use `struct`/`imghdr` or a minimal PNG header parser
|
||||
(no PIL dependency if possible).
|
||||
- `test_render_slides_has_2x_scale` — assert `render_slides.sh`
|
||||
contains `-s 2` and `-b transparent`.
|
||||
- `test_render_deck_removed` — assert `scripts/render_deck.sh` does
|
||||
not exist.
|
||||
- `test_html_embeds_theme` — assert committed HTML contains
|
||||
`--sp-red` and `padding` in the inline `<style>`.
|
||||
- `test_html_slide_count_matches_marp` — parse HTML `<section>` count
|
||||
== marp deck slide count.
|
||||
3. **Run full test suite:**
|
||||
- `pytest tests/test_slides_pipeline.py -q` (all slide tests pass).
|
||||
- `pytest -q` (full suite — was 686 pass + 1 pre-existing attestation
|
||||
env failure; should now be 686 + new tests pass, same 1 failure).
|
||||
- `bash scripts/run_platform.sh --check-only` → exit 0.
|
||||
|
||||
### Verify (inline)
|
||||
- `pytest tests/test_slides_pipeline.py -q` (all pass, including new
|
||||
layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural tests).
|
||||
- `pytest -q 2>&1 | tail -5` (full suite — confirm no new failures).
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.5`, merge `phase/05-render-and-test` → `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase P6 — final-review-ship (final) — lead-developer
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements:** all (REQ-254..262) — milestone release
|
||||
**Branch:** `phase/06-final-review-ship`
|
||||
|
||||
### Tasks
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Multi-persona review** (`ciagent-review` equivalent):
|
||||
- Review all changes in the milestone branch across P1-P5.
|
||||
- Auto-apply P0 fixes; flag P1+ for post-hoc review.
|
||||
- If P1+ issues found: fix them in this final phase.
|
||||
2. **Audit** (`ciagent-audit` equivalent):
|
||||
- Reconstruction test: verify git log matches `.ciagent/` files.
|
||||
- Check `.ciagent/` file discipline and branch hygiene.
|
||||
- Check commit discipline (all commits have `---ci---` blocks).
|
||||
- If audit finds critical issues: fix them in this final phase.
|
||||
3. **Milestone ship** (`ciagent-ship` equivalent):
|
||||
- Merge `phase/06-final-review-ship` → `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix`.
|
||||
- Merge `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix` → `main`.
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.6` (final phase patch = milestone release).
|
||||
- Create release with full milestone summary (all phases, all
|
||||
requirements).
|
||||
- Build and upload PPTX as release asset.
|
||||
- Delete all milestone branches (local + remote).
|
||||
4. **Complete the milestone:**
|
||||
- Update `REQUIREMENTS.md` — mark REQ-254..262 as complete.
|
||||
- Update `ROADMAP.md` — mark v1.22 as complete.
|
||||
- Commit: `docs(milestone): complete v1.22 — Nova Deck Layout Fix`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Ship
|
||||
- Tag `v1.21.6` (milestone release). Merge to `main`. Clear checkpoint.
|
||||
|
||||
## Plan-Level Risks + Notes (v1.22)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Slide count change** (18 → 20 main): `test_marp_deck_slide_count`
|
||||
+ README convention must be updated in P4. The split is necessary
|
||||
because slides 3 and 8 are the densest (~780px each) and cannot be
|
||||
trimmed without losing leadership-relevant content.
|
||||
2. **Marp version pinning**: the exact pinned versions will be
|
||||
determined during P2 execution by testing which version produces
|
||||
stable output in this environment. If the pinned version has a
|
||||
different boilerplate-CSS signature, the HTML diff will be large but
|
||||
layout-stable.
|
||||
3. **`overflow: auto` on `section`**: Marp slides are SVG
|
||||
`foreignObject` — `overflow: auto` may not produce scrollbars in all
|
||||
renderers (PPTX especially). The safer approach is content trimming
|
||||
(P4) + padding (P1), treating overflow as an authoring-time signal,
|
||||
not a runtime scroll. The `@media print { section { overflow: hidden; } }`
|
||||
rule in P1 ensures PPTX export doesn't show scrollbars.
|
||||
4. **No new frontend** (frontend-engineer deactivated). v1.22 has no
|
||||
frontend; decks are markdown + Marp CSS (lead-developer territory,
|
||||
per D-148). The frontend-engineer persona stays deactivated.
|
||||
5. **No data-engineer** (no schema/DB changes). v1.22 is docs + scripts
|
||||
+ tests only.
|
||||
6. **Wave 1 + Wave 2 parallelism**: P1+P2 and P3+P4 are documented as
|
||||
parallelizable (zero file overlap). In this sequential run they
|
||||
execute in order; in a parallelization-enabled run they could execute
|
||||
concurrently up to `max_concurrent_agents: 5`.
|
||||
7. **PPTX remains first-class**: committed to git + attached to the
|
||||
phase's Gitea release. No change to this convention.
|
||||
|
||||
## GRILL verdicts (v1.22) — binding
|
||||
|
||||
> Adversarial review of the v1.22 plan. 8 axes reviewed. Overall
|
||||
> verdict: **PROCEED-WITH-REVISIONS** (confidence 0.85). The plan is
|
||||
> sound for a low-risk docs-only milestone; 3 revisions required.
|
||||
|
||||
### Axis verdicts
|
||||
|
||||
| Axis | Verdict | Rationale |
|
||||
|------|---------|-----------|
|
||||
| Feasibility | PASS | All phases use available tools (bash, edit, marp-cli, mermaid-cli, pytest). No hidden dependencies. |
|
||||
| Scope | PASS | 7 phases / 9 requirements justified by the 4-layer root cause (theme CSS + scripts + diagrams + content + tests). Could be fewer phases only if scope were narrower (but CLARIFY resolved: comprehensive). |
|
||||
| Cost | PASS | Proportionate: the problem affects every slide; the fix touches the theme (1 file), 2 scripts, 2 diagrams, 1 deck, 1 test file. 7 phases is the natural decomposition. |
|
||||
| Risk | REVISE | (1) `overflow: auto` on SVG `foreignObject` may not produce scrollbars in PPTX export — the `@media print { section { overflow: hidden; } }` rule mitigates this; document it explicitly. (2) Marp version pinning — if the pinned version breaks, fall back to `@latest` and log an assumption. (3) Slide count change (18→20) breaks `test_marp_deck_slide_count` — P4 updates the test; confirmed in plan. |
|
||||
| Wave ordering | PASS | P1+P2 and P3+P4 parallelism claims are valid (zero file overlap verified). |
|
||||
| Test strategy | **REVISE** | The `test_png_aspect_ratios_sane` test as planned checks ALL PNGs in `assets/png/` against [1.2, 2.5]. **15 of 19 PNGs are OUT OF BOUNDS** — most are legacy/unused diagrams (developer-experience-*, platform-works-*) not referenced in the current `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` deck. Only 2 PNGs are referenced in the current deck (platform-pipeline.png, telemetry-live-ops.png). **Revision: scope the test to only PNGs referenced in the current marp deck** (parse `` references from the marp deck and check only those). The [1.2, 2.5] bounds are correct for 16:9 slides. |
|
||||
| Alternatives | **REVISE** | The plan manually adds `section { padding: 48px 56px 40px; }` instead of `@import`-ing Marp's default theme. The manual approach is correct (the default theme's padding alone is insufficient — it doesn't reserve header/footer space, and the default theme's other rules would conflict with the S&P palette). However, the plan should document WHY `@import` is rejected (default theme applies `padding: 56px 64px` but also applies conflicting base styles; the manual approach gives precise control over the padding budget). **Revision: add a note to P1 explaining the `@import` rejection.** |
|
||||
| Completeness | PASS | All 8 RESEARCH findings are addressed: F1→REQ-254, F2→REQ-254, F3→REQ-259/260, F4→REQ-256/261, F5→REQ-257, F6→REQ-258, F7→not a cause (no action), F8→REQ-262. |
|
||||
|
||||
### Revisions applied (binding)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **P5 `test_png_aspect_ratios_sane`** — scope to only PNGs referenced in
|
||||
the current marp deck (parse `` from
|
||||
`nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md`). Legacy/unused PNGs are not
|
||||
checked. This prevents the test from failing on 15 legacy diagrams
|
||||
that are not part of the current deck.
|
||||
2. **P1 `@import` rejection note** — add a comment in the theme CSS and
|
||||
a note in the plan explaining why `@import "default"` is rejected:
|
||||
the default theme's `padding: 56px 64px` does not reserve
|
||||
header/footer space, and its other base styles (font, color, list
|
||||
spacing) would conflict with the S&P palette. The manual padding
|
||||
gives precise control over the padding budget (48px top for header,
|
||||
40px bottom for footer, 56px sides).
|
||||
3. **P2 marp version pinning fallback** — if the pinned marp-cli version
|
||||
produces broken output during P2 execution, fall back to `@latest`
|
||||
and log an assumption (A5) that version pinning is deferred. Do not
|
||||
block the pipeline on version pinning.
|
||||
|
||||
**Overall: PROCEED-WITH-REVISIONS.** The 3 revisions are incorporated
|
||||
into the phase tasks above (P1, P2, P5). No blocking issues. The plan
|
||||
is feasible, scoped, and complete for a low-risk docs-only milestone.
|
||||
@@ -1419,3 +1419,116 @@ wrong commit standard, wrong repo.
|
||||
| D-145 | Trigger = manual-only (`--release` / `RELEASE_CONFIRMED=1`). | The 2nd release is a deliberate human action, not a CI side-effect. The gate guarantees it can never fire from Gitea Actions, GitHub Actions, or accidental invocation. | Script exits 2 without `--release`. |
|
||||
| D-146 | Domain grouping = 13 fixed-order domains by path prefix; messages map positionally over CHANGED domains only. | Avoids the kitchen-sink commit; gives `~/nova` a reviewable, conventional history tailored to platform consumers. Positional-over-changed mapping lets the human supply exactly the messages needed, in domain order, without padding for unchanged domains. | `--list-domains` prints order; `--dry-run` previews; count-mismatch errors clearly. |
|
||||
| D-147 | coreci / Atelier review gate = deferred this milestone. | The vendored Atelier (`mcp/atelier/vendor`) could review the synced tree before commit and block on P0, but that's an additive hardening step, not part of establishing the pipeline. Deferred to a future milestone. | Sync ships consumer contents as-is; no review gate. |
|
||||
|
||||
### CLARIFY auto-resolved parameters (full autonomy)
|
||||
|
||||
The following ambiguities were identified and auto-resolved at full
|
||||
autonomy (no human escalation needed — confidence > 0.6 threshold):
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Fix scope** — comprehensive (theme CSS + render scripts + mermaid
|
||||
re-layout + deck content + tests) vs. minimal. **Resolved: comprehensive.**
|
||||
The root cause spans all four layers; a theme-only fix would leave
|
||||
the extreme-aspect-ratio diagrams and the stale `render_deck.sh`
|
||||
unfixed. Confidence: 0.95.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Pipeline depth** — full pipeline (SPECIFY→CLARIFY→RESEARCH→PLAN→
|
||||
GRILL→EXECUTE→VERIFY→SHIP) vs. lighter path. **Resolved: full pipeline.**
|
||||
This is a new milestone (v1.22); the full pipeline ensures the plan
|
||||
is grilled and the audit trail is complete. Confidence: 0.9.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Mermaid diagram fixes** — re-layout to LR + re-render vs. CSS-only
|
||||
fix. **Resolved: re-layout to LR + re-render at 2x transparent.**
|
||||
The `telemetry-live-ops.mmd` uses `flowchart TB` (produced a 1024×1628
|
||||
PNG — aspect 0.63); the README (line 168) explicitly says to use
|
||||
horizontal layouts for wide diagrams. CSS-only cannot fix the aspect
|
||||
ratio. Confidence: 0.95.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **`render_deck.sh` disposition** — fix (add `--theme`) vs. delete.
|
||||
**Resolved: delete.** The README already documents `render_slides.sh`
|
||||
as canonical; `render_deck.sh` is unreferenced by the build-commands
|
||||
section and is a footgun (produces unthemed output). Confidence: 0.9.
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Slide count change** — keep 18 main + 1 appendix vs. split
|
||||
overflowing slides. **Resolved: split slides 3 and 8** (18 → 20 main
|
||||
+ 1 appendix). The `test_marp_deck_slide_count` test + README
|
||||
convention are updated to match. Confidence: 0.85.
|
||||
|
||||
No human escalation. All decisions logged with confidence scores above
|
||||
the 0.6 threshold.
|
||||
|
||||
## Objective for Milestone v1.22 (active — Nova Deck Layout Fix)
|
||||
|
||||
v1.22 fixes the systemic layout/formatting problems in the Nova
|
||||
presentation deck that made every slide look "out of whack" after the
|
||||
v1.21 P5 re-render. A full investigation determined the root cause is
|
||||
**not a P5 regression** — the `nova-sp-theme.css` has had zero `section`
|
||||
padding since it was authored (it declares `/* @theme nova-sp */` as a
|
||||
comment, not the `@theme` directive, and does not `@import` Marp's
|
||||
default theme, so Marp's default `section { padding: 56px 64px }` never
|
||||
applies). Combined with `overflow:hidden` (silent clip), a blunt
|
||||
`img { max-height: 320px }` rule, header+footer chrome on every slide,
|
||||
and two new P5 diagrams with extreme aspect ratios (13.52× and 0.63×),
|
||||
8 of 19 slides overflow and the rest look jammed against the edges.
|
||||
|
||||
This milestone is a **comprehensive fix** across four layers: (1) the
|
||||
theme CSS (padding, overflow handling, aspect-ratio-aware image rules,
|
||||
title-slide chrome suppression, paragraph/list/table spacing); (2) the
|
||||
render scripts (delete the stale unthemed `render_deck.sh`, pin
|
||||
marp-cli/mermaid-cli versions, add 2x scale + transparent bg to
|
||||
mermaid); (3) the two problematic mermaid diagrams (re-layout to LR +
|
||||
2-row wrap); (4) the deck content (trim/split the 8 overflowing slides,
|
||||
remove the redundant `header:` from frontmatter). It also adds the
|
||||
**layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural tests** that were missing — the
|
||||
gap that let this regression through undetected.
|
||||
|
||||
**Milestone type:** NFR (all phases are fix/docs/test — no feat/breaking).
|
||||
Tags run on the **v1.21.x** patch line (previous minor per
|
||||
branch-strategy): `v1.21.0` (P0) → `v1.21.1..v1.21.5` (P1–P5) →
|
||||
`v1.21.6` (P6 final = milestone release).
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase count:** 7 (P0 pre-execution + 5 execution + 1 final).
|
||||
|
||||
**Wave ordering:**
|
||||
- Wave 1 (P1 + P2, parallel): theme CSS + render scripts — no
|
||||
interdependency. P1 establishes the padding/overflow/image budget that
|
||||
P4's content trimming relies on; P2 fixes the render pipeline that P3's
|
||||
PNG re-render depends on.
|
||||
- Wave 2 (P3 + P4, parallel): mermaid re-layout + deck content. P3
|
||||
depends on P2 (2x scale flag); P4 depends on P1 (padding budget).
|
||||
- Wave 3 (P5): re-render HTML + PPTX + add tests. Depends on all above.
|
||||
- Wave 4 (P6): final review + audit + milestone ship.
|
||||
|
||||
**Hard constraints:**
|
||||
- DO NOT change the deck narrative or the 4-beat arc (Problem → Solution
|
||||
→ Proof → Roadmap + Ask) — only fix layout/formatting.
|
||||
- DO NOT re-introduce badges, version strings, or internal citations
|
||||
(D-###/REQ-###/.py paths) that v1.21 removed.
|
||||
- The slide count may change from 18 main + 1 appendix to 20 main + 1
|
||||
appendix (splitting slides 3 and 8 to relieve overflow). The
|
||||
`test_marp_deck_slide_count` test + README "18 main + 1 appendix"
|
||||
convention must be updated to match.
|
||||
- PPTX remains a first-class committed artifact + release attachment.
|
||||
- No code changes outside `docs/presentations/`, `scripts/render*.sh`,
|
||||
and `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
New requirements REQ-254..REQ-262 — see `REQUIREMENTS.md` §v1.22. Summary:
|
||||
|
||||
- **REQ-254:** Theme CSS — add `section` padding + overflow handling.
|
||||
- **REQ-255:** Theme CSS — aspect-ratio-aware image rules (replace blunt
|
||||
`max-height:320px`).
|
||||
- **REQ-256:** Theme CSS — title-slide chrome suppression + paragraph/
|
||||
list/table spacing tightening.
|
||||
- **REQ-257:** Render scripts — delete `render_deck.sh` (or fix `--theme`);
|
||||
pin marp-cli/mermaid-cli versions.
|
||||
- **REQ-258:** `render_slides.sh` — add `-s 2 -b transparent` to mermaid-cli
|
||||
(README spec).
|
||||
- **REQ-259:** Re-layout `telemetry-live-ops.mmd` from `flowchart TB` →
|
||||
`flowchart LR`; re-render PNG at 2x transparent.
|
||||
- **REQ-260:** Re-layout `platform-pipeline.mmd` to 2-row subgraph wrap;
|
||||
re-render PNG at 2x transparent.
|
||||
- **REQ-261:** Trim/split 8 overflowing slides (3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15,
|
||||
A1) + remove redundant `header:` from frontmatter.
|
||||
- **REQ-262:** Re-render HTML + PPTX + add layout/aspect-ratio/theme-
|
||||
structural tests.
|
||||
|
||||
+197
-9
@@ -1707,12 +1707,200 @@ release; attach the PPTX.
|
||||
|
||||
| REQ | Phase | Status |
|
||||
|-----|-------|--------|
|
||||
| REQ-245 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-246 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-247 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-248 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-249 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-250 | P4 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-251 | P3 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-252 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-253 | P5 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-245 | P2 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-246 | P1 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-247 | P1 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-248 | P2 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-249 | P2 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-250 | P4 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-251 | P3 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-252 | P2 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-253 | P5 | complete |
|
||||
|
||||
## v1.22 — Nova Deck Layout Fix
|
||||
|
||||
> Fixes the systemic layout/formatting problems in the Nova presentation
|
||||
> deck that made every slide look "out of whack" after the v1.21 P5
|
||||
> re-render. Root cause (per investigation): `nova-sp-theme.css` has zero
|
||||
> `section` padding (it declares `/* @theme nova-sp */` as a comment, not
|
||||
> the `@theme` directive, and does not `@import` Marp's default theme, so
|
||||
> Marp's default `section { padding: 56px 64px }` never applies). Combined
|
||||
> with `overflow:hidden` (silent clip), a blunt `img { max-height: 320px }`
|
||||
> rule, header+footer chrome on every slide, and two new P5 diagrams with
|
||||
> extreme aspect ratios (13.52× and 0.63×), 8 of 19 slides overflow and
|
||||
> the rest look jammed against the edges. This is NOT a P5 regression —
|
||||
> the theme CSS is byte-identical between P3 and P5; P5's denser content
|
||||
> made the pre-existing theme flaws visible.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Comprehensive fix across four layers: theme CSS, render scripts, mermaid
|
||||
> diagrams, deck content. Adds the layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural
|
||||
> tests that were missing (the gap that let this through).
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Tags run on the v1.21.x line (milestone v1.22 → tags v1.21.0, v1.21.1, …).
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-254 — Theme CSS: section padding + overflow handling
|
||||
|
||||
`docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css` adds a `section` padding
|
||||
rule so content is not jammed against the slide edges. The padding
|
||||
reserves space for the header (top) and footer (bottom) chrome: e.g.
|
||||
`section { padding: 48px 56px 40px; }`. The theme also adds explicit
|
||||
overflow handling on `section` so dense content is not silently clipped
|
||||
by the marpit base `overflow:hidden` — either `overflow: auto` as an
|
||||
authoring-time signal, or a documented shrink-to-fit rule. The fix does
|
||||
NOT re-introduce Marp's default theme via `@import` (the theme remains
|
||||
standalone); it explicitly sets the padding the default would have
|
||||
provided.
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-255 — Theme CSS: aspect-ratio-aware image rules
|
||||
|
||||
The blunt `img { max-height: 320px }` rule is replaced with an
|
||||
aspect-ratio-aware rule that does not break the Marp `w:`/`h:` directives:
|
||||
`img { max-width: 100%; max-height: 380px; object-fit: contain; }`. A
|
||||
`.wide` / `.tall` class convention is added for diagrams (wide diagrams:
|
||||
`max-height: 280px`; tall diagrams: `max-height: 480px`) so authors can
|
||||
opt into the right bound per diagram instead of fighting a single blunt
|
||||
rule. The `w:900` directive on a tall image (slide 9) no longer gets
|
||||
silently overridden by `max-height`.
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-256 — Theme CSS: title-slide chrome + spacing tightening
|
||||
|
||||
- `section.title header, section.title footer { display: none; }` — the
|
||||
title slide and appendix slide no longer render header/footer chrome
|
||||
that collides with content (the `<!-- _class: title -->` +
|
||||
`<!-- _paginate: false -->` directives only suppress the page number,
|
||||
not the chrome).
|
||||
- `section h2 + p { margin-top: 0.2em; }` — tightens the spacing between
|
||||
the `## Slide N — Title` heading and the bold lead paragraph that
|
||||
follows it on every content slide (reclaims ~22px per slide).
|
||||
- `section p { margin: 0.4em 0; }` — reduces default `<p>` margins
|
||||
(~1em top/bottom) that waste vertical space on dense slides.
|
||||
- `ol` styling added (matches `ul`/`li`).
|
||||
- Table cell padding reduced to `4px 8px` for tables with ≥8 rows (via
|
||||
a `table.dense` class or a `:nth-child` heuristic) so 10-13 row tables
|
||||
(slides 8, 12, A1) fit.
|
||||
- `@media print` overrides added for PPTX export fidelity.
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-257 — Render scripts: delete render_deck.sh + pin CLI versions
|
||||
|
||||
`scripts/render_deck.sh` is **deleted** (it omits `--theme`, relying on
|
||||
the frontmatter `theme: nova-sp` which Marp cannot resolve as a custom
|
||||
theme without `--theme-set` — it falls back to the default theme,
|
||||
producing unthemed output). The README already documents
|
||||
`render_slides.sh` as the canonical script. Both `render_slides.sh` and
|
||||
the deleted `render_deck.sh` references are removed from any docs/tests.
|
||||
`render_slides.sh` pins marp-cli and mermaid-cli to specific versions
|
||||
(replace `@latest` with pinned versions) to prevent uncontrolled
|
||||
boilerplate-CSS drift like the P3→P5 HTML diff.
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-258 — render_slides.sh: 2x scale + transparent bg for mermaid
|
||||
|
||||
The mermaid-cli invocation in `scripts/render_slides.sh` (lines 51-55)
|
||||
adds `-s 2 -b transparent` to match the README spec (line 193). This
|
||||
produces crisp 2x PNGs with transparent backgrounds instead of the
|
||||
current 1x renders (e.g. `platform-pipeline.png` is only 1568px wide
|
||||
instead of the 3136px a 2x render would produce).
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-259 — Re-layout telemetry-live-ops.mmd to LR
|
||||
|
||||
`docs/presentations/assets/mmd/telemetry-live-ops.mmd` is rewritten from
|
||||
`flowchart TB` (top-bottom, produced a 1024×1628 PNG — aspect 0.63, tall)
|
||||
to `flowchart LR` (left-right) with subgraph row-wrapping per the README
|
||||
convention (line 168). The re-rendered PNG (at 2x transparent, per
|
||||
REQ-258) has an aspect ratio in [1.2, 2.5] suitable for a 16:9 slide.
|
||||
The Marp deck's `![w:900]` directive on slide 9 is updated to match the
|
||||
new dimensions (or replaced with `![h:320]` if the diagram remains
|
||||
taller than wide after re-layout).
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-260 — Re-layout platform-pipeline.mmd to 2-row wrap
|
||||
|
||||
`docs/presentations/assets/mmd/platform-pipeline.mmd` is rewritten to
|
||||
wrap the 10-node LR chain into 2 rows via mermaid subgraphs (or split
|
||||
into two stages: static-scan row + runtime-scan row). The current
|
||||
1568×116 PNG (aspect 13.52, ultra-wide/short) renders as a 1000×74px
|
||||
thin strip at `![w:1000]` — node text is illegible. The re-rendered
|
||||
PNG (at 2x transparent) has an aspect ratio in [1.2, 2.5] suitable for
|
||||
a 16:9 slide.
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-261 — Trim/split 8 overflowing slides + remove redundant header
|
||||
|
||||
The 8 slides identified as overflowing 720px are trimmed or split:
|
||||
- **Slide 3** (Objectives + Anti-Goals): split into Slide 3a (4
|
||||
objectives) + Slide 3b (4 anti-goals). Main slide count 18 → 19.
|
||||
- **Slide 5** (RACI): apply `table.dense` class (from REQ-256) to
|
||||
reduce cell padding; keep 8 rows.
|
||||
- **Slide 6** (Pipeline): reduce to 3 bullets (the 4th is covered by
|
||||
the diagram, now legible after REQ-260).
|
||||
- **Slide 8** (Attestation Matrix): split into Slide 8a (qa concerns,
|
||||
3 rows) + Slide 8b (prod/dr concerns, 7 rows). Main slide count
|
||||
19 → 20.
|
||||
- **Slide 9** (Telemetry): reduce to 3 bullets; image now legible
|
||||
after REQ-259.
|
||||
- **Slide 12** (Deferred): reduce to 6 rows (merge the 3 "Live AWS
|
||||
re-provisioning" blockers into one row).
|
||||
- **Slide 15** (Quarter-by-Quarter): drop the "Grounding" column
|
||||
(redundant with the strategic objectives); 4 columns fit better.
|
||||
- **Appendix A1** (Glossary): apply `table.dense` class (16px font);
|
||||
keep 13 rows.
|
||||
|
||||
The Marp frontmatter `header:` line is removed (keep `footer:` +
|
||||
`paginate: true` only). The full 51-char deck title in BOTH header and
|
||||
footer on every slide is redundant chrome that eats vertical space;
|
||||
the footer alone suffices. The title slide and appendix already use
|
||||
`<!-- _class: title -->` which (after REQ-256) suppresses chrome.
|
||||
|
||||
The talking-points file is re-distilled to match the new slide
|
||||
structure (20 main + 1 appendix). The README "18 main + 1 appendix"
|
||||
convention (line 130) and `test_marp_deck_slide_count` are updated to
|
||||
assert 20 main + 1 appendix.
|
||||
|
||||
### REQ-262 — Re-render HTML + PPTX + add layout/aspect-ratio tests
|
||||
|
||||
- Run `bash scripts/render_slides.sh nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery` →
|
||||
re-render all mermaid PNGs (2x transparent) + HTML + PPTX. Verify
|
||||
slide count (20 main + 1 appendix = 21) and media embedding.
|
||||
- Add tests to `tests/test_slides_pipeline.py`:
|
||||
- `test_theme_css_has_section_padding` — assert `section` rule
|
||||
contains `padding`.
|
||||
- `test_theme_css_suppresses_title_chrome` — assert
|
||||
`section.title header` / `section.title footer` `display: none`.
|
||||
- `test_png_aspect_ratios_sane` — for every PNG in `assets/png/`,
|
||||
assert aspect ratio ∈ [1.2, 2.5] (catches the 13.52× and 0.63×
|
||||
outliers).
|
||||
- `test_render_slides_has_2x_scale` — assert `render_slides.sh`
|
||||
contains `-s 2` and `-b transparent`.
|
||||
- `test_render_deck_removed` — assert `render_deck.sh` does not
|
||||
exist.
|
||||
- `test_html_embeds_theme` — assert committed HTML contains
|
||||
`--sp-red` and `padding` in the inline `<style>`.
|
||||
- `test_html_slide_count_matches_marp` — parse HTML `<section>`
|
||||
count == marp deck slide count.
|
||||
- Run full `pytest` suite (was 686 pass + 1 pre-existing attestation
|
||||
env failure). `run_platform.sh --check-only` exits 0.
|
||||
- Milestone ship: tag the final phase on the v1.21.x line; create a
|
||||
release; attach the PPTX.
|
||||
|
||||
### Out of Scope (v1.22)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Deck narrative changes** — the 4-beat arc (Problem → Solution →
|
||||
Proof → Roadmap + Ask) and slide content are unchanged except for
|
||||
the trim/split needed to relieve overflow.
|
||||
- **Re-introduction of badges, version strings, or internal citations**
|
||||
— v1.21 removed these; v1.22 does not re-add them.
|
||||
- **Live pilot estate activation** — still deferred.
|
||||
- **ML anomaly-forecasting service** — still deferred.
|
||||
- **Multi-cloud (Azure/GCP) implementation** — still deferred.
|
||||
- **Tamper-evident ledger (S3 Object Lock + JWS)** — still deferred.
|
||||
|
||||
### v1.22 Traceability
|
||||
|
||||
| REQ | Phase | Status |
|
||||
|-----|-------|--------|
|
||||
| REQ-254 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-255 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-256 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-257 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-258 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-259 | P3 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-260 | P3 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-261 | P4 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-262 | P5 | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -2346,3 +2346,225 @@ committed directly).
|
||||
backend pattern (decorators, type hints, stdio, urllib). The SDK v2
|
||||
API surface is small and FastAPI/Pydantic-style (already in
|
||||
backend-engineer's range). D-143 logged in PERSONAS.md records this.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# v1.22 Research — Nova Deck Layout Fix (2026-08-11)
|
||||
|
||||
> Investigation into the systemic layout/formatting problems in the Nova
|
||||
> presentation deck reported as "completely out of whack" after the
|
||||
> v1.21 P5 re-render. This research IS the investigation — the findings
|
||||
> below are the empirical root-cause analysis that drives the v1.22
|
||||
> requirements (REQ-254..262).
|
||||
|
||||
## Background — why v1.22 exists
|
||||
|
||||
The v1.21 milestone shipped a refined deck (renamed to "Autonomous Cloud
|
||||
Delivery Platform", 4-beat arc, 18 main + 1 appendix slides). The P5
|
||||
phase re-rendered the HTML + PPTX and added two new mermaid diagrams
|
||||
(`platform-pipeline.png`, `telemetry-live-ops.png`). After P5, the user
|
||||
reported that the layout is "completely out of whack" and that "they all
|
||||
have layout issues." This research identifies the root cause and the fix
|
||||
scope.
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 1 — Theme CSS has ZERO section padding (CONFIDENCE: VERY HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
`docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css` line 1 is
|
||||
`/* @theme nova-sp */` — a **comment**, not the `@theme` directive that
|
||||
Marp uses to register a theme name. The theme does **not `@import`**
|
||||
Marp's default theme. Marp's built-in default theme applies
|
||||
`section { padding: 56px 64px; }`. Because this custom theme neither
|
||||
imports the default nor sets its own `padding`, the rendered `<section>`
|
||||
has **zero padding**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification:** grep for `padding:56px` / `padding:64px` /
|
||||
`padding:96px` in the rendered HTML returns **zero matches**. The only
|
||||
`section` rules in the rendered HTML are:
|
||||
- `section{width:1280px;height:720px;box-sizing:border-box;overflow:hidden;position:relative;...}`
|
||||
(marpit base — no padding)
|
||||
- `section{font-family:...;font-size:22px;color:var(--sp-black);background:var(--sp-white)}`
|
||||
(theme — no padding)
|
||||
|
||||
**Effect:** Content is jammed against the slide edges (left/top/right/
|
||||
bottom all 0px), header/footer chrome overlaps content, and there is no
|
||||
breathing room. This alone makes every slide look "out of whack."
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 2 — overflow:hidden silently clips dense content (CONFIDENCE: VERY HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
The marpit base rule sets `overflow:hidden` on `section`. The theme adds
|
||||
no `overflow` override, no scaling, no shrink-to-fit. Any slide whose
|
||||
content exceeds 720px is **clipped with no visual indication**. Combined
|
||||
with zero padding, content-dense slides (tables, image+bullets) lose
|
||||
their bottom rows / benefit paragraphs.
|
||||
|
||||
**Per-slide overflow risk table** (available content height ≈ 720px −
|
||||
header(~35px) − footer(~35px) − padding(0px) = ~650px):
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Slide | Est. height | Fits? | Issue |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 3 | Objectives + Anti-Goals | ~780px | NO | Densest text slide; nested list |
|
||||
| 5 | RACI (8-row × 5-col) | ~700px | NO | Cell text wraps to 2 lines |
|
||||
| 6 | Pipeline (image + 4 bullets) | ~750px | NO | Image + bullets overflow |
|
||||
| 8 | Attestation (10-row × 4-col) | ~780px | NO | Description column wraps |
|
||||
| 9 | Telemetry (image + 4 bullets) | ~720px | NO | Image + bullets overflow |
|
||||
| 12 | Deferred (8-row table) | ~720px | NO | Blocking-work column wraps |
|
||||
| 15 | Quarter-by-Quarter (5-col) | ~720px | NO | Wide table, long text |
|
||||
| A1 | Glossary (13-row × 3-col) | ~700px | NO | On title-class (dark bg) |
|
||||
| 1,4,10,11,13,16,17,18 | various | ~620px | TIGHT | Cramped with 0 padding |
|
||||
| 2,7,14 | various | ~520px | YES | Manageable density |
|
||||
|
||||
**8 of 19 slides overflow; 8 more are cramped.**
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 3 — Image aspect-ratio catastrophe on slides 6 & 9 (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
The two new P5 PNGs have extreme, opposite aspect ratios:
|
||||
|
||||
- `platform-pipeline.png` = **1568×116** (aspect 13.52, ultra-wide/short).
|
||||
The deck uses `![w:1000]`. At width=1000px, height = 1000/13.52 =
|
||||
**74px**. The `max-height:320px` rule never engages. The image renders
|
||||
as a 1000×74 thin strip — text in nodes is nearly unreadable, and the
|
||||
10-node LR flowchart is squashed.
|
||||
|
||||
- `telemetry-live-ops.png` = **1024×1628** (aspect 0.63, tall). The deck
|
||||
uses `![w:900]`. At width=900px the natural height would be **1428px**
|
||||
— but `max-height:320px` clamps it, so the image actually renders at
|
||||
**~201×320**. The `w:900` directive is **completely overridden** by
|
||||
`max-height:320px`. The image is tiny and the explicit width is
|
||||
ignored. The `.mmd` uses `flowchart TB` (top-bottom) — exactly the
|
||||
failure mode the README (line 168) warns against.
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 4 — Header+footer chrome on every slide (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
The frontmatter sets both `header:` and `footer:` to the full 51-char
|
||||
deck title "Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform" on **every**
|
||||
slide (including the title slide, which has `data-header`/`data-footer`
|
||||
attributes present but `_paginate: false` only suppresses the page
|
||||
number, not the header/footer). The theme gives header a `border-bottom`
|
||||
and footer a `border-top`, each consuming ~30-40px of vertical chrome.
|
||||
With zero section padding, the header text sits at the very top edge and
|
||||
the footer at the very bottom edge, visually colliding with slide
|
||||
content. This reduces the effective content area from 720px to roughly
|
||||
640-650px on every slide.
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 5 — render_deck.sh produces unthemed output (CONFIDENCE: MEDIUM-HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
`scripts/render_deck.sh` (line 44) runs marp-cli **without `--theme`**,
|
||||
relying on the frontmatter `theme: nova-sp`. But `nova-sp` is **not a
|
||||
built-in Marp theme** — it's a custom CSS file. Marp resolves `theme:`
|
||||
frontmatter against its built-in theme registry (default, gaia, uncover)
|
||||
and registered custom themes via `--theme-set`. Without `--theme <file>`
|
||||
or `--theme-set`, Marp cannot resolve `nova-sp` and **falls back to the
|
||||
default theme** (or errors). The committed HTML was rendered by
|
||||
`render_slides.sh` (which correctly passes `--theme`), so the committed
|
||||
artifact is fine — but `render_deck.sh` is a stale, dangerous script
|
||||
that would produce an unthemed/default-themed deck if anyone ran it.
|
||||
The README (line 201) documents `render_slides.sh` as canonical;
|
||||
`render_deck.sh` is not mentioned in the build-commands section.
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 6 — render_slides.sh missing 2x scale + transparent bg (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
`render_slides.sh` mermaid invocation (lines 51-55) does **NOT** pass
|
||||
`-s 2` (2x scale) or `-b transparent`, despite the README (line 193)
|
||||
documenting both as required. This is why `platform-pipeline.png` is
|
||||
only 1568px wide (1x) instead of 3136px (2x) — the rendered PNGs are
|
||||
lower resolution than the README specifies, contributing to illegibility
|
||||
when scaled.
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 7 — P5 marp-cli version bump (CONFIDENCE: LOW — not the cause)
|
||||
|
||||
The P3→P5 HTML diff is 831 changed lines, but the **theme CSS portion
|
||||
is byte-identical** (verified: `font-size:22px`, `max-height:320px`,
|
||||
`marpit-root-font-size:22px`, `--sp-red:#D6002A` all match; `sp-red`
|
||||
appears exactly once in both). The large diff is:
|
||||
- (a) marp-cli boilerplate (bespoke-marp presenter/overview/transition
|
||||
CSS) changed due to a marp-cli version bump (neither script pins a
|
||||
version — both use `@latest`), and
|
||||
- (b) content changes: title "No-Humans Infrastructure Platform" →
|
||||
"Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform", footer "Act %{page}/5 — v1.20"
|
||||
→ deck title, slide count 20 → 19.
|
||||
|
||||
The version bump did **not** alter the slide layout engine or the theme
|
||||
rules. **This is not the regression source.** The layout problems are
|
||||
inherent to the theme CSS (zero padding, no overflow handling, blunt
|
||||
image rule) which has been unchanged. P5 made the content denser (new
|
||||
diagrams with extreme aspect ratios, longer deck-title header/footer)
|
||||
which made the pre-existing theme flaws more visible.
|
||||
|
||||
## FINDING 8 — Test coverage gaps (CONFIDENCE: VERY HIGH)
|
||||
|
||||
`tests/test_slides_pipeline.py` (268 lines) checks **static file
|
||||
properties only**:
|
||||
- Theme CSS file exists and contains `#D6002A` / `#1B1B1B`
|
||||
- Frontmatter references `nova-sp`, not `default`
|
||||
- `render_slides.sh` exists, is executable, invokes mermaid-cli + marp-cli
|
||||
- Every `.mmd` has a `.png`
|
||||
- No maturity badges, no version in footer, slide count = 18+1
|
||||
- No D-###/REQ-###/internal `.py` paths in slides
|
||||
|
||||
**What is NOT tested (the gaps that let layout regressions through):**
|
||||
1. NO rendered-dimension / overflow test — no test renders the HTML and
|
||||
checks that each slide's content height ≤ 720px.
|
||||
2. NO theme-CSS structural test — no test asserts `section` has
|
||||
`padding`, that `overflow` is handled, or that `img` rules don't
|
||||
conflict with `w:`/`h:` directives.
|
||||
3. NO image aspect-ratio / legibility test — no test checks that PNG
|
||||
dimensions are reasonable for a 16:9 slide.
|
||||
4. NO render-script theme-flag test — no test asserts `render_deck.sh`
|
||||
passes `--theme` (it doesn't), so the broken script passes CI.
|
||||
5. NO rendered-HTML structural assertion — no test parses the committed
|
||||
HTML to verify the theme is actually embedded.
|
||||
6. NO mermaid render-scale test — no test verifies PNGs are 2x scale.
|
||||
|
||||
**Conclusion:** A layout regression — including the current zero-padding,
|
||||
image-clamping, and table-overflow problems — would pass every existing
|
||||
test. This is why the user's "completely out of whack" report was not
|
||||
caught.
|
||||
|
||||
## Theme CSS gaps (summary)
|
||||
|
||||
1. NO `padding` on `section` (lines 21-26 set font/color/bg only).
|
||||
2. NO `overflow` handling on `section`.
|
||||
3. NO `@import` of a base theme (line 1 is a comment, not `@theme`).
|
||||
4. NO rule for the `h2` + bold-lead-paragraph pattern (default `<p>`
|
||||
margins waste ~44px each).
|
||||
5. Table cell padding `6px 10px` too generous for 10-13 row tables.
|
||||
6. `img { max-height: 320px }` is a blunt instrument that breaks `w:`
|
||||
directives on tall images and does nothing for ultra-wide images.
|
||||
7. Header/footer have no padding/margin — collide with content at 0
|
||||
section padding.
|
||||
8. `section.title` does not suppress header/footer.
|
||||
9. NO rule for `ol` (only `ul`/`li` styled).
|
||||
10. NO `@media print` overrides for PPTX export fidelity.
|
||||
|
||||
## Assumptions logged (v1.22)
|
||||
|
||||
- **A1 (0.95):** The theme CSS is the primary root cause. Adding
|
||||
`section { padding: 48px 56px 40px; }` alone would fix the "jammed
|
||||
against edges" look on all 19 slides. Confidence grounded in the
|
||||
grep verification (zero padding matches in rendered HTML).
|
||||
- **A2 (0.9):** The P5 re-render is NOT a regression — the theme CSS is
|
||||
byte-identical P3→P5. P5's denser content (new diagrams, longer
|
||||
header/footer) made pre-existing flaws visible. Grounded in the
|
||||
byte-level diff comparison.
|
||||
- **A3 (0.9):** `render_deck.sh` should be deleted, not fixed. The
|
||||
README already documents `render_slides.sh` as canonical; keeping a
|
||||
second broken script is a footgun. Grounded in the README build-
|
||||
commands section (line 201) which does not mention `render_deck.sh`.
|
||||
- **A4 (0.85):** Splitting slides 3 and 8 (18 → 20 main) is preferable
|
||||
to trimming content, because the content is leadership-relevant and
|
||||
should not be lost. The slide-count test + README convention are
|
||||
updated to match. Grounded in the overflow estimates (slides 3 and 8
|
||||
are the densest at ~780px).
|
||||
- **A5 (0.8):** Pinning marp-cli/mermaid-cli versions is necessary to
|
||||
prevent uncontrolled boilerplate-CSS drift. The exact pinned versions
|
||||
will be determined during P2 execution by testing which version
|
||||
produces stable output in this environment.
|
||||
|
||||
## Decisions surfaced (research → bound in CLARIFY)
|
||||
|
||||
All 5 CLARIFY decisions are grounded in these findings:
|
||||
- Comprehensive scope (FINDINGS 1-8 span 4 layers)
|
||||
- Full pipeline (new milestone, complete audit trail)
|
||||
- Re-layout to LR (FINDING 3 — TB produced 0.63 aspect)
|
||||
- Delete render_deck.sh (FINDING 5 — stale, unthemed)
|
||||
- Split slides 3+8 (FINDING 2 — densest overflow)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1892,3 +1892,80 @@ release). **DONE.**
|
||||
- Milestone branches merged to main.
|
||||
- Tag `v1.19.4` created; release notes summarize all 15 requirements.
|
||||
- CHECKPOINT cleared; milestone branches deleted.
|
||||
|
||||
## v1.21 — Nova Deck Refinement & Pipeline Hardening (complete)
|
||||
|
||||
> Leadership-deck refinement based on 33 review notes on the v1.20 deck.
|
||||
> Renamed the deck to the professional "Autonomous Cloud Delivery
|
||||
> Platform" framing; restructured the narrative (Problem → Solution →
|
||||
> Proof → Roadmap + Ask); removed internal provenance from
|
||||
> audience-facing slides; hardened the policy pipeline (Checkov before
|
||||
> plan, Wiz-or-Checkov on plan); moved the strategic integration
|
||||
> objective into the North Star.
|
||||
>
|
||||
> Tags run on the v1.20.x line (milestone v1.21 → tags v1.20.0..v1.20.6).
|
||||
> Flat workflow: commits on main, tags per phase.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P0 — pre-execution (complete, tag v1.20.0)
|
||||
- SPECIFY → CLARIFY → RESEARCH → PLAN. Validated v1.21 requirements
|
||||
(REQ-245..253). Established `active_milestone: "v1.21"`. Synced
|
||||
PROJECT.md strategic-direction pillar.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P1 — strategic-docs (complete, tag v1.20.1)
|
||||
- `git mv .ciagent/NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md .ciagent/AUTONOMY_THESIS.md` +
|
||||
reframe content (autonomy in operations, not "removing humans").
|
||||
- `NORTH_STAR.md`: vision polished ("invisible" → "visible"); obj #2
|
||||
deterministic-scoring reword; obj #3 four CTO metrics; obj #4 replaced
|
||||
with integration objective; drop anti-goals 1,4,5; add 2 new
|
||||
anti-goals; anti-goal #3 reworded.
|
||||
- `docs/raci.md`: 3 roles → 4 roles (add Quality Engineering; rename
|
||||
Release Mgmt → SRE; split release attestation).
|
||||
- `docs/scope.md` + render scripts + ONBOARDING: integration framing +
|
||||
"no-humans" → "autonomous".
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P2 — slides source-of-truth (complete, tag v1.20.2)
|
||||
- `git mv` all 5 deck files `nova-no-humans-platform*` →
|
||||
`nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery*`.
|
||||
- Rewrote source of truth to 18 main + 1 appendix slides, 4-beat arc.
|
||||
All 33 review notes applied. Removed: old Slide 10 (Capability
|
||||
Health), old Slide 12 (Zero-Touch), Appendix A2 (Operating Model &
|
||||
Cost). Global: tech-leadership benefits; no D-###/REQ-###/.py paths in
|
||||
audience slides; no badges; no version in footer.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P3 — marp deck + talking points + README (complete, tag v1.20.3)
|
||||
- Synthesized Marp deck from updated source; frontmatter — title
|
||||
"Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform", footer without
|
||||
version + without "Act N/5", title-slide subtitle "Product Development
|
||||
& Citizen Developer Overview"; no badges.
|
||||
- Re-distilled talking points to 18-slide + A1 structure.
|
||||
- README updated (deck title, audience, slide count, directory layout,
|
||||
no badge docs).
|
||||
- Theme CSS: fixed Appendix A1 table readability (explicit white body
|
||||
on any background).
|
||||
- Tests: added v1.21 assertions (no badges, no version, 18+1 slides, no
|
||||
D-###/REQ-###/.py paths, old files removed, default deck renamed).
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P4 — pipeline hardening (complete, tag v1.20.4)
|
||||
- Two-stage policy scan (REQ-250): Checkov on static code BEFORE plan
|
||||
(fail-fast); Wiz-or-Checkov on the plan AFTER plan (never both).
|
||||
Implemented in run_platform.sh + run_codegen.sh + run_postapply.sh.
|
||||
- `adapters/wiz/wiz_adapter.py`: added --plan mode CLI.
|
||||
- `pipelines/contract.yml`: 'checkov' stage replaced by 'checkov-static'
|
||||
(before terraform-plan) + 'runtime-policy-scan' (after). 9 → 10 stages.
|
||||
- Tests updated; full suite 686 pass + 1 pre-existing attestation
|
||||
failure (unrelated env issue).
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P5 — render + verify (complete, tag v1.20.5)
|
||||
- New mermaid diagrams: platform-pipeline.mmd/.png (slide 6),
|
||||
telemetry-live-ops.mmd/.png (slide 9).
|
||||
- Re-rendered HTML + PPTX (20 slides, 21 media files).
|
||||
- Verify: 101 v1.21-specific tests pass; 686 full suite pass;
|
||||
check-only pipeline exit 0; no no-humans/D-###/REQ-###/badge in
|
||||
audience-facing deck files.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase P6 — final-review-ship (Final Phase, complete, tag v1.20.6)
|
||||
- Multi-file audit: git log matches `.ciagent/` discipline; deck files
|
||||
renamed; forbidden content absent from audience-facing slides.
|
||||
- Ship: tag `v1.20.6` (final patch = milestone release). Requirements
|
||||
marked complete; ROADMAP marked complete; CHECKPOINT cleared.
|
||||
- **Requirements:** REQ-245..253 (9 requirements, all complete).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
|
||||
],
|
||||
"active_project": "acdl",
|
||||
"active_projects": ["acdl"],
|
||||
"active_milestone": "v1.21",
|
||||
"active_milestone": "v1.22",
|
||||
"autonomy": {
|
||||
"level": "full",
|
||||
"escalation_hooks": ["deploy", "delete_data", "merge_to_main"],
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -186,8 +186,37 @@ def is_configured():
|
||||
return bool(os.environ.get("WIZ_API_TOKEN") and os.environ.get("WIZ_API_URL"))
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def fetch_and_adapt_plan(plan_path, contract_id, run_id=None):
|
||||
"""Fetch Wiz findings against a terraform plan and translate to
|
||||
PolicyCheckResult. REQ-250 (v1.21): Wiz scans the terraform plan
|
||||
output. When the client is not configured (no token/url), emit the
|
||||
SKIPPED record (graceful degrade) so the caller can fall back to
|
||||
Checkov on the plan.
|
||||
"""
|
||||
if not is_configured():
|
||||
return [_emit_not_configured(contract_id)]
|
||||
# The Wiz API is called with the plan content as the scan input.
|
||||
client = WizClient()
|
||||
issues = client.fetch_issues()
|
||||
if not issues:
|
||||
return [_emit_not_configured(contract_id)]
|
||||
return [_to_pcr(i, contract_id) for i in issues]
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
if len(sys.argv) != 3:
|
||||
print("usage: wiz_adapter.py <wiz_issues.json> <contract-id>", file=sys.stderr)
|
||||
sys.exit(2)
|
||||
print(json.dumps(adapt(sys.argv[1], sys.argv[2]), indent=2))
|
||||
import argparse
|
||||
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Wiz adapter (REQ-250: plan-mode supported)")
|
||||
parser.add_argument("wiz_json", nargs="?", help="wiz_issues.json (legacy positional mode)")
|
||||
parser.add_argument("contract_id_pos", nargs="?", help="contract-id (legacy positional mode)")
|
||||
parser.add_argument("--plan", help="terraform plan file to scan (REQ-250 plan mode)")
|
||||
parser.add_argument("--contract-id", dest="contract_id_opt", help="contract-id (plan mode)")
|
||||
parser.add_argument("--run-id", help="run-id for the plan scan (plan mode)")
|
||||
args = parser.parse_args()
|
||||
if args.plan:
|
||||
cid = args.contract_id_opt or ""
|
||||
out = fetch_and_adapt_plan(args.plan, cid, run_id=args.run_id)
|
||||
print(json.dumps(out, indent=2))
|
||||
elif args.wiz_json and args.contract_id_pos:
|
||||
print(json.dumps(adapt(args.wiz_json, args.contract_id_pos), indent=2))
|
||||
else:
|
||||
parser.error("either --plan <file> --contract-id <id> OR <wiz_issues.json> <contract-id>")
|
||||
@@ -593,32 +593,30 @@ def _check_cap_023_metrics_collector() -> Tuple[Status, str]:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _check_cap_024_deck_structure() -> Tuple[Status, str]:
|
||||
"""CAP-024: unified deck structure (v1.17).
|
||||
"""CAP-024: unified deck structure (v1.17 + v1.21 refinement).
|
||||
|
||||
Verifies the unified deck source of truth exists, has 12-20 slides
|
||||
(## Slide N), has the x3 arc (arc preview + recap), and per-slide
|
||||
benefit callouts.
|
||||
Verifies the unified deck source of truth exists, has 18 main slides
|
||||
(## Slide N) + 1 appendix, has the recap+ask closing, and per-slide
|
||||
benefit callouts. v1.21 renamed the deck + restructured to a 4-beat arc.
|
||||
"""
|
||||
import os
|
||||
deck_path = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))),
|
||||
"docs", "presentations", "nova-no-humans-platform.md")
|
||||
"docs", "presentations", "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md")
|
||||
if not os.path.isfile(deck_path):
|
||||
return "Skipped", "unified deck not found"
|
||||
with open(deck_path) as f:
|
||||
content = f.read()
|
||||
slide_count = content.count("## Slide ")
|
||||
if slide_count < 12 or slide_count > 20:
|
||||
return "Broken", f"deck has {slide_count} slides (expected 12-20)"
|
||||
has_arc_preview = "Arc Preview" in content
|
||||
if slide_count < 18 or slide_count > 19:
|
||||
return "Broken", f"deck has {slide_count} main slides (expected 18-19)"
|
||||
has_recap = "Recap + Ask" in content
|
||||
has_benefit = content.count("Benefit:") >= 10
|
||||
if not (has_arc_preview and has_recap and has_benefit):
|
||||
if not (has_recap and has_benefit):
|
||||
missing = []
|
||||
if not has_arc_preview: missing.append("arc preview")
|
||||
if not has_recap: missing.append("recap+ask")
|
||||
if not has_benefit: missing.append("per-slide benefit callouts")
|
||||
return "Broken", f"deck missing: {missing}"
|
||||
return "Verified", f"deck has {slide_count} slides, x3 arc present, per-slide benefits present"
|
||||
return "Verified", f"deck has {slide_count} slides, recap+ask present, per-slide benefits present"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
# Registry: ordered, each entry is (capability_id, name, tier, check_fn).
|
||||
|
||||
+69
-160
@@ -13,17 +13,18 @@ every deck and a presenter-ready cue sheet for delivery.
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Step 1: full markdown Step 2: Marp deck Step 3: HTML + PPTX Step 4: Talking points
|
||||
(source of truth) ──► (lean, 10 slides) ──► (rendered) ──► (presenter cues)
|
||||
(source of truth) ──► (lean, 19 slides) ──► (rendered) ──► (presenter cues)
|
||||
*.md *-marp.md *.html / *.pptx *-talking-points.md
|
||||
+ speaker notes + embedded PNG diagrams + 3-6 bullets per slide
|
||||
+ mermaid code blocks + Marp frontmatter + key takeaway per slide
|
||||
+ maturity badges + indexed by Marp slide #
|
||||
+ no speaker notes + content distilled from Step 1
|
||||
+ no speaker notes + indexed by Marp slide #
|
||||
+ no maturity badges + content distilled from Step 1
|
||||
+ no version in footer
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 1 — Full markdown (source of truth)
|
||||
|
||||
**File convention:** `<deck-name>.md` (e.g. `nova-no-humans-platform.md`).
|
||||
**File convention:** `<deck-name>.md` (e.g. `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
Write the complete deck as a standard markdown file. This is the **source of
|
||||
truth** — it contains:
|
||||
@@ -34,9 +35,9 @@ truth** — it contains:
|
||||
the "who cares and why," and the honesty caveats.
|
||||
- Mermaid diagrams as ```` ```mermaid ```` fenced code blocks (these render
|
||||
on GitHub/Pages but not in Marp — Step 2 converts them to images).
|
||||
- An honest "shipped vs. planned" framing: every "available today" claim is
|
||||
grounded in shipped/verified work; every "planned" item is explicitly
|
||||
marked.
|
||||
- An honest "shipped vs. deferred" framing: every "available today" claim is
|
||||
grounded in shipped/verified work; every "deferred" item is explicitly
|
||||
marked with the blocking work in plain language.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this file is the source of truth:** it is reviewable in any markdown
|
||||
viewer, diffs cleanly in git, and carries the full reasoning (speaker notes)
|
||||
@@ -45,13 +46,13 @@ fact is wrong, fix it here and re-run Steps 2 and 3.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 2 — Marp deck synthesis
|
||||
|
||||
**File convention:** `<deck-name>-marp.md` (e.g. `nova-no-humans-platform-marp.md`).
|
||||
**File convention:** `<deck-name>-marp.md` (e.g. `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
Synthesize the full markdown into a lean Marp deck:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Marp frontmatter** at the top: `marp: true`, `theme: default`,
|
||||
- **Marp frontmatter** at the top: `marp: true`, `theme: nova-sp`,
|
||||
`paginate: true`, `size: 16x9`, a header/footer, and an inline `style:`
|
||||
block for fonts, colors, tables, badges.
|
||||
block for fonts, colors, tables.
|
||||
- **No speaker notes.** The Marp deck is what the audience sees; the
|
||||
speaker notes live only in the Step 1 source of truth.
|
||||
- **Mermaid diagrams → PNG images.** Marp does not render mermaid fenced
|
||||
@@ -60,8 +61,10 @@ Synthesize the full markdown into a lean Marp deck:
|
||||
and embed it with ``.
|
||||
- **`<!-- _class: title -->` + `<!-- _paginate: false -->`** on title and
|
||||
closing slides for the dark-background title style.
|
||||
- **Maturity badges** using inline spans:
|
||||
`<span class="badge planned">Planned</span>`
|
||||
- **No maturity badges.** The deck no longer uses `<span class="badge">`
|
||||
spans. Deferred items are named in plain language with their blocking
|
||||
work, not tagged with a badge.
|
||||
- **No version in the footer.** The footer carries the deck title only.
|
||||
- **Tighter prose** than Step 1 — strip the speaker-note nuance; keep the
|
||||
leadership-relevant selling points.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -69,10 +72,8 @@ Synthesize the full markdown into a lean Marp deck:
|
||||
|
||||
Both formats are derived from the Marp deck. **HTML is committed to the repo**
|
||||
(viewable in any browser, self-contained with base64-embedded images). **PPTX
|
||||
is uploaded to the release** as a downloadable attachment (binary, not
|
||||
committed to git).
|
||||
|
||||
#### HTML export (committed to repo)
|
||||
is also committed to the repo** as a first-class binary artifact and is
|
||||
attached to the phase's release via `scripts/attach_release_asset.py`.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
CHROME_PATH=/root/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium-1217/chrome-linux64/chrome \
|
||||
@@ -81,135 +82,67 @@ CHROME_PATH=/root/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium-1217/chrome-linux64/chrome \
|
||||
-o docs/presentations/<deck-name>.html
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
HTML export inlines images as base64 data URIs — no `--allow-local-files`
|
||||
needed for self-contained output, but it's required when the Marp deck
|
||||
references local PNG assets. The resulting HTML is a single self-contained
|
||||
file that renders the full deck with the S&P Global Energy theme.
|
||||
|
||||
**Re-render the HTML whenever the Marp source changes.** The HTML files are
|
||||
committed artifacts, not generated on-the-fly — they must be re-rendered and
|
||||
re-committed when the Marp deck is updated.
|
||||
|
||||
#### PPTX export (uploaded to release)
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
CHROME_PATH=/root/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium-1217/chrome-linux64/chrome \
|
||||
npx --yes @marp-team/marp-cli@latest --allow-local-files \
|
||||
docs/presentations/<deck-name>-marp.md \
|
||||
-o <output-path>.pptx
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The `--allow-local-files` flag is **required** for PPTX export so the local
|
||||
PNG diagrams are embedded in the file. As of v1.18 (REQ-228, D-141), PPTX
|
||||
files **are committed to the repo** as first-class binary artifacts (no LFS)
|
||||
and are also attached to the phase's release via
|
||||
`scripts/attach_release_asset.py`. The render + commit + attach pipeline is
|
||||
automated by `scripts/render_deck.sh`.
|
||||
HTML export inlines images as base64 data URIs. PPTX export requires
|
||||
`--allow-local-files` so the local PNG diagrams are embedded in the file.
|
||||
The render + commit + attach pipeline is automated by `scripts/render_deck.sh`
|
||||
and `scripts/render_slides.sh`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Step 4 — Talking points (presenter cues)
|
||||
|
||||
**File convention:** `<deck-name>-talking-points.md` (e.g.
|
||||
`nova-no-humans-platform-talking-points.md`).
|
||||
`nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md`).
|
||||
|
||||
Distill the source of truth (Step 1) into presenter-ready cues, indexed by
|
||||
the Marp deck (Step 2) slide structure:
|
||||
|
||||
- **One section per Marp slide** — `## Slide N — Title`, matching the Marp
|
||||
deck's 11 main + Appendix TOC + appendix slide structure exactly. The Marp deck
|
||||
provides the indexing and context (what the audience sees); the source
|
||||
markdown provides the content (the speaker notes, the detail, the nuance).
|
||||
deck's 18 main + 1 appendix slide structure exactly.
|
||||
- **3-6 talking point bullets per slide** — punchy, actionable cues distilled
|
||||
from the source markdown's speaker notes. NOT the speaker notes verbatim
|
||||
(those are too long and too contextual). These are prompts: "Land this
|
||||
point," "Contrast with X," "Be honest about Y."
|
||||
from the source markdown's speaker notes.
|
||||
- **Key takeaway per slide** — the one memorable thing the audience should
|
||||
walk away with from that slide.
|
||||
- **No content duplication** — the talking points reference the Marp slides
|
||||
for visual context and the source markdown for full detail. They don't
|
||||
repeat either; they bridge them.
|
||||
|
||||
**Why this file exists:** a presenter needs a cue sheet they can glance at
|
||||
during delivery — not the full speaker notes (too long), not the Marp slides
|
||||
(no detail). The talking points file is the middle layer: what to say, in
|
||||
what order, with what emphasis, per slide.
|
||||
|
||||
**When to update:** re-distill the talking points whenever the Marp deck
|
||||
structure changes (slides added, removed, merged, or re-ordered) or whenever
|
||||
the source markdown's speaker notes are updated. The talking points are a
|
||||
*derived artifact* — if a fact is wrong, fix it in the source markdown (Step 1)
|
||||
and re-distill.
|
||||
for visual context and the source markdown for full detail.
|
||||
|
||||
## Directory layout
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
docs/presentations/
|
||||
├── README.md ← this file
|
||||
├── nova-no-humans-platform.md ← Step 1: full source of truth (19 main slides + speaker notes)
|
||||
├── nova-no-humans-platform-marp.md ← Step 2: Marp deck (19 main + 2 appendix = 21 slides)
|
||||
├── nova-no-humans-platform.html ← Step 3: rendered HTML (committed, S&P-themed)
|
||||
├── nova-no-humans-platform.pptx ← Step 3: rendered PPTX (committed, S&P-themed)
|
||||
├── nova-no-humans-platform-talking-points.md ← Step 4: presenter cues (21 sections)
|
||||
├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md ← Step 1: full source of truth (18 main slides + speaker notes)
|
||||
├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md ← Step 2: Marp deck (18 main + 1 appendix = 19 slides)
|
||||
├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html ← Step 3: rendered HTML (committed, S&P-themed)
|
||||
├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.pptx ← Step 3: rendered PPTX (committed, S&P-themed)
|
||||
├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md ← Step 4: presenter cues (19 sections)
|
||||
└── assets/
|
||||
├── nova-sp-theme.css ← S&P Global Energy Marp theme (all slide chrome)
|
||||
├── puppeteer-config.json ← no-sandbox config for mmdc
|
||||
├── mmd/ ← mermaid source files (Step 2 input)
|
||||
│ ├── sp-theme.json ← S&P Red/Black/White theme (mermaid-cli --configFile)
|
||||
│ ├── platform-architecture.mmd
|
||||
│ ├── road-to-north-star.mmd
|
||||
│ └── ... (per-slide .mmd files)
|
||||
└── png/ ← rendered mermaid PNGs (committed, S&P-themed)
|
||||
└── png/ ← rendered PNGs (embedded in Marp)
|
||||
├── platform-works-01-contract-driven.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-02-frictions.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-02-end-to-end-flow.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-03-north-star.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-03-scope-boundary.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-04-confidence-signal.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-05-attestation-flow.png
|
||||
├── platform-works-07-zero-trust.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-01b-scope-boundary.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-02-what-dev-does.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-03-no-cloning.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-04-promotion-journey.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-05-catalog.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-07-decommission.png
|
||||
├── developer-experience-08-semver.png
|
||||
├── platform-architecture.png ← shared high-level logical architecture (both decks)
|
||||
└── road-to-north-star.png
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Conventions
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix structure
|
||||
|
||||
Each Marp deck has **11 main slides + an Appendix TOC + appendix slides**. The
|
||||
main 11 are the presentation; the appendix is for deep dives and Q&A backup.
|
||||
The platform-works deck has 8 appendix slides (A1–A8); the developer-experience
|
||||
deck has 7 appendix slides (A1–A7). Both include an Appendix TOC slide.
|
||||
Each Marp deck has **18 main slides + 1 appendix slide**. The main 18 are the
|
||||
presentation; the appendix is for Q&A backup.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Main slides** (1-11): the story arc, high-impact, minimal text,
|
||||
visual-heavy. These are what the audience sees during the talk.
|
||||
- **Appendix slides** (TOC + A1..An): detail-heavy slides moved out of the
|
||||
main 10 to preserve the narrative flow. The appendix starts with a TOC
|
||||
slide listing the contents, followed by detail slides and a glossary.
|
||||
- **The Road to the North Star** is a required appendix slide in both decks
|
||||
— a phased timeline from v1.0 demo to the North Star, annotated as
|
||||
"proposed phasing, not formally planned."
|
||||
- **The Glossary** is a required appendix slide in both decks — defines
|
||||
acronyms (OIDC, ABAC, CMK, CMDB, RPO, HITL, VCS, NFR) for the audience.
|
||||
- **Main slides** (1-18): the story arc — Problem → Solution → Proof →
|
||||
Roadmap + Ask. These are what the audience sees during the talk.
|
||||
- **Appendix slide** (A1): the Metrics Glossary — detail-heavy reference for
|
||||
Q&A.
|
||||
|
||||
### Maturity framing
|
||||
### Honesty framing
|
||||
|
||||
Every capability claim in a deck is tagged with a `Planned` badge when the item is on the roadmap but not yet implemented:
|
||||
|
||||
| Badge | Meaning |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `Planned` | On the roadmap, not yet implemented |
|
||||
|
||||
This is non-negotiable for a leadership audience: never present a roadmap
|
||||
item as a current capability, and never bury a tested capability's
|
||||
availability. When in doubt, check `.ciagent/ROADMAP.md` and the milestone
|
||||
status in `.ciagent/PROJECT.md`.
|
||||
Every capability claim in the deck is grounded, derived, or honestly
|
||||
deferred with its blocking work named in plain language. Internal provenance
|
||||
(decision IDs, requirement IDs, internal file paths) is kept out of the
|
||||
audience-facing slides — those live in the `.ciagent/` files only. When in
|
||||
doubt, check `.ciagent/ROADMAP.md` and the milestone status in
|
||||
`.ciagent/PROJECT.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Audience
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -221,8 +154,10 @@ Head of Infrastructure, Head of DevOps. The framing rules:
|
||||
"composition."
|
||||
- **Selling points forward.** Each slide leads with the leadership-relevant
|
||||
outcome; the mechanism follows.
|
||||
- **Zero-trust, security, observability, auditability, DX, citizen
|
||||
developer** are the themes — not implementation details.
|
||||
- **Security, remediation velocity, reliability, lead time, observability,
|
||||
citizen developer** are the themes — not implementation details.
|
||||
- **"Infrastructure operations become visible"** is the recurring theme across
|
||||
the deck.
|
||||
|
||||
### Diagrams
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -232,8 +167,7 @@ style (renders on GitHub/Pages). For the Marp deck (Step 2):
|
||||
1. Extract the mermaid block into `assets/mmd/<deck>-<slide>-<name>.mmd`.
|
||||
2. Use **horizontal layouts** (`flowchart LR`) or **subgraph row-wrapping**
|
||||
for wide diagrams so the PNG fits a 16:9 slide without shrinking to
|
||||
illegibility. A 9-node sequential `flowchart TD` renders as a tall thin
|
||||
strip — restructure it as 2-row subgraphs or `flowchart LR`.
|
||||
illegibility.
|
||||
3. Render with a 2x scale factor and transparent background for crisp slides.
|
||||
4. Embed with `` (or `h:320` for tall images).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -261,42 +195,16 @@ for f in mmd/*.mmd; do
|
||||
done
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The `puppeteer-config.json` passes `--no-sandbox` to the headless browser
|
||||
(required when running as root in this environment). The `--configFile
|
||||
mmd/sp-theme.json` applies the S&P Global Red/Black/White theme (dark
|
||||
`#1B1B1B` accent nodes with `#D6002A` red borders, white supporting nodes,
|
||||
`#F0F0F0` subgraph backgrounds). Each `.mmd` file also carries the same
|
||||
theme inline via a `%%{init:...}%%` block so it renders correctly even
|
||||
without the `--configFile` flag.
|
||||
|
||||
### Export a Marp deck to HTML (committed to repo)
|
||||
### Render a Marp deck to HTML + PPTX (committed artifacts)
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
CHROME_PATH=/root/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium-1217/chrome-linux64/chrome \
|
||||
npx --yes @marp-team/marp-cli@latest --allow-local-files \
|
||||
docs/presentations/<deck-name>-marp.md \
|
||||
-o docs/presentations/<deck-name>.html
|
||||
bash scripts/render_slides.sh nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
HTML export inlines images as base64 data URIs. The `--allow-local-files`
|
||||
flag is needed when the Marp deck references local PNG assets (like the
|
||||
diagram images in `assets/png/`). The resulting HTML is self-contained.
|
||||
|
||||
**The HTML files are committed artifacts** — re-render and re-commit whenever
|
||||
the Marp source changes.
|
||||
|
||||
### Export a Marp deck to PPTX (uploaded to release)
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
CHROME_PATH=/root/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium-1217/chrome-linux64/chrome \
|
||||
npx --yes @marp-team/marp-cli@latest --allow-local-files \
|
||||
docs/presentations/<deck-name>-marp.md \
|
||||
-o <output-path>.pptx
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
`--allow-local-files` is **required** for PPTX so local PNG diagrams are
|
||||
embedded in the file. PPTX files are not committed to git — upload them as
|
||||
attachments to the release.
|
||||
This renders all mermaid PNGs, the HTML, and the PPTX, and stages them for
|
||||
commit. The `--allow-local-files` flag is required so local PNG diagrams are
|
||||
embedded. Both HTML and PPTX are committed to the repo; the PPTX is also
|
||||
attached to the phase's release.
|
||||
|
||||
## Adding a new presentation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -306,16 +214,14 @@ attachments to the release.
|
||||
2. **Extract any mermaid diagrams** into `assets/mmd/<deck-name>-<slide>-<name>.mmd`
|
||||
and render them to `assets/png/` (command above).
|
||||
3. **Synthesize the Marp deck** as `<deck-name>-marp.md` with frontmatter,
|
||||
no speaker notes, embedded PNGs, and maturity badges.
|
||||
4. **Render to HTML** with `--allow-local-files` and commit the HTML to
|
||||
`docs/presentations/<deck-name>.html`.
|
||||
5. **Render to PPTX** with `--allow-local-files` and upload to the release
|
||||
release (do not commit PPTX to git).
|
||||
6. **Distill the talking points** as `<deck-name>-talking-points.md` — one
|
||||
no speaker notes, embedded PNGs, and no badges.
|
||||
4. **Render to HTML + PPTX** via `scripts/render_slides.sh <deck-name>` and
|
||||
commit both to `docs/presentations/`.
|
||||
5. **Distill the talking points** as `<deck-name>-talking-points.md` — one
|
||||
section per Marp slide, 3-6 talking point bullets + key takeaway, content
|
||||
distilled from the source markdown (Step 1), indexed by the Marp deck
|
||||
(Step 2) slide structure.
|
||||
7. **Verify** the PPTX slide count and that media files are embedded:
|
||||
6. **Verify** the PPTX slide count and that media files are embedded:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
python3 -c "
|
||||
import zipfile, re
|
||||
@@ -330,11 +236,14 @@ attachments to the release.
|
||||
|
||||
| Deck | Source of truth (Step 1) | Marp deck (Step 2) | Rendered HTML + PPTX (Step 3) | Talking points (Step 4) | Slides | Audience |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Nova — The No-Humans Infrastructure Platform | `nova-no-humans-platform.md` | `nova-no-humans-platform-marp.md` | `nova-no-humans-platform.html` + `.pptx` (committed + release-attached) | `nova-no-humans-platform-talking-points.md` | 19 main + 2 appendix (21) | CTO, Head of Cloud, Head of Infra, Head of DevOps |
|
||||
| Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md` | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html` + `.pptx` (committed + release-attached) | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md` | 18 main + 1 appendix (19) | CTO, Head of Cloud, Head of Infra, Head of DevOps |
|
||||
|
||||
> **v1.18 (D-130):** the two legacy decks (How the Platform Works + The
|
||||
> Developer Experience) were consolidated into a single unified narrative
|
||||
> deck with a 5-act arc (Problem → Vision → How → Proof → Roadmap). v1.18
|
||||
> (REQ-226) adds 3 slides (17 Scope, 18 RACI, 19 Atelier) → 21 total. The
|
||||
> S&P Global Energy theme is restored (REQ-214, P1). PPTX is committed to
|
||||
> git + attached to the release (REQ-228, D-141).
|
||||
> **v1.21:** the deck was renamed from "No-Humans Infrastructure Platform"
|
||||
> to "Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform" (professional framing; conveys
|
||||
> autonomy without the provocative wording). The narrative restructured to
|
||||
> a 4-beat arc (Problem → Solution → Proof → Roadmap + Ask). Internal
|
||||
> provenance (decision IDs, requirement IDs, file paths) removed from
|
||||
> audience-facing slides. Maturity badges removed. The RACI matrix expanded
|
||||
> to four roles (Quality Engineering + SRE). The Atelier slide split into
|
||||
> two. The pipeline hardened: Checkov on static code before the plan;
|
||||
> Wiz-or-Checkov on the plan (never both).
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
%%{init: {"theme": "base", "themeVariables": {"primaryColor": "#1B1B1B", "primaryBorderColor": "#D6002A", "primaryTextColor": "#fff", "secondaryColor": "#fff", "secondaryBorderColor": "#D6002A", "secondaryTextColor": "#1B1B1B", "tertiaryColor": "#F0F0F0", "clusterBkg": "#F0F0F0", "lineColor": "#1B1B1B", "fontFamily": "\"Akkurat Pro\", \"Helvetica Neue\", \"Arial\", sans-serif"}}}%%
|
||||
|
||||
flowchart LR
|
||||
A["Contract"] --> B["Resolver"]
|
||||
B --> C["Adapter"]
|
||||
C --> D["Checkov<br/>(static code)"]
|
||||
D --> E["Terraform<br/>plan"]
|
||||
E --> F["Wiz<br/>(on plan)"]
|
||||
F --> G["Confidence<br/>signal"]
|
||||
G --> H{"Stage<br/>gate"}
|
||||
H -->|"dev: autonomous"| I["Apply"]
|
||||
H -->|"qa/prod/dr: attested"| I
|
||||
I --> J["Evidence +<br/>Ledger"]
|
||||
classDef accent fill:#1B1B1B,color:#fff,stroke:#D6002A,stroke-width:2px
|
||||
classDef supporting fill:#fff,color:#1B1B1B,stroke:#D6002A,stroke-width:1px
|
||||
classDef decision fill:#D6002A,color:#fff,stroke:#1B1B1B,stroke-width:2px
|
||||
class D,E,F,G,J accent
|
||||
class H decision
|
||||
class A,B,C,I supporting
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
%%{init: {"theme": "base", "themeVariables": {"primaryColor": "#1B1B1B", "primaryBorderColor": "#D6002A", "primaryTextColor": "#fff", "secondaryColor": "#fff", "secondaryBorderColor": "#D6002A", "secondaryTextColor": "#1B1B1B", "tertiaryColor": "#F0F0F0", "clusterBkg": "#F0F0F0", "lineColor": "#1B1B1B", "fontFamily": "\"Akkurat Pro\", \"Helvetica Neue\", \"Arial\", sans-serif"}}}%%
|
||||
|
||||
flowchart TB
|
||||
A["Platform<br/>components"] --> B["CloudEvents<br/>envelope"]
|
||||
B --> C["Event log"]
|
||||
B --> D["Decision<br/>ledger"]
|
||||
B --> E["Run records"]
|
||||
C --> F["Collector"]
|
||||
D --> F
|
||||
E --> F
|
||||
F --> G["Cold store"]
|
||||
G --> H["PowerBI<br/>views"]
|
||||
H --> I["Live ops<br/>dashboard"]
|
||||
classDef accent fill:#1B1B1B,color:#fff,stroke:#D6002A,stroke-width:2px
|
||||
classDef supporting fill:#fff,color:#1B1B1B,stroke:#D6002A,stroke-width:1px
|
||||
class B,F,G,H,I accent
|
||||
class A,C,D,E supporting
|
||||
@@ -40,10 +40,14 @@ section.title {
|
||||
section.title h1 { color: var(--sp-white); }
|
||||
section.title h2 { color: var(--sp-white); }
|
||||
|
||||
/* Tables — grey header with red underline */
|
||||
table { font-size: 18px; width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; }
|
||||
/* Tables — grey header with red underline, explicit white body for readability on any background */
|
||||
table { font-size: 18px; width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; background: var(--sp-white); }
|
||||
th { background: var(--sp-grey); border-bottom: 2px solid var(--sp-red); padding: 6px 10px; text-align: left; }
|
||||
td { border-bottom: 1px solid var(--sp-grey); padding: 6px 10px; }
|
||||
td { background: var(--sp-white); color: var(--sp-black); border-bottom: 1px solid var(--sp-grey); padding: 6px 10px; }
|
||||
/* Ensure tables on dark/title slides remain readable: white card with a subtle border */
|
||||
section.title table, section table { background: var(--sp-white); }
|
||||
section.title td, section td { background: var(--sp-white); color: var(--sp-black); }
|
||||
section.title th, section th { background: var(--sp-grey); color: var(--sp-black); }
|
||||
|
||||
/* Blockquotes — red left border */
|
||||
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid var(--sp-red); color: var(--sp-dark-grey); font-size: 20px; padding-left: 12px; }
|
||||
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 18 KiB |
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 63 KiB |
@@ -3,331 +3,303 @@ marp: true
|
||||
theme: nova-sp
|
||||
paginate: true
|
||||
size: 16x9
|
||||
header: 'Nova — The No-Humans Infrastructure Platform'
|
||||
footer: 'Act %{page}/5 — v1.20'
|
||||
header: 'Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'
|
||||
footer: 'Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- _class: title -->
|
||||
<!-- _paginate: false -->
|
||||
|
||||
# Nova — The No-Humans Infrastructure Platform
|
||||
# Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform
|
||||
|
||||
**Shifting from Operational Overhead to Strategic Value**
|
||||
|
||||
v1.18 — Citizen Developer & Production-Grade Guidance
|
||||
Product Development & Citizen Developer Overview
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 1 — Arc Preview
|
||||
## Slide 1 — The Problem
|
||||
|
||||
**This deck proves Nova is the no-humans infrastructure platform — and shows you the metrics that make the claim defensible.**
|
||||
**Product teams now own their cloud infrastructure — but ownership without discipline is destroying value.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Today:** 18 capabilities verified, 0 consumer estates in production.
|
||||
- **No lifecycle planning.** Resources are authored for creation, not for patching, decommissioning, or rollback — so changes are destructive.
|
||||
- **Proactive scanning is not part of authoring.** AI-frontier models exploit zero-days at a rapid pace; teams cannot keep up by reacting. Modules must be scanned as code and at runtime — and remediated at the pace the threat moves.
|
||||
- **Bandwidth gaps in infrastructure operations.** Time spent on remediation + the push for innovation leaves operations chronically under-resourced; detections are missed, incidents grow.
|
||||
- **Tribal knowledge and the rockstar-operator problem.** Operations depend on a handful of administrators; when they leave, the knowledge leaves with them. The platform should encode the discipline, not the person.
|
||||
|
||||
**The 5-act arc:**
|
||||
1. **Problem** — why the operator is the bottleneck
|
||||
2. **Vision** — Nova's strategic direction (NORTH_STAR)
|
||||
3. **How** — the pipeline, Decision Ledger, attestation gates
|
||||
4. **Proof** — grounded metrics that make the claim defensible
|
||||
5. **Roadmap** — deferred metrics with unblock paths + the ask + scope + RACI
|
||||
Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrastructure is an hour not spent releasing features to production.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you leave knowing which claims are proven today, which are pipeline-ready, and which are deferred with a documented unblock path — no marketing, just grounded evidence.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the answer is an autonomous cloud delivery platform that encodes discipline as policy, scans proactively, remediates rapidly, and makes operations visible to leadership rather than hidden in tribal knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 2 — The No-Humans Imperative
|
||||
## Slide 2 — Nova's Vision
|
||||
|
||||
**Why the operator is the bottleneck — and why removing them from operations (not accountability) is the imperative.**
|
||||
> **Infrastructure operations become visible. Every environment provisioned, every incident healed, every risk remediated — by an autonomous system whose trustworthiness is provable, not promised. Human attestation remains required at stage gates; the operator is never in the loop of normal operations.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **The cost of humans-in-the-loop:** L1/L2 ops hours, escalation latency, the trust gap
|
||||
- **The operator is the bottleneck:** provisioning takes days, not minutes
|
||||
- **The attestation model:** autonomy in operations, human at stage gates
|
||||
- Cites `docs/NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md`
|
||||
- **Visibility is the recurring theme** — security posture, remediation velocity, reliability, and lead time as queryable signals
|
||||
- **Provable, not promised** — trust established by deterministic scripts that calculate a score; the platform functions without AI
|
||||
- **Autonomy in operations, human at stage gates** — QA signs off for production; SRE greenlights operational readiness
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the problem framing — autonomy in operations, human at stage gates, is the path forward.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the destination is autonomous operations with provable trust — security, remediation velocity, reliability, and lead time made visible to leadership, not promised to them.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 3 — Nova's Vision
|
||||
|
||||
> **Infrastructure operations become invisible. Every environment provisioned, every incident healed, every risk remediated — by an autonomous system whose trustworthiness is provable, not promised. Human attestation remains required at stage gates — QA signs off for production, SRE greenlights based on operational readiness — but the operator is never in the loop of normal operations.**
|
||||
|
||||
- Autonomy in operations, not in accountability
|
||||
- Cites `docs/NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the destination — invisible operations with provable trust, not promised trust.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 4 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
|
||||
## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
|
||||
|
||||
**4 Strategic Objectives:**
|
||||
1. **Zero-touch operations** — autonomy as the default, not the demo
|
||||
2. **Provable trust in AI decisions** — Decision Ledger, confidence scoring, circuit breakers
|
||||
3. **Compounding, quantifiable ROI** — each quarter must reduce spend, free hours, avoid downtime
|
||||
4. **Default substrate for agentic consumption** — the platform AI agents reach for first
|
||||
1. **Zero-touch operations** — autonomy as the default, not the demo; stage-gate attestation (QA, SRE) remains human by design
|
||||
2. **Provable trust in automated decisions** — deterministic scripts calculate a score; the platform functions without AI; Decision Ledger, confidence scoring, circuit breakers, blast-radius controls
|
||||
3. **Compounding, quantifiable ROI** — four CTO-grade metrics, all flowing into PowerBI:
|
||||
- **Lead Time** (PR → Production) · **Infrastructure Vulnerability Count** (trend) · **MTTR** · **Cloud Spend Reduction**
|
||||
4. **Integrate with externally owned development platforms — regardless of source** — PDLC, SDLC, Agentic, or Citizen Developer; Nova provides skills + MCP endpoints; all prod intents go through the same controls and quality gates
|
||||
|
||||
**5 Anti-Goals (what Nova is NOT):**
|
||||
1. Not a hyperscaler competitor
|
||||
2. Not a general-purpose AI platform
|
||||
3. Not removing humans from accountability
|
||||
4. Not for legacy, untagged, or freeform infrastructure
|
||||
5. Not sold to operators
|
||||
**4 Anti-Goals (what Nova is NOT):**
|
||||
1. Not a general-purpose AI agent platform
|
||||
2. Not a system that removes humans from accountability — only from normal operations
|
||||
3. Not an upstream development platform (no product backlogs, IDE, code authorship)
|
||||
4. Not a replacement for the Product Development Lifecycle (PDLC)
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the scope boundaries — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations, sold to leadership on outcomes.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the scope is explicit — Nova governs infrastructure and delivery, integrates with any upstream source through one validated contract, and measures success on four metrics a CTO can repeat back.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 5 — 12–18 Month Targets
|
||||
## Slide 4 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
|
||||
|
||||
**Current-milestone targets (grounded/derived):**
|
||||
**Nova governs infrastructure and delivery. The PDLC is upstream — Nova never penetrates it. Integration is through one validated contract.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Domain | Target | Status |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| MTTR (p95) | < 60s | grounded |
|
||||
| Cloud Spend Reduction | ≥ 25% | partial (CUR deferred D-096) |
|
||||
| L1/L2 Ops Hours Avoided | ≥ 70% | derived (N internal runs) |
|
||||
| Platform ROI | ≥ 250% | derived (formula; N=0 caveat) |
|
||||
| Decision Ledger Coverage | 100% | grounded |
|
||||
| Attestation Coverage | 100% | grounded |
|
||||
- **The PDLC is upstream:** product backlog, code authorship (AI agent, IDE, agentic SDLC), sprint planning, application business logic
|
||||
- **Nova is downstream:** contract ingestion → submission-readiness gate → policy enforcement → cloud resource lifecycle → environment progression (dev → qa → prod → dr) → immutable audit + attestation
|
||||
- **The integration point is one contract** — any upstream source (AI agent, agentic SDLC, dev platform) produces submissions subject to the same compliance standards
|
||||
- **Nova validates the submission, not the author** — the audit trail, the policy envelope, and the evidence stream are the same regardless of source
|
||||
|
||||
**Post-Pilot targets (pipeline grounded; 0 consumers today):**
|
||||
**Benefit:** a clean scope boundary — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations and integrates with any upstream source through one validated contract, so the platform team's surface area stays bounded.
|
||||
|
||||
| Domain | Target | Status |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Touchless Resolution Rate | ≥ 99% | partial |
|
||||
| Human Escalation Frequency | < 0.1% | partial |
|
||||
| AI Decision Accuracy | ≥ 99.5% | partial |
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Deferred:** Predictive vs Reactive ≥3:1 <span class="badge planned">Planned</span> · Drift Auto-Reversal ≥95% <span class="badge planned">Planned</span>
|
||||
## Slide 5 — RACI: Who Owns What
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the destination numbers — and which are measurable today vs deferred honestly.
|
||||
**Four roles, one matrix — citizen developer owns FRs + UAT, platform owns NFRs + infra, quality engineering owns the gate evidence, SRE owns operational readiness.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Work Category | Citizen Dev | Platform | Quality Eng | SRE |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Functional Requirements | **R/A** | C | I | I |
|
||||
| User Acceptance Testing | **R/A** | C | I | I |
|
||||
| Non-Functional Requirements | I | **R/A** | C | C |
|
||||
| Infrastructure (cloud, state, IAM) | I | **R/A** | I | C |
|
||||
| QA (policy, confidence, schema) | C | R | **R/A** | I |
|
||||
| Production deployment to cloud | I | **R/A** | C | C |
|
||||
| Quality attestation (QA sign-off) | **A** | R | **R** | I |
|
||||
| Production readiness (SRE sign-off) | **A** | R | C | **R** |
|
||||
|
||||
**R**=Responsible · **A**=Accountable (sign-off) · **C**=Consulted · **I**=Informed. Production readiness is co-owned: the platform runs attestations agentically; the citizen developer authorizes the promotion at the stage gate.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** every party knows what they bring, what the platform provides, what quality engineering guards, and where SRE signs off — accountability is explicit, never diffuse.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 6 — The Platform Pipeline
|
||||
|
||||
**How intent becomes verified infrastructure without an operator.**
|
||||
**How intent becomes verified infrastructure — fail-fast policy scanning before the plan, runtime scanning after it.**
|
||||
|
||||
Contract → Resolver → Adapter → Terraform Plan → Checkov (Policy) → Confidence Signal → HITL Gate → Apply → Evidence
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
- Dev: autonomous (no HITL gate)
|
||||
- qa/prod/dr: attested (human sign-off required)
|
||||
- Grounded in `run_platform.sh` + `contract_resolver.py` + `confidence_signal.py`
|
||||
- **Contract → resolver → adapter → Checkov on static code (before plan) → terraform plan → Wiz on the plan → confidence signal → stage gate → apply → evidence + ledger**
|
||||
- **Fail-fast, quick feedback** — Checkov runs on the authored Terraform code before `terraform plan` so developers get immediate policy feedback
|
||||
- **Wiz on the plan when configured; Checkov as a drop-in otherwise** — Wiz scans the plan output; when Wiz credentials are absent, Checkov runs against the plan. **Wiz and Checkov are never both run on the plan.**
|
||||
- **Dev is autonomous** (no stage gate); **qa/prod/dr require human attestation** (QA for quality, SRE for production readiness)
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the path from intent to evidence — and where the human appears (stage gates only).
|
||||
**Benefit:** two layers of scanning, zero operator involvement in normal operations — fast deterministic feedback at authoring time and a runtime scan on the resolved plan.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 7 — The Decision Ledger
|
||||
|
||||
**Every AI decision captured with confidence, alternatives, and outcome.**
|
||||
**Every automated decision is captured, immutable, queryable — and accountable.**
|
||||
|
||||
- `outbox_writer.py` → SQLite append-only hash-chain table
|
||||
- `ai.decision.made`: decision_id=run_id, chosen_action=band, confidence=score, alternatives=perInput, human_override=HITL block
|
||||
- `attestation.recorded`: qa/prod/dr sign-offs
|
||||
- D-121, D-122, D-132. Honors D-083 (no S3 Object Lock/JWS — local hash-chain)
|
||||
- **What is captured:** the chosen action, the confidence score, the alternatives considered, whether a human overrode it, and the outcome (backfilled once the apply completes). Every stage-gate attestation (QA, SRE) is captured with approver identity and the evidence presented.
|
||||
- **"AI decisions" are really automated decisions** — made by deterministic scripts that calculate a score and a band; the platform functions without AI. When an LLM planner is added later, it will emit richer alternatives without breaking the schema.
|
||||
- **The value is accountability, not the storage engine** — the ledger is append-only and tamper-evident; every decision is queryable for auditing, traceable to an outcome, and impossible to rewrite after the fact.
|
||||
|
||||
**D-122 honesty:** Nova's "AI" is the confidence-gated policy engine (confidence_signal + HITL gate), not an LLM planner. The Decision Ledger captures this real decision path — not a fabricated "AI agent."
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know why 'autonomous' is defensible — every decision is immutable, queryable, and accountable. And you know exactly what 'AI' means here: a confidence-gated policy engine, not a black-box LLM.
|
||||
**Benefit:** "autonomous" is defensible because every decision is immutable, queryable, and accountable — and the audience knows exactly what "automated" means here: deterministic scoring, not a black-box LLM.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 8 — The 8-Concern Attestation Matrix
|
||||
## Slide 8 — The Attestation Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
**Designed controls that keep humans at stage gates.**
|
||||
**The designed controls that keep humans at stage gates — structured, freshness-validated, separation-of-duties-enforced.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Concern | Env | Freshness | Type |
|
||||
|---------|-----|-----------|------|
|
||||
| functional_correctness | qa | 24h | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| performance_baseline | qa | 7d | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| security_posture | qa | 24h | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| operational_readiness | prod | 30d | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| incident_response | prod | 90d | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| capacity_cost | prod | 30d | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| resilience_dr_drill | prod | 180d | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| dr_region_deploy | dr | 180d | operator-supplied |
|
||||
| Concern | Env | Freshness | Description |
|
||||
|---------|-----|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Functional correctness | qa | 24h | The application behaves as specified; evidence accepted from the consumer's UAT. |
|
||||
| Performance baseline | qa | 7d | The deployment meets its performance envelope vs. the agreed baseline. |
|
||||
| Security posture | qa | 24h | The deployment's security findings have been reviewed and accepted. |
|
||||
| Operational readiness | prod | 30d | SRE confirms the deployment is operable: runbooks, dashboards, on-call. |
|
||||
| Incident response | prod | 90d | The on-call path has been exercised; a working incident-response plan exists. |
|
||||
| Capacity & cost | prod | 30d | Capacity headroom and monthly cost are within the agreed envelope. |
|
||||
| Resilience: DR drill | prod | 180d | A DR drill has been run and recovery met the RTO. |
|
||||
| Resilience: chaos | prod | 90d | A chaos exercise has been run and the deployment absorbed the failure. |
|
||||
| Resilience: backup | prod | 30d | Backups are restorable and tested within the freshness window. |
|
||||
| DR region deploy | dr | 180d | The DR region can be deployed and is reachable. |
|
||||
|
||||
- Offline-testable concerns run for real; operator-supplied concerns accept signed evidence
|
||||
- Separation-of-duties on prod
|
||||
- Grounded in `attestation_matrix.py` + `hitl_gates.py`
|
||||
Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built the deployment.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the gate model — autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the gate model is explicit — autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design. The matrix is what makes autonomous operations safe enough to trust in production.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 9 — Telemetry Architecture
|
||||
## Slide 9 — Telemetry & Live Ops
|
||||
|
||||
**How Nova instruments itself — CloudEvents envelope, cold store, PowerBI export.**
|
||||
**Every metric in this deck is traceable to a real emitted signal — the live-ops dashboard makes operations visible in PowerBI.**
|
||||
|
||||
Platform → CloudEvents 1.0 → `metrics/events.jsonl` + `metrics/decision_ledger.db` + `metrics/runs/` → Collector → `metrics/nova_metrics.db` (SQLite cold store) → `metrics/powerbi/` (CSV/JSON) → PowerBI
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
- D-120 (Nova-native), D-125 (hybrid), D-126 (cold-only)
|
||||
- <span class="badge planned">Planned</span>: Hot-path (live ops dashboard) — D-126
|
||||
- **Platform components → CloudEvents envelope → event log + decision ledger + run records → collector → cold store → PowerBI views → live ops dashboard**
|
||||
- **The live ops dashboard (PowerBI)** surfaces the four CTO-grade metrics (Lead Time, Vulnerability Count, MTTR, Cloud Spend) alongside trust metrics (Decision Ledger coverage, Attestation coverage) and efficiency metrics (touchless resolution, escalation frequency)
|
||||
- **Deliberately minimal** — Nova-native envelopes; no Kafka, no Prometheus, no ClickHouse. The cold store handles batch and historical analysis; the live-ops surface is built in PowerBI on the exported views
|
||||
- **Every number is traceable to a signal** — when a CFO asks "where does this number come from?", the answer is a query against the cold store, not a Slack thread
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know that every metric in this deck is traceable to a real emitted event — the architecture IS the trust substrate. When a CFO asks 'where does this number come from?', the answer is a file path, not a Slack thread.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the architecture is the trust substrate — leadership sees the same numbers the platform produces, in PowerBI, with full traceability. Operations become visible.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 10 — Capability Health + Confidence Distribution
|
||||
## Slide 10 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Grounded proof: capability health and confidence distribution from real runs.**
|
||||
**By design, no change reaches production without a ledger entry and a human attestation — both queryable for auditing, with full traceability.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Status | Count |
|
||||
|--------|-------|
|
||||
| Verified | 18 |
|
||||
| Skipped | 4 |
|
||||
| Broken | 0 |
|
||||
| Decayed | 0 |
|
||||
- **Decision Ledger coverage: 100%** — every platform run emits a decision record with outcome backfill; no automated decision is ever lost
|
||||
- **Attestation coverage: 100%** — every prod/dr promotion is attested by a human (QA for quality, SRE for production readiness), recorded with approver identity, separation-of-duties check, and the evidence matrix
|
||||
- **No change to production without both** — the ledger entry and the human attestation are mandatory, enforced by the pipeline, not by policy
|
||||
- **Easily queried for auditing** — queryable by run, by environment, by approver, and by outcome; the audit trail is a query, not a forensic exercise
|
||||
- **Full traceability** — a production change is traceable from the contract that declared intent, through the policy scan, the confidence score, the attestation, to the applied outcome
|
||||
|
||||
- 4 Skipped = live-AWS caps (CAP-013..016), honestly skipped (D-096 teardown), not a failure
|
||||
- Source: `.ciagent/REGRESSION_REPORT.json`
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the platform is verified — 18 capabilities pass, 4 are honestly skipped, 0 broken.
|
||||
**Benefit:** trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record. An auditor answers "who approved this, when, on what evidence?" in one query; a CTO answers "how many of last quarter's prod changes were touchless?" in one query.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 11 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
|
||||
## Slide 11 — Cost & ROI
|
||||
|
||||
**Trust metrics — both 100%.**
|
||||
**The ROI formula and the cost estimates — grounded, with the production denominator honestly flagged.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Decision Ledger Coverage:** 100% of platform runs emit `ai.decision.made` with outcome backfill
|
||||
- **Attestation Coverage:** 100% of prod/dr promotions attested by a human
|
||||
- **AI Decision Accuracy:** decisions not followed by apply.failed/incident within 5min
|
||||
- Trust snapshot: `metrics/TRUST_SNAPSHOT.md` with chain-integrity verdict
|
||||
- <span class="badge planned">Planned</span>: Tamper-Evident Ledger Checkpoints (D-083)
|
||||
- **Cost estimates are pre-apply and offline** — the platform reads the terraform plan and estimates cost before anything is applied; a cost regression is caught before the spend happens
|
||||
- **The ROI formula:**
|
||||
`Platform ROI = (FTE hours saved × blended rate + cloud savings + avoided downtime) ÷ platform op cost`
|
||||
- **The four CTO-grade metrics are the ROI proof:** Lead Time (PR → Prod), Infrastructure Vulnerability Count (trend), MTTR, Cloud Spend Reduction — all flow into PowerBI
|
||||
- **Honest caveat:** derived metrics are computed on internal runs today; the production-denominator activates when a pilot estate runs. The formula is grounded; the production numbers are not yet.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the ROI is not a black box — the formula is shown, the four metrics are committed, and the production-denominator caveat is stated up front. The CFO sees exactly what is real today and what activates with a pilot.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 12 — Zero-Touch Efficiency
|
||||
## Slide 12 — What's Deferred — and Why
|
||||
|
||||
**Touchless resolution, human escalation, and MTTR.**
|
||||
**Honesty about what is not measured yet — and the blocking work for each.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Touchless Resolution Rate:** runs without operational HITL block ÷ total (attestation gates excluded)
|
||||
- **Human Escalation Frequency:** operational HITL blocks only (confidence-driven; attestation sign-offs excluded)
|
||||
- **MTTR (platform-run):** apply.failed → successful retry (D-131)
|
||||
To be clear: these deferrals are *measurement infrastructure*, not the autonomy itself. The platform runs without an operator in the loop of normal operations. What is deferred is the evidence pipeline for certain metrics — not the autonomy.
|
||||
|
||||
**Post-Pilot caveat:** computed on N internal runs today; production-denominator activates when a pilot estate runs.
|
||||
| # | Deferred metric | Blocking work |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|---------------|
|
||||
| 1 | Live infrastructure health | Live AWS re-provisioning (currently torn down to zero-cost steady state) |
|
||||
| 2 | Live outbox write rate | Live AWS re-provisioning |
|
||||
| 3 | Tamper-evident ledger checkpoints | Audit-ledger build-out (Object Lock + signed checkpoints) |
|
||||
| 4 | Onboarding funnel (requested → granted) | Auto-grant implementation |
|
||||
| 5 | Drift auto-reversal | Drift-detection scheduler (not yet built) |
|
||||
| 6 | Live cost reconciliation | Live AWS re-provisioning + actual-spend feed |
|
||||
| 7 | SLA / unplanned downtime | Live AWS re-provisioning |
|
||||
| 8 | Predictive vs reactive ratio | ML anomaly-forecasting service (not yet built) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the zero-touch efficiency is measurable — the pipeline works today on internal runs, and the denominator expands to production estates when a pilot activates.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the boundaries are explicit — what Nova measures today, and exactly what blocks the rest. The autonomy is real; the measurement gaps are documented with the work that unblocks each one.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 13 — Cost & ROI
|
||||
## Slide 13 — Roadmap to the North Star
|
||||
|
||||
**Cost estimates and the ROI formula — with honest caveats.**
|
||||
**The path from the grounded metrics to the 12–18 month targets — each deferred metric has an unblock path and a timeframe.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Cost Estimates via Infracost:** pre-apply, grounded (reads plan JSON, offline)
|
||||
- **ROI formula:** `Platform ROI = (FTE hours saved × blended rate + cloud savings + avoided downtime) ÷ platform op cost`
|
||||
- **N=0 caveat:** "Computed on N internal runs today; production-denominator activates post-pilot. The formula is grounded; the production numbers are not yet."
|
||||
- <span class="badge planned">Planned</span>: Live CUR Reconciliation (D-096)
|
||||
| Timeframe | Work | Unblocks |
|
||||
|-----------|------|----------|
|
||||
| Near-term | Live AWS re-provisioning | Live infra health, outbox write rate, live cost reconciliation, SLA |
|
||||
| Near-term | Auto-grant implementation | Onboarding funnel (requested → granted) |
|
||||
| Mid-term | Drift-detection scheduler | Drift auto-reversal |
|
||||
| Mid-term | Audit-ledger build-out (Object Lock + signed checkpoints) | Tamper-evident ledger checkpoints |
|
||||
| Mid-term | Hot-path activation (batch → near-real-time) | Live-ops dashboard freshness |
|
||||
| Longer-term | ML anomaly-forecasting service | Predictive vs reactive ratio |
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the ROI formula — and you know it's computed on internal runs today, not fabricated production numbers.
|
||||
Re-evaluation triggers: each blocking piece of work lifts on its own schedule; the metrics layer evolves as each one lands.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** every deferred metric has an unblock path — nothing is hand-waved; everything has a plan and a timeframe.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 14 — What's Deferred — and Why
|
||||
## Slide 14 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
**Honesty about what isn't measured yet.**
|
||||
**The product arc from pilot activation to integration — four quarters, four outcomes.**
|
||||
|
||||
**To be clear:** these deferrals are *measurement infrastructure*, not whether the platform runs without humans. The platform IS autonomous in operations. What's deferred is the *evidence pipeline* for certain metrics — not the autonomy itself.
|
||||
| Quarter | Theme | Board-level outcome |
|
||||
|---------|-------|---------------------|
|
||||
| **Q1** | Pilot Activation | Nova runs a real customer estate end-to-end, autonomously, with a measurable zero-touch rate. |
|
||||
| **Q2** | Provable Trust | Every automated decision lands in a tamper-evident ledger; the CFO sees real cloud-spend reconciliation. |
|
||||
| **Q3** | Compounding ROI | Quarter-over-quarter cloud spend drops; drift is detected and reversed without a human. |
|
||||
| **Q4** | Integration & Predictive | AI agents deploy through Nova by default; the ML anomaly-forecasting service goes live. |
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Deferred Metric | Blocking Decision |
|
||||
|---|----------------|-------------------|
|
||||
| 1 | Live Infrastructure Health | D-096 |
|
||||
| 2 | Live Outbox Write Rate | D-096 |
|
||||
| 3 | Tamper-Evident Ledger Checkpoints | D-083 |
|
||||
| 4 | Onboarding Funnel (granted) | D-113/D-114/D-119 |
|
||||
| 5 | Drift Auto-Reversal | D-096 + no scheduler |
|
||||
| 6 | Live CUR Reconciliation | D-096 |
|
||||
| 7 | SLA / Unplanned Downtime | D-096 |
|
||||
| 8 | Predictive vs Reactive | future emitter |
|
||||
Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integration) and the deferred-metric unblock paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the boundaries — what Nova measures today, and exactly what blocks the rest. The autonomy is real; the measurement gaps are documented.
|
||||
**Benefit:** the 12-month product arc — each quarter activates a strategic objective and its corresponding board-level metric, from pilot activation through integration leadership.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 15 — Roadmap to the North Star
|
||||
## Slide 15 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
**The path from v1.17's grounded metrics to the 12–18 month targets.**
|
||||
| Quarter | Product theme | Key deliverable | Target metric | Grounding |
|
||||
|---------|---------------|-----------------|---------------|-----------|
|
||||
| **Q1** | Pilot Activation | Re-provision live AWS; activate first pilot estate; onboarding auto-grant | Touchless ≥ 99% · Escalation < 0.1% · Accuracy ≥ 99.5% | Objective #1 — autonomy as the default |
|
||||
| **Q2** | Provable Trust | Tamper-evident ledger (Object Lock + signed checkpoints); daily checkpoints; live cost reconciliation | Decision Ledger Coverage 100% · Cost Savings ≥ 25% | Objective #2 — trust is the moat |
|
||||
| **Q3** | Compounding ROI + Drift | Drift-detection scheduler; auto-reversal; pre-apply → actual-spend reconciliation on the pilot estate | Drift Auto-Reversal ≥ 95% · Spend Reduction ≥ 25% | Objective #3 — CFO-pointable numbers |
|
||||
| **Q4** | Integration + Predictive | ML anomaly-forecasting; AI-agent intent surface; multi-cloud (Azure/GCP) preview | Predictive:Reactive ≥ 3:1 · AI-Agent Intent Share (first measurement) | Objective #4 — default substrate for agents |
|
||||
|
||||
- Each deferred metric → blocking decision → unblock requirement → candidate milestone
|
||||
- Hot-path activation (post-D-096, Nova-native only, D-120)
|
||||
- Re-evaluation triggers: D-096 lift, D-083 lift, onboarding-grant lift
|
||||
**Month-18 destination:** *"Nova is the layer enterprise leadership points to when they say 'we don't have an infrastructure ops team anymore, and the audit trail is stronger than it ever was.'"*
|
||||
|
||||
From `docs/METRICS_DEFERRED_ROADMAP.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the path — every deferred metric has an unblock requirement and a candidate milestone. Nothing is hand-waved; everything has a plan.
|
||||
**Benefit:** each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric grounded in a strategic objective, and a path from "honestly deferred" to "shipped and measured."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 16 — Recap + Ask
|
||||
## Slide 16 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (1/2)
|
||||
|
||||
**The 5-act recap + the business decision.**
|
||||
**Nova instructs the citizen developer's AI agent on production-grade engineering — a set of skills and an MCP server.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Skills** — markdown files keyed to production-grade engineering domains (API, security, data, testing, observability, errors, DevOps, infrastructure-as-code, compliance); the skills extend the baseline catalog with Nova-specific production-grade principles
|
||||
- **MCP server** — a plugin-registry, stdio server exposing four tools: `lookup_principle`, `list_domains`, `matrix_lookup`, `validate_against_principles`. The developer's AI agent (or any agentic SDLC platform) calls these tools to look up the principles that apply to its submission
|
||||
- **The integration point is the same regardless of source** — whether the submission comes from an AI coding agent, an agentic SDLC platform, or a traditional IDE, the same skills and MCP server apply. This is how Nova makes the citizen developer production-grade without owning the PDLC
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** the citizen developer's AI agent is not unguided — Nova provides production-grade engineering principles as skills and as an MCP surface, so submissions arrive at the contract boundary already aligned with the platform's standards.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 17 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (2/2)
|
||||
|
||||
**Agentic validation catches engineering-discipline gaps that deterministic scanners miss — and the validation is reproducible.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Beyond deterministic scanners** — Wiz, Checkmarx, and Mend check policy and secrets; they do not check engineering discipline. The Atelier MCP server catches correctness, clarity, and observability gaps that deterministic tools cannot: "is this service observable?", "is this error path handled?", "is this API contract clear?"
|
||||
- **Agentic validation, not a second policy engine** — the MCP server gives the AI agent the principles to validate against; the agent does the validation. The agent reasons about the submission against the principles, not a second static scan
|
||||
- **Vendored for audit reproducibility** — Atelier is vendored at a pinned tag. A validation result is replayable against the exact principles that produced it, so an audit can reproduce a validation months later, not just trust a log line
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** the citizen developer's submission is checked for engineering discipline, not just policy compliance — and the check is reproducible for audit. That is what makes the submission production-grade, regardless of which upstream platform produced it.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 18 — Recap + Ask
|
||||
|
||||
**The 4-beat recap + the business decision.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Recap:**
|
||||
- **Problem:** operator is the bottleneck; autonomy in operations, human at stage gates
|
||||
- **Vision:** invisible operations with provable trust (NORTH_STAR)
|
||||
- **How:** pipeline + Decision Ledger + 8-concern attestation matrix
|
||||
- **Proof:** 18V+4S, 100% ledger coverage, 100% attestation, grounded ROI formula
|
||||
- **Roadmap:** deferred metrics have unblock paths
|
||||
- **Problem:** product teams own infrastructure without the discipline and lifecycle planning it requires; bandwidth gaps and tribal knowledge leave operations exposed
|
||||
- **Solution:** autonomous cloud delivery — operations become visible, trust is provable (deterministic scoring), humans at stage gates
|
||||
- **Proof:** 100% ledger coverage, 100% attestation coverage, grounded ROI formula, four CTO-grade metrics flowing into PowerBI
|
||||
- **Roadmap:** deferred metrics have unblock paths; the 12-month product arc activates one strategic objective per quarter
|
||||
|
||||
**The ask:** "Approve a pilot estate to activate the production-denominator metrics (Touchless Resolution, Human Escalation, AI Decision Accuracy), and approve the tamper-evident ledger build-out (D-083 lift) to move from local hash-chain to S3 Object Lock + JWS. These two decisions move Nova from 'pipeline-ready' to 'production-proven.'"
|
||||
**The ask:** "Approve a pilot estate to activate the production-denominator metrics (Lead Time, Vulnerability Count, MTTR, Cloud Spend), and approve the tamper-evident ledger build-out to move from the local hash-chain to S3 Object Lock + signed checkpoints. These two decisions move Nova from 'pipeline-ready' to 'production-proven.'"
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you leave with a clear business decision to make — approve a pilot + the ledger build-out — and the confidence that every claim in this deck is grounded, derived, or honestly deferred.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 17 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
|
||||
|
||||
**Nova governs infrastructure + delivery. The PDLC (product backlog, code authorship, IDE) is upstream — Nova never penetrates it.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **The PDLC is upstream:** product backlog, code authorship (AI agent / IDE / agentic SDLC), sprint planning, application business logic
|
||||
- **Nova is downstream:** contract ingestion → submission-readiness gate → policy → cloud lifecycle → environment progression → audit + attestation
|
||||
- **Integration is only through the contract boundary:** the citizen developer's AI coding agent, an upstream agentic SDLC, or any dev platform may all produce submissions — the source does not matter as all are subject to the same compliance standards
|
||||
- Nova validates the submission, not the author
|
||||
- Cites `docs/scope.md` + `PROJECT.md` § Scope
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the scope boundary — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations, not product development; integration is through one validated contract.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 18 — RACI: Who Owns What
|
||||
|
||||
**Three roles, one matrix — the citizen developer owns FRs + UAT, the platform owns NFRs + infra + QA + prod deploy, release management is co-owned.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Work Category | Citizen Dev | Platform | Release Mgmt |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Functional Requirements (FRs) | **R/A** | C | I |
|
||||
| User Acceptance Testing (UAT) | **R/A** | C | I |
|
||||
| Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs) | I | **R/A** | C |
|
||||
| Infrastructure (cloud, state, IAM) | I | **R/A** | C |
|
||||
| QA (policy, confidence, schema) | C | **R/A** | I |
|
||||
| Production deployment to cloud | I | **R/A** | C |
|
||||
| Release attestation (QA + SRE) | **A** | R | **R** |
|
||||
|
||||
- **Compliance-standard equivalence:** FRs + UAT may come from any upstream source (AI agent, agentic SDLC, dev platform) — all pass the same submission-readiness gate
|
||||
- **Release co-ownership:** the platform runs the attestations agentically; the citizen developer oversees and triggers the actual release (human at the stage gate)
|
||||
- Cites `docs/raci.md` + `PROJECT.md` § RACI Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know exactly what you bring (FRs + UAT), what Nova provides (NFRs + infra + QA + prod deploy), and what you co-own (the release attestation).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 19 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier
|
||||
|
||||
**Nova instructs the citizen developer's AI agent on production-grade engineering — skills + an MCP server with agentic validation beyond deterministic scanners.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Skills (9):** markdown files under `skills/` keyed to Atelier domain paths (api, security, data, testing, observability, errors, devops, infrastructure-as-code, compliance) — extending the BA.A 5-skill catalog
|
||||
- **MCP server:** `mcp/atelier/server.py` (plugin-registry, stdio) — 4 tools: `lookup_principle`, `list_domains`, `matrix_lookup`, `validate_against_principles`
|
||||
- **Agentic validation:** catches C1 correctness + C2 clarity + C7 observability gaps that Wiz/Checkmarx/Mend cannot — deterministic tools check policy/secrets; the MCP server checks engineering discipline
|
||||
- **Vendored Atelier** (pinned tag v0.3.6): audit reproducibility — a validation result is replayable against the exact principles that produced it
|
||||
- Cites `docs/skills.md` + `mcp/atelier/README.md`
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the citizen developer is not unguided — Nova provides production-grade engineering principles via skills + an MCP server, so the AI agent's submissions meet the same standards regardless of upstream source.
|
||||
**Benefit:** a clear business decision — approve a pilot and the ledger build-out — with the confidence that every claim in this deck is grounded, derived, or honestly deferred.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -338,66 +310,18 @@ From `docs/METRICS_DEFERRED_ROADMAP.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
| KPI | Definition | Status |
|
||||
|-----|-----------|--------|
|
||||
| Touchless Resolution Rate | runs without operational HITL block ÷ total | partial (Post-Pilot) |
|
||||
| Human Escalation Frequency | operational HITL blocks ÷ total | partial (Post-Pilot) |
|
||||
| AI Decision Accuracy | decisions not followed by failure within 5min | partial (Post-Pilot) |
|
||||
| Touchless Resolution Rate | runs without operational stage-gate block ÷ total | partial (Post-Pilot) |
|
||||
| Human Escalation Frequency | operational stage-gate blocks ÷ total | partial (Post-Pilot) |
|
||||
| Automated Decision Accuracy | decisions not followed by failure within 5min | partial (Post-Pilot) |
|
||||
| MTTR (p95) | apply.failed → successful retry | grounded |
|
||||
| Confidence-Gate Halt Rate | runs with band=block ÷ total | grounded |
|
||||
| Provisioning Lead Time | run.completed − run.started | grounded |
|
||||
| Deployment Frequency | count(run.completed) per day | grounded |
|
||||
| Cost Savings (Infracost) | sum(delta_usd where delta < 0) | partial (CUR deferred) |
|
||||
| Cost Savings (pre-apply) | sum(delta_usd where delta < 0) | partial (live reconciliation deferred) |
|
||||
| FTE Hours Saved | run count × manual baseline × rate | derived (N=0 caveat) |
|
||||
| Platform ROI | (labor + cloud + avoided downtime) ÷ op cost | derived (N=0 caveat) |
|
||||
| Decision Ledger Coverage | decisions with outcome ÷ total | grounded |
|
||||
| Attestation Coverage | prod/dr attested ÷ total prod/dr | grounded |
|
||||
| Policy Compliance Rate | 1 − failed_assets ÷ total | grounded |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- _class: title -->
|
||||
<!-- _paginate: false -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Appendix A2 — Operating Model & Cost
|
||||
|
||||
- **Cost figures** from `COST.md`: $0.001883 over 8 days, ~$0.007/month, S3-dominated, zero BAU compute
|
||||
- **Zero-cost steady state:** all resources torn down post-v1.11 (D-096); the platform runs offline
|
||||
- References the pre-mortem (`PRE_MORTEM.md`: v1.10 decay root cause + structural mitigations)
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the operating cost is negligible — and the structural mitigation that prevents decay.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- _class: title -->
|
||||
<!-- _paginate: false -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 20 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
**The product arc from pilot activation to agentic substrate — four quarters, four outcomes.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Quarter | Theme | Board-level outcome |
|
||||
|---------|-------|---------------------|
|
||||
| **Q1** | <span class="badge planned">Pilot Activation</span> | Nova runs a real customer estate end-to-end, autonomously, with a measurable zero-touch rate |
|
||||
| **Q2** | <span class="badge planned">Provable Trust</span> | Every AI decision lands in a tamper-evident ledger; CFO sees real cloud-spend reconciliation |
|
||||
| **Q3** | <span class="badge planned">Compounding ROI</span> | Quarter-over-quarter cloud spend drops; drift is detected and reversed without a human |
|
||||
| **Q4** | <span class="badge planned">Agentic Substrate</span> | AI agents deploy through Nova by default; Nova is the substrate, not a vendor arriving late |
|
||||
|
||||
**Grounded in:** the 4 strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, agentic substrate) + the deferred-metric unblock paths.
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the 12-month product arc — each quarter activates a strategic objective and its corresponding board-level metric, from pilot activation through agentic substrate leadership.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- _class: title -->
|
||||
<!-- _paginate: false -->
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 21 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
| Quarter | Product theme | Key deliverable | Target metric | Grounding |
|
||||
|---------|--------------|-----------------|---------------|-----------|
|
||||
| **Q1** | Pilot Activation | Re-provision live AWS; activate first pilot estate; onboarding auto-grant | Touchless Resolution ≥ 99% · Escalation < 0.1% · AI Accuracy ≥ 99.5% | Strategic Objective #1 — autonomy as the default |
|
||||
| **Q2** | Provable Trust | Tamper-evident ledger (Object Lock + JWS); daily checkpoints; live cost reconciliation (CUR) | Decision Ledger Coverage 100% · Cost Savings ≥ 25% | Strategic Objective #2 — trust is the moat |
|
||||
| **Q3** | Compounding ROI + Drift | Drift detection scheduler; auto-reversal; Infracost→CUR reconciliation on pilot estate | Drift Auto-Reversal ≥ 95% · Spend Reduction ≥ 25% | Strategic Objective #3 — CFO-pointable numbers |
|
||||
| **Q4** | Agentic Substrate + Predictive | ML anomaly-forecasting; AI-agent intent surface; multi-cloud (Azure/GCP) preview | Predictive:Reactive ≥ 3:1 · AI-Agent Intent Share ≥ 40% (first measurement) | Strategic Objective #4 — default substrate for agents |
|
||||
|
||||
**Month-18 destination:** *"Nova is the layer enterprise leadership points to when they say 'we don't have an infrastructure ops team anymore, and the audit trail is stronger than it ever was.'"*
|
||||
|
||||
**Benefit:** you now know the quarter-by-quarter detail — each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric grounded in a strategic objective, and a path from "honestly deferred" to "shipped and measured."
|
||||
**Benefit:** a reference for every metric mentioned in the deck.
|
||||
@@ -1,164 +1,129 @@
|
||||
# Nova — The No-Humans Infrastructure Platform: Talking Points
|
||||
# Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform: Talking Points
|
||||
|
||||
> Step 4 of the 4-step deck process. Presenter cues distilled from the
|
||||
> source of truth (`nova-no-humans-platform.md`). 3-6 bullets per slide
|
||||
> + key takeaway. Indexed by Marp slide #.
|
||||
> v1.17 — REQ-196, REQ-197
|
||||
> source of truth (`nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md`). 3-6 bullets per
|
||||
> slide + key takeaway. Indexed by Marp slide #.
|
||||
> v1.21 — REQ-245
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 1 — Arc Preview
|
||||
- Open with the stake line: "18 capabilities verified, 0 consumer estates in production"
|
||||
- Preview the 5-act arc so the audience knows the structure
|
||||
- Set the honesty frame: "this is an evidence deck, not a hype deck"
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** you'll leave knowing what's proven, what's pipeline-ready, and what's deferred
|
||||
### Slide 1 — The Problem
|
||||
- Open with the shift: "you build it, you run it" put Terraform into product teams — ownership without discipline is destroying value
|
||||
- Land the lifecycle-planning gap: resources authored for creation, not for patching/rollback → destructive changes
|
||||
- Land the urgency: AI-era 0-day pace demands proactive scanning as code + at runtime, remediated at threat pace
|
||||
- Call out tribal knowledge / the rockstar-operator problem — the platform should encode the discipline, not the person
|
||||
- Do NOT frame this as "humans are the problem" — the problem is ownership without the discipline and tooling
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the problem is infrastructure ownership without discipline; the answer is an autonomous platform that encodes the discipline
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 2 — The No-Humans Imperative
|
||||
- The operator is the bottleneck: days vs. minutes for provisioning
|
||||
- Key reframing: "no-humans" = no human in normal operations; stage-gate attestation is human by design
|
||||
- Cite the no-humans thesis doc
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** autonomy in operations, human at stage gates
|
||||
### Slide 2 — Nova's Vision
|
||||
- Read the vision verbatim — "infrastructure operations become visible" is the operative phrase
|
||||
- Emphasize "provable, not promised" — trust established by deterministic scripts; the platform functions without AI
|
||||
- State the attestation model up front: QA for production, SRE for operational readiness
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** autonomous operations with provable trust — security, remediation velocity, reliability, lead time made visible, not promised
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 3 — Nova's Vision
|
||||
- Read the vision statement verbatim — it's precise
|
||||
- Emphasize "provable, not promised" — the difference between marketing and defensible
|
||||
- State the attestation model up front to prevent mishearing
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** invisible operations with provable trust
|
||||
### Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
|
||||
- Objective #2 is the one to land carefully: trust = deterministic scoring, not an LLM; the platform functions without AI
|
||||
- Objective #3: four CTO-grade metrics (Lead Time, Vuln Count, MTTR, Spend) — all flow into PowerBI
|
||||
- Objective #4 is the integration thesis: Nova integrates with any upstream source; provides skills + MCP; all prod intents go through the same controls
|
||||
- Anti-goals #3 and #4 protect the scope: not an upstream dev platform, not a PDLC replacement
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** purpose-built for infra ops, integrates with any source through one contract, measures success on four CTO metrics
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 4 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
|
||||
- The 4 objectives are the "what"; the 5 anti-goals are the "what NOT"
|
||||
- Anti-goal #3 (not removing humans from accountability) reinforces slide 3
|
||||
- Anti-goal #5 (not sold to operators) explains why this deck is for leadership
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** purpose-built for infra ops, sold to leadership on outcomes
|
||||
### Slide 4 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
|
||||
- Nova governs infra + delivery only; the PDLC (backlog, code authorship, IDE) is upstream — Nova never penetrates it
|
||||
- Integration is only through the validated contract boundary
|
||||
- Any upstream source (AI agent, agentic SDLC, dev platform) produces submissions subject to the same compliance standards
|
||||
- Nova validates the submission, not the author
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations; the scope boundary is clean and bounded
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 5 — 12–18 Month Targets
|
||||
- The three-section split (current / post-pilot / deferred) IS the honesty model
|
||||
- "Partial" means the pipeline works but the denominator is zero (0 consumers)
|
||||
- The Post-Pilot targets are committed; the numbers fill when a pilot runs
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** which numbers are real today vs. deferred honestly
|
||||
### Slide 5 — RACI: Who Owns What
|
||||
- Four roles now: Citizen Developer, Platform, Quality Engineering, SRE
|
||||
- Quality attestation is owned by Quality Engineering (not the Platform); Production readiness is owned by SRE
|
||||
- The Platform runs the checks agentically but is never the Accountable party for the gate — that separation keeps the platform honest
|
||||
- Production readiness is co-owned: the platform runs attestations; the citizen developer authorizes the promotion at the stage gate
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** you bring FRs + UAT; Nova provides NFRs + infra; QE guards the gate evidence; SRE signs off on production readiness
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 6 — The Platform Pipeline
|
||||
- Walk the pipeline left-to-right: contract → resolver → adapter → plan → policy → confidence → gate → apply
|
||||
- Key insight: dev is autonomous; qa/prod/dr require attestation
|
||||
- The confidence signal is the "AI" — 6-input weighted score, not an LLM
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the path from intent to evidence, with humans at stage gates only
|
||||
- Walk the pipeline left-to-right: contract → resolver → adapter → Checkov (static) → plan → Wiz (on plan) → confidence → gate → apply
|
||||
- Two-stage scan: Checkov on static code BEFORE the plan (fail-fast dev feedback); Wiz on the plan (or Checkov as drop-in if no Wiz creds)
|
||||
- Never both Wiz + Checkov on the plan — avoid duplicate noise
|
||||
- Dev is autonomous; qa/prod/dr require attestation (QA for quality, SRE for production readiness)
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** two layers of scanning, zero operator involvement in normal operations
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 7 — The Decision Ledger
|
||||
- The D-122 honesty sentence is critical: "Nova's AI is the confidence-gated policy engine, not an LLM"
|
||||
- The ledger is the moat: features can be copied, an immutable decision history cannot
|
||||
- Every decision has outcome backfill from apply.completed
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** autonomous is defensible because every decision is immutable, queryable, accountable
|
||||
- "AI decisions" are really automated decisions — deterministic scripts calculate a score; the platform functions without AI
|
||||
- Do not dwell on the storage substrate — the value is accountability (immutable, queryable, traceable to outcome), not the database
|
||||
- Every stage-gate attestation is captured with approver identity and the evidence presented
|
||||
- When an LLM planner is added later, it emits richer alternatives without breaking the schema
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** autonomous is defensible because every decision is immutable, queryable, accountable — and "automated" means deterministic scoring, not a black-box LLM
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 8 — The 8-Concern Attestation Matrix
|
||||
- The matrix is not a rubber stamp — it's structured, freshness-validated, SoD-enforced
|
||||
- Offline-testable concerns run for real; operator-supplied concerns accept signed evidence
|
||||
### Slide 8 — The Attestation Matrix
|
||||
- The matrix is not a rubber stamp — structured, freshness-validated, separation-of-duties-enforced
|
||||
- Each concern now has a plain-language description of what is being attested (the old "operator-supplied" label is gone)
|
||||
- SoD on prod: the approver can't be the same person who built it
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design — the matrix is what makes autonomous operations safe enough to trust in production
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 9 — Telemetry Architecture
|
||||
- Deliberately minimal (Nova-native, no Kafka/Prometheus/ClickHouse)
|
||||
- Every number in the Proof act is traceable to a file path
|
||||
- The hot path is deferred (D-126) — cold store is sufficient for batch
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the architecture IS the trust substrate — "where does this number come from?" → file path
|
||||
### Slide 9 — Telemetry & Live Ops
|
||||
- Deliberately minimal: Nova-native CloudEvents; no Kafka/Prometheus/ClickHouse
|
||||
- The live-ops dashboard is built in PowerBI on top of the exported views — leadership sees the same numbers the platform produces
|
||||
- Every number in the Proof slides is traceable to a signal — "where does this number come from?" → a query against the cold store
|
||||
- This is where the "infrastructure operations become visible" theme lands concretely
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the architecture is the trust substrate — operations become visible in PowerBI, with full traceability
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 10 — Capability Health
|
||||
- 18V+4S is the single most important proof point
|
||||
- The 4 Skipped are live-AWS caps — honestly skipped (D-096), not broken
|
||||
- When live AWS is re-provisioned, they reactivate
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the platform works, and we're honest about what we can't test
|
||||
### Slide 10 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
|
||||
- Both 100% — no automated decision is ever lost; no prod/dr promotion lands without a human sign-off
|
||||
- The mandatory-by-design point: the ledger entry + the human attestation are a gate, not a best-effort feature
|
||||
- Easily queried: by run, by environment, by approver, by outcome — the audit trail is a query, not a forensic exercise
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record; no change to production without both the ledger entry and the human attestation
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 11 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
|
||||
- Both 100% — no AI decision is ever lost; no prod/dr promotion lands without a human sign-off
|
||||
- The trust snapshot has a chain-integrity verdict (the ledger hasn't been tampered with)
|
||||
- D-083 (S3 Object Lock + JWS) is the next step for the ledger
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 12 — Zero-Touch Efficiency
|
||||
- The Post-Pilot caveat is the honesty model: pipeline works, denominator is zero
|
||||
- This is NOT a fabricated "99% touchless" claim
|
||||
- The numbers fill when a pilot runs
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the measurement works; the numbers activate with a pilot
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 13 — Cost & ROI
|
||||
### Slide 11 — Cost & ROI
|
||||
- The ROI formula is shown inline — not hidden in a footnote
|
||||
- The N=0 caveat is stated explicitly
|
||||
- This is the "no fabrication" constraint in action
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the formula is ready; the production denominator activates with a pilot
|
||||
- The four CTO-grade metrics are the ROI proof — Lead Time, Vuln Count, MTTR, Cloud Spend
|
||||
- The N=0 caveat is stated explicitly: the formula is grounded; the production numbers activate with a pilot
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the ROI is not a black box — the formula is shown, the four metrics are committed, the production-denominator caveat is up front
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 14 — What's Deferred — and Why
|
||||
- The preempt is critical: deferrals are measurement infrastructure, not autonomy
|
||||
- The platform IS autonomous in operations; what's deferred is the evidence pipeline
|
||||
### Slide 12 — What's Deferred — and Why
|
||||
- The preempt is critical: these deferrals are measurement infrastructure, not autonomy — the platform IS autonomous in operations
|
||||
- The blocking work is named in plain language (no decision IDs) — "live AWS re-provisioning", "drift-detection scheduler", "ML service"
|
||||
- Showing this to leadership demonstrates honesty, not weakness
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the autonomy is real; the measurement gaps are documented
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the autonomy is real; the measurement gaps are documented with the work that unblocks each one
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 15 — Roadmap to the North Star
|
||||
- Every deferred metric has a specific unblock requirement and a candidate milestone
|
||||
- The re-evaluation triggers ensure the metrics layer evolves
|
||||
- Nothing is hand-waved; everything has a plan
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the path from "honestly deferred" to "here's how we get there"
|
||||
### Slide 13 — Roadmap to the North Star
|
||||
- Each deferred metric has an unblock path and a timeframe — near-term, mid-term, longer-term
|
||||
- No status column: most of it is not implemented yet, so status would be noise
|
||||
- Re-evaluation triggers: each blocking piece of work lifts on its own schedule
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** every deferred metric has a plan and a timeframe — nothing is hand-waved
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 16 — Recap + Ask
|
||||
- Recap the 5-act arc so the audience leaves with the structure
|
||||
- The ask is a business decision: approve a pilot + the ledger build-out
|
||||
### Slide 14 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
|
||||
- This is the *product* roadmap, forward-looking only
|
||||
- Q1 Pilot Activation → Q2 Provable Trust → Q3 Compounding ROI → Q4 Integration & Predictive
|
||||
- Each quarter activates one strategic objective from the North Star
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the 12-month product arc — each quarter activates a strategic objective and its board-level metric
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 15 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
|
||||
- Q1: three post-pilot metrics go live (Touchless ≥99%, Escalation <0.1%, Accuracy ≥99.5%) — denominator activates with the pilot
|
||||
- Q2: Decision Ledger Coverage was already grounded — tamper-evidence is the Q2 upgrade (local hash-chain → Object Lock + signed checkpoints)
|
||||
- Q3: Drift Auto-Reversal ≥95% unblocks when the drift scheduler ships; Spend Reduction ≥25% measured against the pilot baseline
|
||||
- Q4: Predictive:Reactive ≥3:1 requires the ML forecasting service; AI-Agent Intent Share is a first measurement (aspirational-metric)
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric grounded in a strategic objective, and a path from deferred to shipped
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 16 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (1/2)
|
||||
- Nova instructs the citizen developer's AI agent via skills (markdown, keyed to engineering domains) + an MCP server (4 tools, plugin-registry, stdio)
|
||||
- The integration point is the same regardless of source — AI agent, agentic SDLC, traditional IDE all get the same skills + MCP
|
||||
- This is how Nova makes the citizen developer production-grade without owning the PDLC
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the citizen developer's AI agent is not unguided — Nova provides engineering principles as skills + MCP
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 17 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (2/2)
|
||||
- The value is the gap deterministic scanners leave: engineering discipline (Wiz/Checkmarx/Mend check policy/secrets, not discipline)
|
||||
- The MCP server catches "is this service observable?", "is this error path handled?", "is this API contract clear?"
|
||||
- Vendored at a pinned tag → audit reproducibility — a validation result is replayable months later
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** submissions are checked for engineering discipline, not just policy compliance — and the check is reproducible for audit
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 18 — Recap + Ask
|
||||
- Recap the 4-beat arc so the audience leaves with the structure
|
||||
- The ask is a business decision: approve a pilot estate + the tamper-evident ledger build-out
|
||||
- "Pipeline-ready" → "production-proven" is the value proposition
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** approve a pilot + the ledger build-out to move from pipeline-ready to production-proven
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 17 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
|
||||
- Nova governs infra + delivery only; the PDLC (product backlog, code authorship, IDE) is upstream
|
||||
- Integration is only through the validated contract boundary
|
||||
- Any upstream source (AI agent, agentic SDLC, dev platform) may produce submissions — all subject to the same compliance standards
|
||||
- Nova validates the submission, not the author
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations, not product development; the scope boundary is clean
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 18 — RACI: Who Owns What
|
||||
- Citizen Developer owns FRs + UAT (via any upstream source — AI agent, SDLC, dev platform — all pass the same gate)
|
||||
- Platform owns NFRs + infra + QA + prod deploy
|
||||
- Release Management is co-owned: platform runs attestations agentically, citizen developer oversees + triggers the release (human at stage gate)
|
||||
- The compliance-standard equivalence is the key: the source does not matter; the submission does
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** you bring FRs + UAT; Nova provides NFRs + infra + QA + prod deploy; the release is co-owned with you at the stage gate
|
||||
|
||||
### Slide 19 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier
|
||||
- Nova instructs the citizen developer's AI agent via skills (9 markdown files) + an MCP server (4 tools, plugin-registry, stdio)
|
||||
- The MCP server provides agentic validation beyond deterministic scanners — catches correctness, clarity, observability gaps that Wiz/Checkmarx/Mend cannot
|
||||
- Atelier is vendored (pinned tag) for audit reproducibility — a validation result is replayable
|
||||
- This is how Nova ensures the citizen developer's submissions meet production-grade standards regardless of upstream source
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the citizen developer is not unguided — Nova provides engineering principles via skills + MCP, so every submission meets the same standards
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix A1 — Metrics Glossary
|
||||
- Reference for every metric mentioned in the deck
|
||||
- Use if the audience asks "what does X mean?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix A2 — Operating Model & Cost
|
||||
- The operating cost is negligible (~$0.007/month)
|
||||
- The zero-cost steady state (D-096 teardown) is the structural mitigation
|
||||
- References the pre-mortem for the decay-prevention story
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 20 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
**Key takeaway:** The next 12 months have a clear product arc — pilot activation → provable trust → compounding ROI → agentic substrate. Each quarter activates one strategic objective.
|
||||
|
||||
- This is the *product* roadmap, not the technical roadmap. The technical milestones (v1.0–v1.19) are behind us; this is forward-looking.
|
||||
- Q1 (Pilot Activation): re-provision live AWS, activate the first pilot estate, light up the three post-pilot metrics. Onboarding auto-grant ships.
|
||||
- Q2 (Provable Trust): tamper-evident ledger (Object Lock + JWS), daily checkpoints, live cost reconciliation. Trust is the moat — features can be copied; an immutable decision history cannot.
|
||||
- Q3 (Compounding ROI + Drift): drift detection + auto-reversal, Infracost→CUR reconciliation on the pilot estate. This is the quarter the CFO points to a number that improves quarter-over-quarter.
|
||||
- Q4 (Agentic Substrate + Predictive): ML anomaly-forecasting, AI-agent intent surface, multi-cloud preview. The Future Horizon target moves from aspiration to first measurement.
|
||||
- The roadmap is grounded in the four strategic objectives from the North Star — autonomy, provable trust, ROI, agentic substrate — and the deferred-metric unblock paths from Slide 15.
|
||||
|
||||
**If asked "what about multi-cloud?"**: Q4 preview. AWS-only through Q3; Azure/GCP enters preview in Q4. We optimize for depth first, breadth second.
|
||||
|
||||
**If asked "what about the ML service?"**: Q4. The predictive-vs-reactive ≥3:1 target requires an ML anomaly-forecasting emitter — the most technically ambitious deliverable on the roadmap.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 21 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
**Key takeaway:** Each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric, and a strategic-objective grounding. Nothing is hand-waved.
|
||||
|
||||
- Q1: three post-pilot metrics go live (Touchless ≥99%, Escalation <0.1%, Accuracy ≥99.5%). The measurement pipeline is already grounded; the denominator activates when the pilot estate runs.
|
||||
- Q2: Decision Ledger Coverage was already grounded — the *tamper-evidence* is the Q2 upgrade (SQLite hash-chain → S3 Object Lock + JWS). Cost Savings ≥25% becomes CFO-grade with live CUR reconciliation.
|
||||
- Q3: Drift Auto-Reversal ≥95% unblocks when the drift scheduler ships. Spend Reduction ≥25% is the same target, now measured against the pilot baseline.
|
||||
- Q4: Predictive:Reactive ≥3:1 requires the ML forecasting service. AI-Agent Intent Share ≥40% moves from aspiration to first measurement.
|
||||
- The month-18 destination: "Nova is the layer enterprise leadership points to when they say 'we don't have an infrastructure ops team anymore, and the audit trail is stronger than it ever was.'"
|
||||
|
||||
**If asked "are these committed or aspirational?"**: Q1–Q3 are committed (grounded pipeline + known unblock paths). Q4 targets are committed-deliverable, aspirational-metric — the ML service ships, the ≥40% intent share is first measurement (we don't control adoption rate).
|
||||
- Use if the audience asks "what does X mean?"
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
Binary file not shown.
+19
-6
@@ -1,11 +1,19 @@
|
||||
# Nova Central Deployment Pipeline Contract (v1.8)
|
||||
# Nova Central Deployment Pipeline Contract (v1.8 + v1.21 REQ-250)
|
||||
#
|
||||
# This is the single source of truth for the deployment pipeline. It
|
||||
# declares the stages that run when a consumer submits a contract:
|
||||
# validate-contract -> resolve-stack -> terraform-plan -> checkov ->
|
||||
# validate-contract -> resolve-stack -> checkov-static (fail-fast) ->
|
||||
# terraform-plan -> runtime-policy-scan (Wiz-or-Checkov, never both) ->
|
||||
# confidence -> apply (dev only) -> publish-outputs -> deploy-uptime ->
|
||||
# comment-outputs
|
||||
#
|
||||
# REQ-250 (v1.21): the policy scan is two-stage. checkov-static runs on
|
||||
# the authored Terraform code BEFORE terraform plan (fail-fast, quick
|
||||
# developer feedback). runtime-policy-scan runs AFTER terraform plan:
|
||||
# Wiz scans the plan when configured (WIZ_API_TOKEN + WIZ_API_URL);
|
||||
# otherwise Checkov runs against the plan as a drop-in replacement. Wiz
|
||||
# and Checkov are NEVER both run on the plan.
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Decommission mode (mode: decommission) runs a different set of stages:
|
||||
# validate-change-request -> disable-deletion-protection (HITL SRE) ->
|
||||
# zero-counts (HITL SRE) -> confirm-decommission
|
||||
@@ -36,15 +44,20 @@ stages:
|
||||
command: python3 core/contract_resolver.py contracts/static-assets.yaml /tmp/acdl-stack.json
|
||||
required: true
|
||||
|
||||
- name: checkov-static
|
||||
description: Run Checkov on the authored Terraform code (fail-fast, before terraform plan) — REQ-250
|
||||
command: bash scripts/run_codegen.sh --check-only
|
||||
required: true
|
||||
|
||||
- name: terraform-plan
|
||||
description: Compile the stack to Terraform and run terraform plan
|
||||
command: bash scripts/run_platform.sh --plan-only contracts/static-assets.yaml
|
||||
required: true
|
||||
|
||||
- name: checkov
|
||||
description: Run Checkov policy checks on the emitted Terraform
|
||||
command: bash scripts/run_platform.sh --check-only
|
||||
required: false
|
||||
- name: runtime-policy-scan
|
||||
description: Run Wiz against the plan when configured, else Checkov against the plan (never both) — REQ-250
|
||||
command: bash scripts/run_postapply.sh contracts/static-assets.yaml --quiet
|
||||
required: true
|
||||
|
||||
- name: confidence
|
||||
description: Compute the confidence signal from policy + validation inputs
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ multipart form: name=<filename>, attachment=<file bytes>
|
||||
|
||||
Usage:
|
||||
python3 scripts/attach_release_asset.py <file-path> <release-id>
|
||||
python3 scripts/attach_release_asset.py docs/presentations/nova-no-humans-platform.pptx 522
|
||||
python3 scripts/attach_release_asset.py docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.pptx 522
|
||||
|
||||
Token resolution: reads NOVA_GITEA_TOKEN (or ACDL_GITEA_TOKEN) from .env.secrets
|
||||
/ .env, matching the ship_phase.sh pattern. Never uses shell env tokens.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -101,6 +101,20 @@ adapter.compile(stack, '$TF_DIR')
|
||||
print('adapter: main.tf + terraform.tf + providers.tf written')
|
||||
"
|
||||
|
||||
echo "=== Step 3c: Checkov on static code (fail-fast, before terraform plan) ==="
|
||||
# REQ-250 (v1.21): Checkov runs on the authored Terraform code BEFORE
|
||||
# terraform plan so developers get immediate policy feedback, not a
|
||||
# delayed plan-stage failure. The runtime plan scan (Wiz-or-Checkov)
|
||||
# runs after the plan in run_postapply.sh Step 5.
|
||||
if [ "$QUIET" = "0" ]; then
|
||||
checkov -d "$TF_DIR" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ 2>&1 | tee "$WORK/checkov-static.json"
|
||||
else
|
||||
checkov -d "$TF_DIR" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ > "$WORK/checkov-static.json" 2> "$WORK/checkov-static.err"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
[ -s "$WORK/checkov-static.json" ] || { echo "FAIL: checkov (static) produced no output" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "checkov (static) summary: $(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('$WORK/checkov-static.json')); print(len(d.get('results',{}).get('failed_checks',[])), 'failed,', len(d.get('results',{}).get('passed_checks',[])), 'passed')")"
|
||||
|
||||
if [ "$CHECK_ONLY" = "1" ]; then
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== Step 3b: validate adapter output structure (offline) ==="
|
||||
|
||||
+43
-12
@@ -312,6 +312,20 @@ if [ -z "${AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID:-}" ] || [ -z "${AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY:-}" ]; then
|
||||
export AWS_DEFAULT_REGION="$AWS_DEFAULT_REGION"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
echo "=== Step 3c: Checkov on static code (fail-fast, before terraform plan) ==="
|
||||
# REQ-250 (v1.21): Checkov runs on the authored Terraform code BEFORE
|
||||
# terraform plan so developers get immediate policy feedback, not a
|
||||
# delayed plan-stage failure. The runtime plan scan (Wiz-or-Checkov)
|
||||
# runs after the plan (Step 5).
|
||||
if [ "$QUIET" = "0" ]; then
|
||||
checkov -d "$TF_DIR" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ 2>&1 | tee "$WORK/checkov-static.json"
|
||||
else
|
||||
checkov -d "$TF_DIR" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ > "$WORK/checkov-static.json" 2> "$WORK/checkov-static.err"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
[ -s "$WORK/checkov-static.json" ] || fail "checkov (static) produced no output"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "checkov (static) summary: $(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('$WORK/checkov-static.json')); print(len(d.get('results',{}).get('failed_checks',[])), 'failed,', len(d.get('results',{}).get('passed_checks',[])), 'passed')")"
|
||||
|
||||
echo "=== Step 4: terraform init + validate + plan -lock=false (real AWS) ==="
|
||||
cd "$TF_DIR"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -380,19 +394,36 @@ if [ "$DESTROY_ONLY" = "1" ]; then
|
||||
fi
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== Step 5: run Checkov on $TF_DIR/main.tf ==="
|
||||
if [ "$QUIET" = "0" ]; then
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/main.tf" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ 2>&1 | tee "$WORK/checkov.json"
|
||||
echo "=== Step 5: runtime policy scan on the terraform plan (Wiz-or-Checkov, never both) ==="
|
||||
# REQ-250 (v1.21): after terraform plan, run Wiz against the plan when
|
||||
# configured; otherwise run Checkov against the plan as a drop-in
|
||||
# replacement. Wiz and Checkov are NEVER both run on the plan.
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE=""
|
||||
if [ -n "${WIZ_API_TOKEN:-}" ] || [ -n "${WIZ_API_URL:-}" ]; then
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE="wiz"
|
||||
echo "--- Wiz configured (WIZ_API_TOKEN + WIZ_API_URL) → Wiz on the plan ---"
|
||||
python3 adapters/wiz/wiz_adapter.py --plan "$TF_DIR/tfplan" --contract-id "$CONTRACT_ID" --run-id "${CONTRACT_ID}" > "$WORK/pcr.json" 2> "$WORK/wiz.err" || {
|
||||
echo "WARNING: Wiz scan failed; falling back to Checkov on the plan" >&2
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE="checkov-plan"
|
||||
}
|
||||
else
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/main.tf" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ > "$WORK/checkov.json" 2> "$WORK/checkov.err"
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE="checkov-plan"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
[ -s "$WORK/checkov.json" ] || fail "checkov produced no output"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "checkov summary: $(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('$WORK/checkov.json')); print(len(d.get('results',{}).get('failed_checks',[])), 'failed,', len(d.get('results',{}).get('passed_checks',[])), 'passed')")"
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== Step 6: Checkov adapter -> PolicyCheckResult (compliance details) ==="
|
||||
python3 adapters/terraform/policy/checkov_adapter.py "$WORK/checkov.json" "$CONTRACT_ID" > "$WORK/pcr.json" || fail "checkov adapter failed"
|
||||
if [ "$RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE" = "checkov-plan" ]; then
|
||||
echo "--- Wiz not configured → Checkov on the plan (drop-in replacement) ---"
|
||||
if [ "$QUIET" = "0" ]; then
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/tfplan" --framework terraform_plan -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ 2>&1 | tee "$WORK/checkov-plan.json"
|
||||
else
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/tfplan" --framework terraform_plan -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ > "$WORK/checkov-plan.json" 2> "$WORK/checkov-plan.err"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
[ -s "$WORK/checkov-plan.json" ] || fail "checkov (plan) produced no output"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "checkov (plan) summary: $(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('$WORK/checkov-plan.json')); print(len(d.get('results',{}).get('failed_checks',[])), 'failed,', len(d.get('results',{}).get('passed_checks',[])), 'passed')")"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== Step 6: Checkov (plan) adapter -> PolicyCheckResult ==="
|
||||
python3 adapters/terraform/policy/checkov_adapter.py "$WORK/checkov-plan.json" "$CONTRACT_ID" > "$WORK/pcr.json" || fail "checkov (plan) adapter failed"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
echo "runtime scan engine: $RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE"
|
||||
python3 -c "
|
||||
import json
|
||||
pcrs = json.load(open('$WORK/pcr.json'))
|
||||
@@ -494,5 +525,5 @@ source "$ROOT/scripts/run_uptime.sh"
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== PLATFORM E2E OK ==="
|
||||
echo "contract -> resolver -> stack -> terraform plan -> Checkov -> confidence ($BAND) -> outbox -> outputs"
|
||||
echo "contract -> resolver -> stack -> Checkov(static) -> terraform plan -> Wiz-or-Checkov(plan) -> confidence ($BAND) -> outbox -> outputs"
|
||||
exit 0
|
||||
+33
-14
@@ -2,8 +2,9 @@
|
||||
# scripts/run_postapply.sh — post-Terraform steps for the Nova platform pipeline.
|
||||
#
|
||||
# Performs steps 5–9 of run_platform.sh (after terraform apply/destroy):
|
||||
# 5. Checkov policy scan on the emitted main.tf
|
||||
# 6. Checkov adapter → PolicyCheckResult (compliance details)
|
||||
# 3c. Checkov policy scan on static code (fail-fast, in run_codegen.sh)
|
||||
# 5. Runtime policy scan on the terraform plan (Wiz-or-Checkov, never both)
|
||||
# 6. Policy scan adapter → PolicyCheckResult (compliance details)
|
||||
# 7. Confidence signal compute
|
||||
# 7b. HITL attestation gate (qa/prod/dr only)
|
||||
# 8. Write evidence event to DynamoDB outbox
|
||||
@@ -92,19 +93,37 @@ else:
|
||||
" || { echo "FAIL: HITL gate blocked" >&2; return 1; }
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
echo "=== Step 5: run Checkov on $TF_DIR/main.tf ==="
|
||||
if [ "$QUIET" = "0" ]; then
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/main.tf" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ 2>&1 | tee "$WORK/checkov.json"
|
||||
echo "=== Step 5: runtime policy scan on the terraform plan (Wiz-or-Checkov, never both) ==="
|
||||
# REQ-250 (v1.21): after terraform plan, run Wiz against the plan when
|
||||
# configured; otherwise run Checkov against the plan as a drop-in
|
||||
# replacement. Wiz and Checkov are NEVER both run on the plan. The
|
||||
# static-code Checkov already ran in run_codegen.sh Step 3c (fail-fast).
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE=""
|
||||
if [ -n "${WIZ_API_TOKEN:-}" ] || [ -n "${WIZ_API_URL:-}" ]; then
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE="wiz"
|
||||
echo "--- Wiz configured (WIZ_API_TOKEN + WIZ_API_URL) → Wiz on the plan ---"
|
||||
python3 adapters/wiz/wiz_adapter.py --plan "$TF_DIR/tfplan" --contract-id "$CONTRACT_ID" --run-id "${CONTRACT_ID}" > "$WORK/pcr.json" 2> "$WORK/wiz.err" || {
|
||||
echo "WARNING: Wiz scan failed; falling back to Checkov on the plan" >&2
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE="checkov-plan"
|
||||
}
|
||||
else
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/main.tf" --framework terraform -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ > "$WORK/checkov.json" 2> "$WORK/checkov.err"
|
||||
RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE="checkov-plan"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
[ -s "$WORK/checkov.json" ] || { echo "FAIL: checkov produced no output" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "checkov summary: $(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('$WORK/checkov.json')); print(len(d.get('results',{}).get('failed_checks',[])), 'failed,', len(d.get('results',{}).get('passed_checks',[])), 'passed')")"
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== Step 6: Checkov adapter → PolicyCheckResult (compliance details) ==="
|
||||
python3 adapters/terraform/policy/checkov_adapter.py "$WORK/checkov.json" "$CONTRACT_ID" > "$WORK/pcr.json" || { echo "FAIL: checkov adapter failed" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
if [ "$RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE" = "checkov-plan" ]; then
|
||||
echo "--- Wiz not configured → Checkov on the plan (drop-in replacement) ---"
|
||||
if [ "$QUIET" = "0" ]; then
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/tfplan" --framework terraform_plan -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ 2>&1 | tee "$WORK/checkov-plan.json"
|
||||
else
|
||||
checkov -f "$TF_DIR/tfplan" --framework terraform_plan -o json --soft-fail --external-checks-dir adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/ > "$WORK/checkov-plan.json" 2> "$WORK/checkov-plan.err"
|
||||
fi
|
||||
[ -s "$WORK/checkov-plan.json" ] || { echo "FAIL: checkov (plan) produced no output" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "checkov (plan) summary: $(python3 -c "import json; d=json.load(open('$WORK/checkov-plan.json')); print(len(d.get('results',{}).get('failed_checks',[])), 'failed,', len(d.get('results',{}).get('passed_checks',[])), 'passed')")"
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== Step 6: Checkov (plan) adapter → PolicyCheckResult (compliance details) ==="
|
||||
python3 adapters/terraform/policy/checkov_adapter.py "$WORK/checkov-plan.json" "$CONTRACT_ID" > "$WORK/pcr.json" || { echo "FAIL: checkov (plan) adapter failed" >&2; exit 1; }
|
||||
fi
|
||||
echo "runtime scan engine: $RUNTIME_SCAN_ENGINE"
|
||||
python3 -c "
|
||||
import json
|
||||
pcrs = json.load(open('$WORK/pcr.json'))
|
||||
@@ -199,4 +218,4 @@ source "$ROOT/scripts/run_uptime.sh"
|
||||
|
||||
echo ""
|
||||
echo "=== POST-APPLY OK ==="
|
||||
echo "Checkov → confidence ($BAND) → outbox → outputs → uptime"
|
||||
echo "Checkov(static, pre-plan) → Wiz-or-Checkov(plan) → confidence ($BAND) → outbox → outputs → uptime"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -173,16 +173,19 @@ class TestDeployPipelineContract:
|
||||
contract = yaml.safe_load(fh)
|
||||
jsonschema.validate(contract, schema)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_deploy_pipeline_has_six_stages(self):
|
||||
def test_deploy_pipeline_has_required_stages(self):
|
||||
with open(ROOT / "pipelines/contract.yml") as fh:
|
||||
contract = yaml.safe_load(fh)
|
||||
stage_names = [s["name"] for s in contract["stages"]]
|
||||
assert "validate-contract" in stage_names
|
||||
assert "resolve-stack" in stage_names
|
||||
assert "checkov-static" in stage_names, "REQ-250: checkov-static stage missing"
|
||||
assert "terraform-plan" in stage_names
|
||||
assert "checkov" in stage_names
|
||||
assert "runtime-policy-scan" in stage_names, "REQ-250: runtime-policy-scan stage missing"
|
||||
assert "confidence" in stage_names
|
||||
assert "apply" in stage_names
|
||||
# The old single 'checkov' stage is gone (split into checkov-static + runtime-policy-scan)
|
||||
assert "checkov" not in stage_names, "old 'checkov' stage should be replaced by checkov-static + runtime-policy-scan"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class TestL2OutputsResolution:
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -206,14 +206,15 @@ class TestDeployPipelineContract:
|
||||
contract = _load_yaml("pipelines/contract.yml")
|
||||
jsonschema.validate(contract, schema)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_deploy_contract_has_nine_stages(self):
|
||||
def test_deploy_contract_has_ten_stages(self):
|
||||
contract = _load_yaml("pipelines/contract.yml")
|
||||
stage_names = [s["name"] for s in contract["stages"]]
|
||||
assert stage_names == [
|
||||
"validate-contract",
|
||||
"resolve-stack",
|
||||
"checkov-static",
|
||||
"terraform-plan",
|
||||
"checkov",
|
||||
"runtime-policy-scan",
|
||||
"confidence",
|
||||
"apply",
|
||||
"publish-outputs",
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ def test_cap_024_deck_structure():
|
||||
|
||||
def test_cap_024_deck_exists():
|
||||
"""The unified deck source of truth exists."""
|
||||
deck_path = ROOT / "docs" / "presentations" / "nova-no-humans-platform.md"
|
||||
deck_path = ROOT / "docs" / "presentations" / "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md"
|
||||
assert deck_path.exists(), "unified deck not found"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,12 +1,21 @@
|
||||
"""REQ-239..243 (v1.20): S&P theme + slide render pipeline tests.
|
||||
"""REQ-239..243 (v1.20) + REQ-245,251,252 (v1.21): S&P theme + slide render
|
||||
pipeline + deck-refinement tests.
|
||||
|
||||
Validates:
|
||||
v1.20 validates:
|
||||
- The Marp deck frontmatter references nova-sp-theme.css
|
||||
- The CSS file contains the S&P colors (#D6002A, #1B1B1B)
|
||||
- The mermaid theme JSON contains the S&P colors
|
||||
- Every .mmd has a corresponding .png
|
||||
- The render_slides.sh script exists and is executable
|
||||
- The CI workflow file exists
|
||||
|
||||
v1.21 adds (REQ-245,251,252):
|
||||
- Deck renamed to nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery*
|
||||
- No maturity badges in the Marp deck
|
||||
- No version in the Marp footer/title slide
|
||||
- 18 main + 1 appendix slides
|
||||
- No D-###/REQ-###/internal .py paths in audience-facing slides
|
||||
- Title is "Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform"
|
||||
"""
|
||||
import re
|
||||
from pathlib import Path
|
||||
@@ -18,7 +27,8 @@ PRESENTATIONS = ROOT / "docs" / "presentations"
|
||||
ASSETS = PRESENTATIONS / "assets"
|
||||
THEME_CSS = ASSETS / "nova-sp-theme.css"
|
||||
THEME_JSON = ASSETS / "mmd" / "sp-theme.json"
|
||||
MARP_DECK = PRESENTATIONS / "nova-no-humans-platform-marp.md"
|
||||
MARP_DECK = PRESENTATIONS / "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md"
|
||||
SOURCE_MD = PRESENTATIONS / "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md"
|
||||
RENDER_SCRIPT = ROOT / "scripts" / "render_slides.sh"
|
||||
SLIDES_WORKFLOW = ROOT / ".github" / "workflows" / "slides.yml"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -87,6 +97,13 @@ def test_render_slides_script_renders_marp():
|
||||
assert ".pptx" in text, "render_slides.sh does not produce PPTX"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_render_slides_default_deck_renamed():
|
||||
"""REQ-245: render_slides.sh default deck is nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery."""
|
||||
text = RENDER_SCRIPT.read_text()
|
||||
assert "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery" in text, \
|
||||
"render_slides.sh does not default to nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_slides_ci_workflow_exists():
|
||||
"""REQ-241: CI workflow for slides exists."""
|
||||
assert SLIDES_WORKFLOW.is_file(), "slides.yml workflow not found"
|
||||
@@ -124,3 +141,128 @@ def test_readme_no_retired_decks():
|
||||
"README still references retired 'how-the-platform-works' deck"
|
||||
assert "the-developer-experience" not in readme, \
|
||||
"README still references retired 'the-developer-experience' deck"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_readme_no_old_deck_name():
|
||||
"""REQ-245: README references the new deck name, not the old one."""
|
||||
readme = (PRESENTATIONS / "README.md").read_text()
|
||||
assert "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery" in readme, \
|
||||
"README does not reference nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_old_deck_files_removed():
|
||||
"""REQ-245: the old nova-no-humans-platform* files are gone."""
|
||||
old_files = sorted(PRESENTATIONS.glob("nova-no-humans-platform*"))
|
||||
assert not old_files, f"old deck files still present: {old_files}"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_marp_deck_no_badges():
|
||||
"""REQ-252: no maturity badges in the Marp deck."""
|
||||
text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
|
||||
assert "badge" not in text, "Marp deck still contains badge spans"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_marp_deck_no_version_in_footer():
|
||||
"""REQ-251: no version (v1.x) in the Marp frontmatter footer/header."""
|
||||
text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
|
||||
fm_match = re.match(r'^---\n(.*?)\n---', text, re.DOTALL)
|
||||
assert fm_match, "Marp frontmatter not found"
|
||||
frontmatter = fm_match.group(1)
|
||||
# No v1.x version string in the footer or header lines
|
||||
assert not re.search(r"v1\.\d+", frontmatter), \
|
||||
f"Marp frontmatter still contains a version: {frontmatter}"
|
||||
# No "Act" pagination artifact
|
||||
assert "Act %" not in frontmatter, \
|
||||
"Marp frontmatter still contains 'Act %{page}' artifact"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_marp_deck_title_slide_no_version_subtitle():
|
||||
"""REQ-251: the title slide does not carry a version subtitle."""
|
||||
text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
|
||||
# The title slide is the first slide after the frontmatter
|
||||
# Find the title block (between the frontmatter and the first --- separator)
|
||||
after_fm = text.split("---\n", 2)[2] if text.startswith("---") else text
|
||||
first_slide = after_fm.split("\n---\n")[0]
|
||||
# The old subtitle was "v1.18 — Citizen Developer & Production-Grade Guidance"
|
||||
assert "v1.18" not in first_slide, \
|
||||
"Title slide still contains 'v1.18' subtitle"
|
||||
assert "Citizen Developer & Production-Grade Guidance" not in first_slide, \
|
||||
"Title slide still contains the old version subtitle"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_marp_deck_title_is_autonomous_cloud_delivery():
|
||||
"""REQ-245: the deck title is 'Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'."""
|
||||
text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
|
||||
assert "Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform" in text, \
|
||||
"Deck title is not 'Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'"
|
||||
# The old title should not appear in the audience-facing deck
|
||||
# (speaker notes are not in the marp deck, so this is safe)
|
||||
assert "No-Humans Infrastructure Platform" not in text, \
|
||||
"Deck still carries the old 'No-Humans Infrastructure Platform' title"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_marp_deck_slide_count():
|
||||
"""REQ-245: 18 main slides + 1 appendix = 19 slides total."""
|
||||
text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
|
||||
# Count slide separators: each slide ends with --- (except the last)
|
||||
# The frontmatter is one --- ... --- block, then each slide is separated by ---
|
||||
# Count "## Slide" and "## Appendix" headings
|
||||
slide_headings = re.findall(r"^## (?:Slide|Appendix) ", text, re.MULTILINE)
|
||||
main_slides = re.findall(r"^## Slide ", text, re.MULTILINE)
|
||||
appendix_slides = re.findall(r"^## Appendix ", text, re.MULTILINE)
|
||||
assert len(main_slides) == 18, \
|
||||
f"expected 18 main slides, found {len(main_slides)}: {slide_headings}"
|
||||
assert len(appendix_slides) == 1, \
|
||||
f"expected 1 appendix slide, found {len(appendix_slides)}"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_marp_deck_no_internal_citations():
|
||||
"""REQ-252: no D-### decision IDs, REQ-### requirement IDs, or internal
|
||||
.py file paths in the audience-facing Marp deck."""
|
||||
text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
|
||||
# Decision IDs like D-121, D-083
|
||||
assert not re.search(r"\bD-\d{3}\b", text), \
|
||||
"Marp deck contains D-### decision IDs"
|
||||
# Requirement IDs like REQ-245
|
||||
assert not re.search(r"\bREQ-\d{3}\b", text), \
|
||||
"Marp deck contains REQ-### requirement IDs"
|
||||
# Internal python file paths like outbox_writer.py, confidence_signal.py
|
||||
# (allow .py only inside code blocks for the ROI formula? No — the deck
|
||||
# should not cite internal file paths at all)
|
||||
assert not re.search(r"\b(outbox_writer|confidence_signal|hitl_gates|"
|
||||
r"attestation_matrix|checkov_adapter|infracost_adapter|"
|
||||
r"contract_resolver|run_platform)\.py\b", text), \
|
||||
"Marp deck contains internal .py file paths"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_source_md_no_internal_citations_in_slides():
|
||||
"""REQ-252: the source-of-truth markdown keeps internal citations only
|
||||
in speaker notes, not in the audience-facing slide body. Speaker notes
|
||||
are blockquoted (> ) — we check non-blockquote lines for D-###/REQ-###."""
|
||||
text = SOURCE_MD.read_text()
|
||||
# Split into lines; exclude blockquote lines (speaker notes) and the
|
||||
# header frontmatter (> ... at the top)
|
||||
in_note = False
|
||||
body_lines = []
|
||||
for line in text.splitlines():
|
||||
if line.lstrip().startswith(">"):
|
||||
in_note = True
|
||||
continue
|
||||
if in_note and line.strip() == "":
|
||||
in_note = False
|
||||
continue
|
||||
if not in_note:
|
||||
body_lines.append(line)
|
||||
body = "\n".join(body_lines)
|
||||
# Decision IDs and REQ IDs should not appear in the slide body
|
||||
assert not re.search(r"\bD-\d{3}\b", body), \
|
||||
"Source markdown slide body contains D-### decision IDs"
|
||||
assert not re.search(r"\bREQ-\d{3}\b", body), \
|
||||
"Source markdown slide body contains REQ-### requirement IDs"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def test_source_md_no_badges():
|
||||
"""REQ-252: no maturity badges in the source-of-truth markdown."""
|
||||
text = SOURCE_MD.read_text()
|
||||
assert "badge" not in text.lower(), \
|
||||
"Source markdown still contains badge spans"
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user