docs(rfc): classify RFCs by kind via path-encoded subdirectories
Add a second axis to every RFC — its class (feature, bug-fix,
simplification, architecture, process, testing) — encoded in the path
as docs/rfc/{lifecycle}/{class}/file.md. The folder is the label, so
the closed set is enforced by structure rather than a parsed field.
Two new doc-sync gates back it:
- verify-rfc-classification: every RFC sits in a valid class folder and
the README index lists it under the matching lifecycle→class heading.
- verify-doc-refs: every docs/*.md path cited in a packages|examples TS
comment resolves — closes a drift class verify-md-links can't see, and
catches the four comment refs this reorg moved.
The README gains a Classification section explaining the taxonomy and
per-class index sub-sections. A self-referential process RFC records why
the scheme is path-encoded and gated.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
# RFC: API extractor reports
|
||||
|
||||
Status: proposed
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- XXX: legacy ADR/RFC body format, not yet normalized to a unified RFC template. -->
|
||||
|
||||
> Split out from the original "Doc-sync and API reports" RFC (2026-06-11). Parts 1-2 (doc-block typechecking, event-taxonomy verification) shipped — see [doc-sync enforcement](../../implemented/process/2026-06-11-doc-sync-enforcement.md). This is the deferred part 3, kept as a standalone proposal.
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem
|
||||
|
||||
Public API changes are invisible — nothing makes "this commit changed the public surface" an explicit, reviewable fact. A reviewer reading a diff can miss that an exported type gained a field or a method signature shifted.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposal
|
||||
|
||||
api-extractor (or `tsc --emitDeclarationOnly` + a normalized public-surface dump) producing a checked-in `etc/<pkg>.api.md` per package; CI fails if regeneration differs. Every public-API change becomes a diff line a reviewer (or review agent) must see.
|
||||
|
||||
## Status / why deferred
|
||||
|
||||
Deferred when doc-sync landed: low value for an internal monorepo where reviewers already see the source diff, and a heavy, finicky dependency. Revisit if the packages are ever published externally — at that point a stable, diffable public surface earns its keep.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user