# Release Readiness Scorecard

## Scoring Methodology

Each dimension is scored 1-10 based on what is ACTUALLY implemented and verified in the codebase. Scores reflect current state, not planned features.

- **9-10**: Production-ready, minimal gaps
- **7-8**: Functional with known gaps, safe for internal use
- **5-6**: Partially implemented, needs work before any real use
- **3-4**: Scaffolded but largely incomplete
- **1-2**: Missing or non-functional

---

## Dimension Scores

| # | Dimension | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Product Clarity | **8/10** | Clear purpose (local AI orchestration), good UI with 17+ pages, model selector, file picker, context packs. Coherent vision well-executed. |
| 2 | UX Trust | **7/10** | Routing transparency (decision visible to user), model attribution in responses. Missing: memory injection indicators, no "thinking" state for context assembly. |
| 3 | Backend Completeness | **8/10** | All 9 services operational. Context assembly, memory extraction, connector management, routing policies all wired. Real business logic, not stubs. |
| 4 | Frontend Completeness | **8/10** | 17 pages, model selector, file attachment picker, context packs, settings, admin panel. Library wrapping rule followed. i18n present. |
| 5 | Routing Correctness | **7/10** | Ollama-assisted routing decisions, routing policies wired, multi-connector support. Gap: stale health cache may route to down connectors, no model existence verification. |
| 6 | Anti-Hallucination | **7/10** | temperature=0 defaults, Zod validation on all inputs, model allowlist. Gap: no runtime check that selected model actually exists on connector, no output validation. |
| 7 | Memory/Context | **7/10** | Memory extraction from conversations is real, deduplication added, context injection during message handling. Gap: no contradiction detection, no memory decay/relevance scoring. |
| 8 | File Support | **6/10** | Chunking pipeline real (JSON/CSV/Markdown/text), internal retrieval endpoint, file IDs in message DTO. Gap: no vector embeddings, no semantic search, no PDF support, brute-force chunk injection. |
| 9 | Observability | **8/10** | Comprehensive structured logging across all services, 10 audit event types, usage ledger for token tracking, pino with redaction, client log batching. Gap: no distributed tracing, no alerting. |
| 10 | Docker/DevOps | **9/10** | 22+ containers orchestrated, install scripts (bash+PowerShell), health checks on all containers, hot reload, Prisma auto-migration, single .env management. Gap: no production Dockerfiles. |
| 11 | Security | **7/10** | JWT + refresh rotation, RBAC (3 roles), rate limiting (all services), Helmet, Zod, Prisma ORM, AES-256-GCM encryption, log redaction. Gap: no TLS, no circuit breaker, no service-to-service auth. |
| 12 | Performance | **6/10** | No load testing performed. 7 PostgreSQL instances (6 relational + pgvector) is heavy for a single machine. No caching strategy beyond Redis sessions. No connection pooling config. |
| 13 | Reliability | **6/10** | No message retry mechanism. No Dead Letter Queue for RabbitMQ failures. No circuit breaker between services. Health checks exist but no automated recovery. |
| 14 | Test Coverage | **6/10** | 58 test files across 10 services, Jest framework. But: no E2E tests, no integration tests, 2 services with 0 tests, CI tolerates test failures, no coverage thresholds. |
| 15 | Business Readiness | **7/10** | Clear value proposition (local-first AI orchestration). Usage ledger for cost tracking. Admin panel for management. Gap: no billing integration, no user onboarding flow, no documentation for end users. |
| 16 | Release Risk | **5/10** | Medium risk. Internal use is safe (auth works, data is isolated, Docker is solid). Production needs: TLS, circuit breakers, DLQ, integration tests, secret management, backup strategy. |

---

## Summary Statistics

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| **Total Score** | **112 / 160** |
| **Average Score** | **7.0 / 10** |
| **Highest Scoring** | Docker/DevOps (9), Backend (8), Frontend (8), Observability (8), Product Clarity (8) |
| **Lowest Scoring** | Release Risk (5), Performance (6), Reliability (6), Test Coverage (6), File Support (6) |

---

## Score Distribution

```
9-10  ████████░░  1 dimension  (Docker/DevOps)
7-8   ████████░░  9 dimensions (Product, UX, Backend, Frontend, Routing, Anti-Hallucination, Memory, Observability, Security, Business)
5-6   ████████░░  5 dimensions (File Support, Performance, Reliability, Test Coverage, Release Risk)
3-4   ░░░░░░░░░░  0 dimensions
1-2   ░░░░░░░░░░  0 dimensions
```

---

## Go / No-Go Recommendation

### GO for Internal Use
The platform is ready for internal deployment within a controlled environment:
- Authentication and authorization are solid
- All services are functional and interconnected
- Docker orchestration makes deployment trivial
- Observability provides sufficient visibility for internal debugging
- Rate limiting prevents accidental abuse

### CONDITIONAL GO for Staged Rollout
The platform can be rolled out to a small external audience IF:
1. TLS is added (non-negotiable for any network-exposed deployment)
2. Circuit breakers are added between services
3. Dead Letter Queues are configured for RabbitMQ
4. Integration tests are added and passing in CI
5. Database backup strategy is implemented
6. Secret management is implemented (no plaintext .env in production)

### NO-GO for Production / Public Launch
The platform is NOT ready for public production deployment due to:
- No TLS/HTTPS
- No production Dockerfiles or deployment pipeline
- No load testing or performance benchmarks
- No disaster recovery / backup strategy
- Test failures tolerated in CI
- No dependency vulnerability scanning

---

## Risk Matrix

| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data loss from RabbitMQ failure | Medium | High | P1 — Add DLQ |
| Cascading service failure | Medium | High | P1 — Add circuit breaker |
| Token interception (no TLS) | High (on network) | Critical | P0 — Add TLS |
| Database loss (no backups) | Low | Critical | P1 — Add backup automation |
| Performance degradation under load | Unknown | Medium | P2 — Load test first |
| Dependency vulnerability exploit | Medium | High | P2 — Add scanning |
| Silent test regression | High | Medium | P1 — Enforce test failures in CI |

---

## 30-Day Improvement Roadmap

### Week 1: Foundation
- [ ] Add TLS to Nginx
- [ ] Make test failures block CI
- [ ] Add tests to 0-test services

### Week 2: Reliability
- [ ] Add circuit breaker (e.g., cockatiel, opossum)
- [ ] Add DLQ for RabbitMQ
- [ ] Add database backup cron

### Week 3: Production Readiness
- [ ] Add production Dockerfiles
- [ ] Add secret management
- [ ] Add integration test CI job

### Week 4: Performance and Validation
- [ ] Run load tests
- [ ] Add Playwright E2E tests for critical flows
- [ ] Add dependency vulnerability scanning
- [ ] Final release sign-off
