mirror of
https://github.com/katanemo/plano.git
synced 2026-04-25 00:36:34 +02:00
171 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
171 lines
4 KiB
Markdown
# PEP-XXXX: Title
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Instructions:
|
|
1. Copy this file to PEP-XXXX-short-title.md (pick the next available number)
|
|
2. Fill in all sections below
|
|
3. Submit as a PR to docs/peps/
|
|
4. Delete these instructions before submitting
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
| Field | Value |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| **PEP** | XXXX |
|
|
| **Title** | |
|
|
| **Status** | Draft |
|
|
| **Author(s)** | Name (@github-handle) |
|
|
| **Sponsor** | _(required for non-maintainers)_ |
|
|
| **Created** | YYYY-MM-DD |
|
|
| **Tracking Issue** | _(filled after acceptance)_ |
|
|
| **Target Release** | _(filled after acceptance)_ |
|
|
|
|
## Summary
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
One paragraph. What is this proposal, and why should someone care?
|
|
A reader should be able to decide whether to keep reading from this section alone.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Motivation
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? Who benefits?
|
|
Include concrete examples or user stories where possible.
|
|
Link to GitHub issues, Discord discussions, or community meeting notes that motivated this proposal.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
### Goals
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Bulleted list of what this PEP aims to achieve.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
### Non-Goals
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Bulleted list of what this PEP explicitly does NOT aim to achieve.
|
|
Being clear about scope prevents scope creep during review and implementation.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Design
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
The core of the proposal. Describe the technical design in enough detail that:
|
|
1. Someone familiar with the codebase could implement it
|
|
2. Someone unfamiliar could understand the approach and trade-offs
|
|
|
|
Structure this section however makes sense for your proposal. Common subsections:
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
### User-Facing Configuration
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
If this feature involves configuration changes, show the YAML that users would write.
|
|
Include a complete, working example — not pseudocode.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
# Example configuration
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Architecture
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
How does this fit into Plano's existing architecture?
|
|
Which crates/components are affected? What's the data flow?
|
|
Diagrams are welcome (use Mermaid or link to an image).
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
### API Changes
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Any new or changed HTTP endpoints, headers, or response formats.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
### Behavior
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Describe the runtime behavior in detail.
|
|
What happens on the happy path? What happens on errors?
|
|
How does this interact with existing features (routing, streaming, tracing, etc.)?
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives Considered
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
What other approaches did you evaluate? Why did you choose this design over them?
|
|
This section demonstrates thoroughness and helps reviewers understand the design space.
|
|
|
|
For each alternative:
|
|
- Brief description of the approach
|
|
- Why it was rejected (trade-offs, complexity, limitations)
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Compatibility
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Does this change break any existing behavior? If so:
|
|
- What breaks?
|
|
- What's the migration path?
|
|
- Should there be a deprecation period?
|
|
|
|
If this is purely additive, say so explicitly.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Observability
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
How will operators know this feature is working correctly?
|
|
- New metrics, traces, or log entries?
|
|
- Integration with existing Agentic Signals?
|
|
- Dashboard or alerting recommendations?
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Security Considerations
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Does this change affect Plano's security posture?
|
|
- New attack surfaces?
|
|
- Authentication/authorization implications?
|
|
- Data handling (PII, credentials, etc.)?
|
|
|
|
If not applicable, briefly explain why.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Test Plan
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
How will this be tested?
|
|
- Unit tests (which crates?)
|
|
- Integration tests
|
|
- E2E tests (new demo or test scenario?)
|
|
- Performance/load testing considerations
|
|
|
|
Be specific enough that a reviewer can evaluate coverage.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Implementation Plan
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
How will this be implemented? Suggested breakdown:
|
|
- Phases or PRs (if the work is large enough to split)
|
|
- Which crates/files are primarily affected
|
|
- Estimated complexity (small / medium / large)
|
|
- Any dependencies on other work
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## Open Questions
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Unresolved design questions that you'd like feedback on during review.
|
|
Number them so reviewers can reference specific questions.
|
|
|
|
Remove this section (or mark all as resolved) before the PEP is accepted.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## References
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
Links to related GitHub issues, discussions, external documentation,
|
|
research papers, or prior art in other projects.
|
|
-->
|