docs(roadmap): restructure around v1 objectives

[mchmarny]

Summary

Restructures ROADMAP.md around the four v1 objectives (coverage, stability, UX, security), prunes shipped items, and removes individual issue references and internal program terminology to keep the document high-level and externally consumable.

Motivation / Context

The previous roadmap mixed shipped MVP work, in-flight tasks, and post-launch backlog in a flat task-list format that had drifted out of date. With AICR converging on v1, the document needs to communicate the GA bar at a theme level rather than serve as a per-issue tracker (the project board handles that).

Fixes: N/A
Related: N/A

Type of Change

• Documentation update

Component(s) Affected

• Docs/examples (docs/, examples/) — ROADMAP.md only

Implementation Notes

• Reframed the document as Objectives + Scope (Coverage / Stability / UX / Security) instead of a task list.
• Each scope section ends with an explicit Acceptance definition.
• Removed shipped items already reflected in the codebase (recipe families, validation framework, mixin composition, NIM bundler, Argo CD attestation, etc.).
• Removed issue numbers and references to internal programs / boards so the document reads cleanly as an external roadmap.

Testing

Documentation-only change (no code or build files touched). Rendered locally to verify formatting.

Risk Assessment

• Low — Isolated documentation change, easy to revert.

Rollout notes: N/A

Checklist

• Tests pass locally (N/A — docs only)
• Linter passes (N/A — docs only)
• I did not skip/disable tests to make CI green
• I added/updated tests for new functionality (N/A)
• I updated docs if user-facing behavior changed (this PR is the doc update)
• Changes follow existing patterns in the codebase
• Commits are cryptographically signed (git commit -S)

[tabern]

/lgtm

[github-actions]

Coverage Report ✅

Metric	Value
Coverage	75.2%
Threshold	70%
Status	Pass

Coverage Badge

![Coverage](https://img.shields.io/badge/coverage-75.2%25-green)

No Go source files changed in this PR.

[coderabbitai]

♻️ Duplicate comments (2)

ROADMAP.md (2)

100-102: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟠 Major

Avoid unconditional shipped-status assertions without explicit qualification.

This line still reads as a hard guarantee across multiple security surfaces. If any item is partial, scope-limited, or still being hardened, split into “implemented” vs “in progress” to avoid over-commitment.

As per coding guidelines: documentation should “clearly distinguish current behavior from future intent” and “must not invent features, guarantees, timelines, or roadmap commitments.”

Suggested wording pattern

-**Build-time provenance.** SLSA build attestation, cosign signing, trust-level
-evaluation in `aicr bundle verify`, and bundle attestation for the `argocd-helm`
-output are shipped.
+**Build-time provenance.** SLSA build attestation and cosign signing are implemented.
+Trust-level evaluation in `aicr bundle verify` and bundle attestation for the
+`argocd-helm` output are implemented where currently supported, with remaining
+hardening tracked in v1 scope.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@ROADMAP.md` around lines 100 - 102, The current ROADMAP entry "Build-time
provenance. SLSA build attestation, cosign signing, trust-level evaluation in
`aicr bundle verify`, and bundle attestation for the `argocd-helm` output are
shipped." reads as an unconditional shipped guarantee; change the wording to
clearly separate what is implemented today from what is in progress or partial.
Edit the "Build-time provenance" sentence to (a) enumerate implemented items
(e.g., SLSA build attestation, cosign signing) under an "Implemented" clause and
(b) list any partial/hardening items (e.g., trust-level evaluation in `aicr
bundle verify`, bundle attestation for `argocd-helm`) under an "In progress" or
"Planned" clause, avoiding words like "are shipped" or absolute guarantees so
the statement reflects exact current status.

---

74-75: ⚠️ Potential issue | 🟡 Minor

Soften the causal claim about community growth bottlenecks.

“primary bottleneck to community growth” reads as an asserted diagnosis. Consider neutral wording like “a key bottleneck in contributor onboarding and throughput.”

As per coding guidelines: documentation must “use neutral tone” and “must not invent features, guarantees, timelines, or roadmap commitments.”

Suggested wording

-Friction in the contribution path is the primary bottleneck to community growth.
+Friction in the contribution path is a key bottleneck in contributor onboarding and review throughput.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@ROADMAP.md` around lines 74 - 75, Replace the assertive phrase in ROADMAP.md
"Friction in the contribution path is the primary bottleneck to community
growth." with a neutral formulation (e.g., "Friction in the contribution path is
a key bottleneck in contributor onboarding and throughput.") so the document
uses neutral tone and avoids asserting a definitive diagnosis; update the
sentence around that exact text to match the suggested wording.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Duplicate comments:
In `@ROADMAP.md`:
- Around line 100-102: The current ROADMAP entry "Build-time provenance. SLSA
build attestation, cosign signing, trust-level evaluation in `aicr bundle
verify`, and bundle attestation for the `argocd-helm` output are shipped." reads
as an unconditional shipped guarantee; change the wording to clearly separate
what is implemented today from what is in progress or partial. Edit the
"Build-time provenance" sentence to (a) enumerate implemented items (e.g., SLSA
build attestation, cosign signing) under an "Implemented" clause and (b) list
any partial/hardening items (e.g., trust-level evaluation in `aicr bundle
verify`, bundle attestation for `argocd-helm`) under an "In progress" or
"Planned" clause, avoiding words like "are shipped" or absolute guarantees so
the statement reflects exact current status.
- Around line 74-75: Replace the assertive phrase in ROADMAP.md "Friction in the
contribution path is the primary bottleneck to community growth." with a neutral
formulation (e.g., "Friction in the contribution path is a key bottleneck in
contributor onboarding and throughput.") so the document uses neutral tone and
avoids asserting a definitive diagnosis; update the sentence around that exact
text to match the suggested wording.

---

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Enterprise

Run ID: c9b4b2d1-afc6-494c-a0ca-021f032e1a7d

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7085e52 and e00d633.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• ROADMAP.md