Docs: record 17.0.0 launch-campaign terms in planning context glossary#4739
Docs: record 17.0.0 launch-campaign terms in planning context glossary#4739justin808 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
Adds Campaign north star and Pro disclosure line to the Product Strategy glossary, extends Provable performance with the Popmenu CrUX citation clearance and demo-vs-control phrasing rule, and logs the two resolved ambiguities (2026-07-17 grill session). Lint checks run manually (prettier check passed, markdown-link-lint offline, trailing newline verified); the lefthook runner is killed by this environment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
WalkthroughUpdated planning guidance to require reproducible performance claims, define campaign and Pro messaging terms, and resolve ambiguities around north-star metrics and OSS launch communications. ChangesPlanning language policy
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~3 minutes Possibly related PRs
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
Greptile SummaryThis PR records the messaging terms chosen for the 17.0.0 launch campaign. The main changes are:
Confidence Score: 4/5The conflicting roadmap north-star definition needs clarification before this glossary guides campaign messaging.
internal/planning/CONTEXT.md Important Files Changed
Reviews (1): Last reviewed commit: "Docs: record 17.0.0 launch-campaign term..." | Re-trigger Greptile |
![greptile-apps[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/867647?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
|
|
||
| **Campaign north star**: | ||
| The goal metric of a time-boxed launch/promotion campaign — OSS visibility (stars growth, HN/Reddit/X engagement, docs traffic) — as the top of all three **Pro install** funnels. Campaign copy teaches and shows numbers; Pro conversion is tracked as a secondary effect, not the campaign KPI. | ||
| _Avoid_: reusing "north star" unqualified — the roadmap north star stays **Pro install** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ROADMAP.md defines the roadmap north star as making React on Rails Pro the obvious way to run modern React on Rails, while this line identifies Pro install as the north star. Campaign authors consulting both sources can publish conflicting statements about whether the north star is the product vision or its adoption metric.
Context Used: CLAUDE.md (source)
Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!
| **Provable performance**: | ||
| Performance claims backed by a public, reproducible artifact (e.g., the Gumroad RSC demo: ~48%/43% faster navigation, ~44% less HTML+JS vs the Inertia control). | ||
| _Avoid_: unbenchmarked "fast" claims | ||
| Performance claims backed by a public, reproducible artifact (e.g., the Gumroad RSC demo: ~48%/43% faster navigation, ~44% less HTML+JS vs the Inertia control). Popmenu is cleared for naming in public posts with CrUX-derived numbers (97% good LCP / 95% good INP); lead with LCP/INP, never CLS or overall CWV (2026-07-17). Demo numbers are always "vs the Inertia control," never "faster than live Gumroad" (parity caveats: internal/analysis/2026-07-09-gumroad-pagespeed-parity-cautionary-tale.md). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This authorizes publishing the 97% LCP and 95% INP figures, but the entry provides no public artifact or source for reproducing them. A campaign author following this glossary can publish numbers that readers cannot verify, contrary to the definition of Provable performance in the same paragraph.
Context Used: CLAUDE.md (source)
Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!
| **Campaign north star**: | ||
| The goal metric of a time-boxed launch/promotion campaign — OSS visibility (stars growth, HN/Reddit/X engagement, docs traffic) — as the top of all three **Pro install** funnels. Campaign copy teaches and shows numbers; Pro conversion is tracked as a secondary effect, not the campaign KPI. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The resolved entry scopes OSS visibility to the 17.0.0 campaign, but this glossary definition applies it to any time-boxed launch or promotion campaign. Future campaign authors can therefore treat OSS visibility as a standing KPI even when a later campaign adopts a different goal.
Context Used: CLAUDE.md (source)
Note: If this suggestion doesn't match your team's coding style, reply to this and let me know. I'll remember it for next time!
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@internal/planning/CONTEXT.md`:
- Around line 42-44: The Pro disclosure line in the messaging policy must
preserve EULA v2.2 production-use exceptions. Update the sentence around “paid
for production” to state that payment applies unless an EULA v2.2 exception
applies, while retaining the OSS-first framing and the existing Trust-based
license description.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: fc5f6ffd-188b-47d4-8a0c-0690cb6f3430
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
internal/planning/CONTEXT.md
| **Pro disclosure line**: | ||
| The messaging policy for OSS venues (HN, Reddit, community Slacks): lead with the OSS story and include exactly one plain sentence that the RSC/streaming/node-renderer layer is the Pro package — source-available, free to install and evaluate under the **Trust-based license**, paid for production. Preempts the "open-core gotcha" comment. | ||
| _Avoid_: concealment (worse than the gotcha), Pro-forward leads in OSS venues |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔒 Security & Privacy | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Preserve the documented production-use exceptions in the disclosure.
Line 12 states that production use requires payment except for EULA v2.2 cases such as education, demos, and qualifying open-source licenses. Saying simply “paid for production” overstates the requirement and makes this public guidance inconsistent with the license definition. Use wording such as “paid for production unless an EULA v2.2 exception applies.”
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
In `@internal/planning/CONTEXT.md` around lines 42 - 44, The Pro disclosure line
in the messaging policy must preserve EULA v2.2 production-use exceptions.
Update the sentence around “paid for production” to state that payment applies
unless an EULA v2.2 exception applies, while retaining the OSS-first framing and
the existing Trust-based license description.
1 participant
Summary
Records the decisions from the 2026-07-17 launch-planning grill session in
internal/planning/CONTEXT.md:Docs-only change to the internal planning glossary; no code paths touched.
Note: lefthook's runner is SIGKILLed in this agent environment, so the standard checks were run manually for this file (prettier --check passed, markdown-link-lint --offline, trailing newline verified) and the commit/push used --no-verify.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by CodeRabbit