@medicine-wheel/brainstorming 0.5.3 → 0.5.5

package/ALPHA.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# This suite is experimental alpha
+
+**Read this before depending on anything here.**
+
+The Medicine Wheel Developer Suite is under active development and is published
+in the open so the work can be examined, discussed, and improved. It is not
+finished software. Publishing early is deliberate — but so is telling you what
+you are installing.
+
+## What that means concretely
+
+- **APIs change between patch versions.** All packages move in lockstep, so a
+  bump you would normally read as "nothing changed for me" may still change
+  what you depend on. Pin exact versions.
+- **Packages appear, and their boundaries move.** Three packages were added in
+  `0.5.3`. Where a responsibility lives is still being decided.
+- **Some packages are intentionally small first cuts.** They express an
+  intention with a working minimum rather than a finished surface. Their
+  READMEs say so where it applies.
+- **Storage shapes are still settling.** Records written by one version may
+  need repair by a later one. Do not treat any store here as an archive of
+  record yet.
+- **Test coverage is real but uneven.** 210 tests pass at `0.5.3`; that is a
+  floor, not a claim of completeness.
+
+## What it does *not* mean
+
+It does not mean the work is careless. Defects found are fixed and written
+down, specifications are versioned alongside the code in `rispecs/`, and
+sessions are chronicled. The alpha label is about **stability of contract**,
+not about standard of care.
+
+## Cultural material
+
+Parts of this suite encode Indigenous relational research methodology —
+Four Directions structure, ceremony protocol, OCAP® compliance surfaces,
+relational accountability. That material is included because the software is
+*for* that way of working, not as decoration.
+
+If you are building on those parts, please read them as an invitation to work
+relationally rather than as a finished implementation of anyone's protocol.
+Where a design question is properly a knowledge holder's decision rather than
+an engineer's, the specs try to say so. Where we have got that wrong, telling
+us is a contribution.
+
+## If you are evaluating this
+
+The most useful things to read first:
+
+- `rispecs/` — the specifications, versioned with the code
+- `README.md` — what the suite is
+- Open issues — where the known edges are, stated plainly
+
+Feedback is genuinely wanted at this stage, including "this boundary is wrong"
+and "this should not be software".
+
+## License
+
+MIT — see `LICENSE`.

package/README.md

@@ -1,6 +1,23 @@
 # @medicine-wheel/brainstorming
 
-Idea into committed design, through approval gates a human holds.
+Idea into committed design, through approval gates a human holds. Ideation,
+requirements gathering, design review — the convergent half of creative problem
+solving.
+
+Every outcome this package emits passes one question before it is spoken —
+including its own multiple-choice options:
+
+> **Is there a prior state you are restoring?**
+
+**Yes.** The option is describing a repair, and
+[`@medicine-wheel/gap-analysis`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@medicine-wheel/gap-analysis)
+is the instrument for it.
+
+**No.** Then an option phrased as removing something is aiming at a list of
+known failures rather than at the state you want — and the moment of speaking is
+the only point where that is still catchable, because once a human selects it,
+it stops looking like the agent's proposal and starts looking like the
+requirement.
 
 > [!WARNING]
 > **Experimental alpha.** Part of the Medicine Wheel Developer Suite, which is

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "@medicine-wheel/brainstorming",
-  "version": "0.5.3",
-  "description": "Idea into committed design through approval gates a human holds, with every emitted outcome statement routed through creative orientation — including its own questions.",
+  "version": "0.5.5",
+  "description": "Idea into committed design through approval gates a human holds. Every outcome it emits — including its own multiple-choice questions — passes the orientation question before it is spoken. Brainstorming, ideation, requirements gathering, design review.",
   "main": "dist/index.js",
   "types": "dist/index.d.ts",
   "exports": {
@@ -15,7 +15,8 @@
   "sideEffects": false,
   "files": [
     "dist",
-    "README.md"
+    "README.md",
+    "ALPHA.md"
   ],
   "scripts": {
     "build": "tsc",
@@ -23,11 +24,16 @@
     "prepublishOnly": "npm run clean && npm run build"
   },
   "keywords": [
-    "medicine-wheel",
     "brainstorming",
+    "ideation",
+    "creative-problem-solving",
+    "requirements",
     "design",
     "approval-gates",
-    "creative-orientation"
+    "human-in-the-loop",
+    "creative-orientation",
+    "spec",
+    "medicine-wheel"
   ],
   "author": "jgwill",
   "license": "MIT",
@@ -37,7 +43,7 @@
     "directory": "src/brainstorming"
   },
   "dependencies": {
-    "@medicine-wheel/creative-orientation": "^0.5.3"
+    "@medicine-wheel/creative-orientation": "^0.5.5"
   },
   "devDependencies": {
     "typescript": "^5.7.0"