Skip to content

COMMUNITY_ROADMAP.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
69 lines (46 loc) · 2.21 KB

COMMUNITY_ROADMAP.md

File metadata and controls

69 lines (46 loc) · 2.21 KB
Raw

Permea Community Roadmap

Status: Public documentation

Purpose

Permea aims to make delivery evidence open, benchmarkable, and reusable. Community work should strengthen public technical momentum without turning repository activity into scientific validation.

This roadmap defines the public community-building direction for Permea Core.

Community Direction

Permea Core is an open technical foundation for sequence-first biological delivery engineering. The community should help turn scattered delivery evidence into reviewable objects, reproducible benchmark workflows, and reusable documentation.

Useful community work includes documentation, review, reproduction, baseline comparison, dataset context, and benchmark definition. These contributions make computational evidence easier to inspect before wet-lab follow-up.

Initial Community Paths

Contributors can start by helping to:

  • add dataset cards
  • propose benchmark tasks
  • review evidence cards
  • add feature descriptors
  • reproduce benchmark runs
  • improve documentation
  • contribute baseline models

Each path should preserve source attribution, limitations, review status, and public claim boundaries.

Near-Term Public Roadmap

Near-term public work should focus on:

  • improving dataset and benchmark documentation
  • expanding examples
  • adding reproduction reports
  • building contribution templates
  • tracking community activity

These roadmap items are intended to make Permea easier to inspect and contribute to, not to inflate scientific claims.

Community Metrics

Permea may track public community activity through metrics such as:

  • stars
  • forks
  • watchers
  • issues
  • PRs
  • discussions
  • release downloads
  • traffic snapshots if available

Community activity is evidence of public technical momentum, not scientific validation.

Review Posture

Community contributions should be reviewed for:

  • clear source attribution
  • reproducible benchmark context
  • explicit limitations
  • public-safe release posture
  • conservative claim language
  • separation between computational evidence and biological validation

When a contribution is useful but not ready for a stronger claim, maintainers should keep it at the appropriate review status instead of overstating it.