Skip to content

plugin_visual_directions.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
66 lines (46 loc) · 2.47 KB

plugin_visual_directions.md

File metadata and controls

66 lines (46 loc) · 2.47 KB
Raw

Plugin Visual Directions

These three Product Design directions are comparison material for the Figma design pass. Direction 1 is the canonical build direction because it follows the repo's existing docs/screen_design.md tokens and enterprise table-first constraint.

Direction 1: Evidence Console

This direction keeps the admin console dense, quiet, and operational. It uses a left navigation rail, a compact top environment bar, and full-width working sections. The workflow trace sits beside policy and access evidence so reviewers can answer "why did this happen?" without moving through a visual builder.

Best for:

  • compliance and operations review;
  • showing route-versus-conduct evidence next to runtime state;
  • preserving the stdlib admin console's current visual language.

Tradeoff: it is less visually dramatic than the other options, but it is the most faithful enterprise control-plane direction.

Direction 2: Policy Studio

This direction puts policy tuning at the center. It leads with latency-quality thresholds, mode overrides, replay comparison, and provider exclusion controls. Workflow traces become supporting evidence below the policy workspace.

Best for:

  • AI product owners who tune orchestration policy;
  • product reviews where the main question is whether to route fast or conduct deeply;
  • future learned-routing evaluation discussions.

Tradeoff: it risks making policy editing look more important than auditability, which conflicts with the current MVP priority unless the product owner audience is dominant.

Direction 3: Audit Timeline

This direction treats each run as an auditable event. The primary view is a timeline of thinker, worker, verifier, and synthesizer steps with access-list and provider-exclusion evidence attached to each step.

Best for:

  • compliance reviewers;
  • incident review and support handoff;
  • explaining Conductor-style access visibility.

Tradeoff: it makes a single workflow very clear, but it is weaker for daily pool management and policy scanning.

Canonical Selection

Use Direction 1 for the main editable Figma frames. Include Directions 2 and 3 as visual alternatives in the same Figma file or stakeholder deck, but do not let them add MVP surfaces that are absent from the product plan.

Image Generation Brief

All three generated visual options should use desktop dashboard dimensions 1440 x 1024, avoid nested cards, keep enterprise control density, and make the actual orchestration evidence visible in the first viewport.