Add Jumpstarter Enhancement Proposal (JEP) process and docs

[kirkbrauer]

Summary

Introduces the Jumpstarter Enhancement Proposal (JEP) process: an index and template under the Sphinx docs (python/docs/source/internal/jeps/), JEP-0000 process text, and the Renode JEP-0010. JEPs are submitted and reviewed via pull request (no issue template).

Also adds Cursor and Claude integration: .cursor/rules/jep-process.mdc (single source of truth), .claude/rules/jep-process.md symlink, and the propose-jep skill.

Latest follow-up (this push)

• Renamed .cursor/rules/jep-adr-process.mdc → jep-process.mdc and updated .claude symlink + references in the skill and JEP README.
• Sphinx make html verified locally with uv sync --group docs.

Reviewers

Please re-review on the current head when you can; prior CHANGES_REQUESTED reviews were on an older commit. Resolve conversation threads that are already addressed so the PR can merge.

[netlify]

❌ Deploy Preview for jumpstarter-docs failed. Why did it fail? →

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	cb16b2f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/jumpstarter-docs/deploys/69daa97693dec600089a42f1

[coderabbitai]

Note

Reviews paused

It looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the reviews.auto_review.auto_pause_after_reviewed_commits setting.

Use the following commands to manage reviews:

• @coderabbitai resume to resume automatic reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger a single review.

Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:

• ▶️ Resume reviews
• 🔍 Trigger review

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Adds a Jumpstarter Enhancement Proposal (JEP) governance system: a process specification, a reusable JEP template, a README index, and corresponding rule files describing when to use JEPs vs ADRs, numbering, metadata, and submission workflow. All changes are documentation-only.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
JEP process & template jeps/JEP-0000-jep-process.md, jeps/JEP-NNNN-template.md, jeps/README.md	New JEP process spec (eligibility, types, full lifecycle, roles, numbering, workflow), a comprehensive JEP template with required metadata/sections, and README with quick-start, index, conventions, and status key.
Policy/rules artifacts .claude/rules/jep-adr-process.md, .cursor/rules/jep-adr-process.mdc	New rule documents formalizing JEP/ADR usage, DD-N design-decision convention, numbering/placement rules, merge/PR expectations, and Apache-2.0 notice.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• raballew
• kirkbrauer
• mangelajo

Poem

🐇 I nibbled notes and penned a plan,
A carrot-led map for every branch and clan.
Drafts hop, reviewers dance in tune,
From burrowed ideas to a mid-afternoon bloom.
Hop on the trail — proposals sprout like noon.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 2 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description check	❓ Inconclusive	No pull request description was provided by the author, making it impossible to assess relevance to the changeset.	Add a description explaining the purpose, scope, and key changes introduced by this pull request for better context.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately and clearly summarizes the main change: introducing a formal Jumpstarter Enhancement Proposal (JEP) process with associated documentation and templates.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch jep-process

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

jep/JEP-0000-jep-process.md (1)

140-142: Add language specifier to fenced code block.

The fenced code block is missing a language specifier, which is flagged by markdownlint.

📝 Proposed fix

-```
+```text
 JEP: Short descriptive title

</details>

<details>
<summary>🤖 Prompt for AI Agents</summary>

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

In @jep/JEP-0000-jep-process.md around lines 140 - 142, The fenced code block
containing "JEP: Short descriptive title" lacks a language specifier (triggering
markdownlint); update that fenced block (the triple-backtick block that wraps
the line "JEP: Short descriptive title") to include a language tag such as text
(e.g., ```text) so the block is properly annotated.

</details>

</blockquote></details>

</blockquote></details>

<details>
<summary>🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents</summary>

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

Inline comments:
In @.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/jep-proposal.yml:

• Line 12: Update the broken Markdown link string
  "https://github.com/jumpstarter-dev/jumpstarter/blob/main/jeps/JEP-0000-jep-process.md"
  to use the correct directory name by replacing "jeps/" with "jep/" so the link
  points to
  "https://github.com/jumpstarter-dev/jumpstarter/blob/main/jep/JEP-0000-jep-process.md";
  locate the URL in the ISSUE_TEMPLATE jep-proposal YAML entry (the line
  containing the JEP-0000 reference) and update the path accordingly.

In @jep/JEP-0000-jep-process.md:

• Line 203: Update the incorrect directory path reference in the JEP text:
  replace the occurrence of "jeps/README.md" with the correct "jep/README.md" in
  the document (JEP-0000-jep-process.md) so it points to the actual README in the
  jep/ directory.

---

Nitpick comments:
In @jep/JEP-0000-jep-process.md:

• Around line 140-142: The fenced code block containing "JEP: Short descriptive
  title" lacks a language specifier (triggering markdownlint); update that fenced
  block (the triple-backtick block that wraps the line "JEP: Short descriptive
  title") to include a language tag such as text (e.g., ```text) so the block is
  properly annotated.

</details>

<details>
<summary>🪄 Autofix (Beta)</summary>

Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:

- [ ] <!-- {"checkboxId": "4b0d0e0a-96d7-4f10-b296-3a18ea78f0b9"} --> Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- [ ] <!-- {"checkboxId": "ff5b1114-7d8c-49e6-8ac1-43f82af23a33"} --> Create a new PR with the fixes

</details>

---

<details>
<summary>ℹ️ Review info</summary>

<details>
<summary>⚙️ Run configuration</summary>

**Configuration used**: Organization UI

**Review profile**: CHILL

**Plan**: Pro

**Run ID**: `5aed2daa-10d5-4d72-a927-5a6ff2159142`

</details>

<details>
<summary>📥 Commits</summary>

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d713354eeaea42fe7774665a561a07da404e5598 and 652b3d2a7b591889b699aafd65bbc33fbe214c66.

</details>

<details>
<summary>📒 Files selected for processing (4)</summary>

* `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/jep-proposal.yml`
* `jep/JEP-0000-jep-process.md`
* `jep/JEP-NNNN-template.md`
* `jep/README.md`

</details>

</details>

<!-- This is an auto-generated comment by CodeRabbit for review status -->

[mangelajo]

This is a great idea, having a structured process for substantial changes brings much-needed formality and a clear planning trail, especially for anything touching interfaces, the gRPC protocol, or CRDs where mistakes are expensive to undo, etc.

One optional idea for down the road: once a JEP is approved, we could experiment with spec-kit deriving a spec-kit spec from a JEP. :)

[kirkbrauer]

@ambient-code Let's go ahead and remove the issue template and standardize the process on creating PRs for formal proposals.

[ambient-code]

Done. I've removed the .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/jep-proposal.yml file and updated all JEP documentation (jeps/JEP-0000-jep-process.md, jeps/README.md, jeps/JEP-NNNN-template.md) to standardize on pull requests as the sole mechanism for submitting JEPs. References to the issue template, issue-based numbering, and issue-centric language have been replaced with PR-based equivalents throughout.

[kirkbrauer]

@ambient-code Let's go ahead and make this align with the SpecKit (https://github.com/github/spec-kit) standards for specifications that can be implemented by agents. We might also want to pull in Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) similar to the one added into this PR: #533

[ambient-code]

I've reviewed both SpecKit and the ADR format from PR #533 and made the following changes to align the JEP process:

JEP template (JEP-NNNN-template.md):

• Added a Design Decisions section using the DD-N pattern from ADRs (alternatives considered, decision, rationale) — this matches the format used in ADR-0001 from PR Add Renode emulator driver for embedded target simulation #533
• Added a Consequences section (positive/negative/risks) following ADR convention
• Marked all sections as *(mandatory)*, *(optional)*, or *(mandatory for Standards Track)* following SpecKit's practice of making document structure explicit for agents and contributors alike

Process document (JEP-0000-jep-process.md):

• Added a JEPs and Architecture Decision Records section that clarifies when to use a JEP vs an ADR (JEPs for cross-cutting changes needing community review; ADRs for scoped technical decisions within a single component/driver)
• Added SpecKit and ADR references to the Prior Art section

Index (README.md):

• Added a Related: ADRs section pointing contributors to the right process
• Added a For AI Agents section documenting JEP conventions (metadata format, section markers, DD-N pattern, file naming) so agents can help draft and review JEPs

What I intentionally did not adopt from SpecKit: SpecKit's full workflow (/speckit.specify → /speckit.plan → /speckit.tasks) is designed for product feature development with code generation. That doesn't map well to an enhancement proposal process. Instead, I adopted the parts that are relevant: explicit mandatory/optional section markers, structured document conventions for agent readability, and the spec-as-source-of-truth philosophy.

[kirkbrauer]

@ambient-code Let's address these comments first before further reviews.

[kirkbrauer]

@ambient-code Finally, we should migrate the ADRs and JEPs into the docs directory for consistency so we can render it as part of the documentation.

[ambient-code]

Migrated JEPs and ADRs into the docs directory for documentation rendering:

• Moved jeps/ → docs/internal/jeps/ (JEP-0000, JEP template, and README)
• Created docs/internal/adr/ directory (with .gitkeep) for future ADRs
• Updated all internal path references:
  • docs/internal/jeps/README.md — updated Quick Start instructions to reference docs/internal/jeps/
  • docs/internal/jeps/JEP-0000-jep-process.md — fixed the JEP template link (was a broken relative path ../docs/internal/jeps/..., now co-located JEP-NNNN-template.md)
  • .claude/rules/jep-adr-process.md — updated template source path
  • .cursor/rules/jep-adr-process.mdc — updated template source path

The physical file locations now match the paths already documented in JEP-0000, the rules files, and the JEP template. This enables rendering JEPs and ADRs as part of the project documentation site.

[mangelajo]

just some additional comments.

[kirkbrauer]

@ambient-code Please address all of the review comments that you're tagged in to update this spec to match the expectations of the reviewers.

requests were addressed