LMRuntime.com / Static review template

Idea Review Packet

A copyable, public-safe packet for describing scope, evidence, resource cost, structural operators, claim boundaries, review triggers, no-op fallbacks, and exit conditions.

Static review scaffolding

A packet makes the proposed change inspectable.

Use this template to separate scope, evidence, cost, uncertainty, review authority, and a safe no-op fallback before asking the project to change.

It isA copyable planning and human-review aid.
It is notA live form, inbox, issue tracker, automated queue, or source mutation command.
Canonical effectNone until an explicit project update is reviewed, applied, validated, and recorded.

Packet anatomy

Twelve fields that reduce review ambiguity

The template can be shortened for a small correction, but structural changes should keep the cost and boundary fields.

Proposal identity

Title, type, sender, UTC date, and public source.

Runtime scope

Page, component, model format, platform, backend, and release gate.

Observed gap

Current limitation or opportunity, separated from interpretation.

Evidence and trace

Reproduction, source, expected result, actual result, and uncertainty.

Minimal change

The smallest useful, reversible implementation or documentation step.

Expected gain

Correctness, developer, documentation, or governance value.

Resource cost

Compute, memory, maintenance, review, governance, and uncertainty.

Alternatives

Other approaches and the current workaround.

Operator

Add, Retire, Merge, Reactivate, Freeze, or No-op.

Claim boundary

Supported claims, prohibited implications, safety, and review triggers.

No-op fallback

A safe preserve, defer, document-only, or route-elsewhere result.

Exit condition

The evidence that closes, advances, defers, or retires review.

LMRuntime idea review packet

1. Proposal identity
- Title:
- Idea type:
- Submitted by:
- Date (UTC):
- Public source URL:

2. Runtime scope
- LMRuntime page or component:
- Runtime area:
- Model format:
- Platform or backend:
- Current release gate:

3. Current limitation or opportunity
[State the smallest concrete gap. Separate observed behavior from interpretation.]

4. Evidence and trace
- Reproduction or workflow:
- Supporting source:
- Expected result:
- Actual result:
- Known uncertainty:

5. Proposed minimal change
[Describe the smallest useful, reversible first step.]

6. Expected gain
- Correctness:
- Developer value:
- Documentation value:
- Governance value:

7. Resource and review cost
- Compute cost:
- Memory cost:
- Maintenance cost:
- Human review cost:
- Governance or public-claim risk:
- Uncertainty cost:

8. Candidate alternatives
- Alternative A:
- Alternative B:
- Existing workaround:

9. Structural operator
[Add / Retire / Merge / Reactivate / Freeze / No-op]

10. Claim and safety boundary
- Claims this proposal would support:
- Claims it must not imply:
- Security or privacy concerns:
- Human-review trigger:

11. No-op fallback
[Describe a safe “not yet,” route-elsewhere, document-only, or preserve-current-state result.]

12. Exit condition
[State what evidence would close, advance, defer, or retire this review.]

Important: this packet is review scaffolding only. Copying or sending it does not mutate LMRuntime source, canonical memory, release status, or public claims.

Open idea email Review contact options →Understand review outcomes →

Narrower reports

Use the specialized route when the issue is not a feature idea.

Accessibility and security reports have different evidence and disclosure boundaries.

Accessibility or site issue

Include URL, environment, assistive technology when relevant, expected result, observed result, and impact.

Accessibility guidance →

Security issue

Read the security page first. Do not publish exploit details. Route only the evidence necessary for private triage.

Review security guidance

Small correction

A full packet may be unnecessary. Send the exact page, current wording, proposed correction, and supporting source.

Return to idea routing →