Review Rfc

Step 3: Check Related Existing RFCs

Search this repository for related RFCs that might:

• Conflict with the proposal
• Be superseded by the proposal
• Provide context or dependencies

Step 4: Verify Against Target Repository

Search the target repository to verify:

• Proposed changes align with existing code patterns
• No conflicts with recent changes
• API changes are compatible with existing interfaces

Review Checklist

A. Structure and Completeness

• Metadata present: Status, Author, Created, Last Updated, Target Repository
• Summary: Clear 2-3 sentence description
• Problem Statement: Clearly articulates the problem, who's affected, why it matters
• Goals: Specific, measurable objectives listed
• Non-Goals: Explicit scope boundaries defined
• Proposed Solution: Detailed design with diagrams where appropriate
• Security Considerations: All required subsections present (see below)
• Alternatives Considered: At least one alternative evaluated
• Compatibility: Backward and forward compatibility addressed
• Implementation Plan: Phased approach with concrete tasks
• Testing Strategy: Multiple test levels covered
• Open Questions: Unresolved items listed (if any)

B. Security Review (CRITICAL)

The Security Considerations section MUST address all of these:

Red flags to watch for:

• Missing or superficial security section
• "N/A" without justification for security subsections
• No threat model for network-exposed features
• Secrets in configuration examples
• Missing input validation for user-provided data
• No audit logging for security-relevant operations

C. Technical Accuracy

• Correct terminology: Uses ToolHive concepts correctly (Workloads, Transports, Middleware, etc.)
• Architecture alignment: Follows established patterns and principles
• Code examples: Syntactically correct, idiomatic for the language
• API design: Consistent with existing APIs in the target repo
• CRD design: Follows Kubernetes conventions if applicable
• Configuration format: Matches existing RunConfig patterns

D. Diagrams and Examples

• Mermaid diagrams: Complex flows illustrated clearly
• Code examples: Concrete, not abstract placeholders
• Configuration examples: Realistic YAML/JSON examples
• Sequence diagrams: For multi-component interactions

E. Feasibility and Impact

• Implementation complexity: Is the phased approach realistic?
• Dependencies: Are external dependencies identified?
• Breaking changes: Are migration paths provided if needed?
• Performance impact: Considered where relevant?
• Cross-repo impact: If multiple repos, are all impacts identified?

ToolHive Ecosystem Context

Target Repositories

Key Architecture Principles to Verify

1. Platform, not runner: Does this enhance the platform abstraction?
2. Security by default: Does this maintain or improve security posture?
3. Middleware composability: Can this be implemented as middleware if appropriate?
4. RunConfig portability: Does this preserve configuration portability?
5. Cloud-native: Is this Kubernetes-friendly where applicable?

CRD Types (for K8s-related RFCs)

• MCPServer - Individual MCP server deployment
• MCPRegistry - Registry configuration
• MCPToolConfig - Tool filtering and configuration
• MCPExternalAuthConfig - External authentication
• MCPGroup - Server grouping
• VirtualMCPServer - Aggregation of multiple servers

Review Output Format

Structure your review as follows:

## RFC Review: [RFC Title]

### Summary
[1-2 sentence summary of your overall assessment]

### Strengths
- [What the RFC does well]

### Areas for Improvement

#### Critical Issues (Must Fix)
- [Issues that must be addressed before acceptance]

#### Suggestions (Should Consider)
- [Improvements that would strengthen the RFC]

#### Minor/Nitpicks (Optional)
- [Small improvements or style suggestions]

### Security Assessment
[Specific feedback on the security section]

### Architectural Alignment
[How well does this align with ToolHive architecture?]

### Questions for the Author
- [Clarifying questions that need answers]

### Recommendation
[ ] Ready to accept
[ ] Accept with minor changes
[ ] Needs revision (address critical issues)
[ ] Major rework needed

Common Issues to Watch For

Problem Statement Issues

• Too vague or abstract
• Doesn't explain who benefits
• Problem already solved elsewhere

Design Issues

• Over-engineered for the problem
• Missing error handling considerations
• Doesn't consider edge cases
• Breaks existing functionality without migration path

Security Issues

• Missing threat model
• Hardcoded credentials in examples
• No input validation
• Missing audit logging
• Overly permissive defaults

Implementation Issues

• Unrealistic phasing
• Missing dependencies
• No rollback plan
• Insufficient testing strategy

Reference Files

• Template: rfcs/0000-template.md
• Contributing guide: CONTRIBUTING.md
• Existing RFCs: rfcs/THV-*.md