Feature roadmap for Monoscope

[tonyalaribe]

Created detailed roadmap organized into 4 phases spanning 2026-2027+:

Phase 1 - Foundation:

• Advanced visualization (tables, gauges, heatmaps, dashboard variables)
• Enhanced alerting with routing and integrations (PagerDuty, Teams)
• Explore mode and query improvements
• TimeFusion migration and platform hardening

Phase 2 - Advanced Features:

• Full APM suite (service maps, dependency graphs, profiling)
• Infrastructure monitoring (hosts, K8s, network)
• Real User Monitoring with session replay
• Synthetic monitoring (uptime checks, API tests)
• Enhanced AI capabilities (workflow builder, RCA)
• SLO tracking and reliability features

Phase 3 - Enterprise:

• Multi-tenancy with RBAC and SSO
• Team collaboration features
• Multi-datasource support
• Plugin ecosystem
• Reporting and PDF exports
• Compliance and security features

Includes competitive feature matrix, success metrics, resource requirements, risk analysis, and detailed specifications for key features like dashboard variables, service maps, SLO tracking, and AIOps workflows.

Closes #

How to test

Checklist

• Make sure you have described your changes and added all relevant screenshots or data.
• Make sure your changes are tested (stories and/or unit, integration, or end-to-end tests).
• Make sure to add/update documentation regarding your changes (or request one from the team).
• You are NOT deprecating/removing a feature.

[claude]

PR Review: Feature Roadmap

Overview

This PR adds a comprehensive 776-line ROADMAP.md document outlining Monoscope's path to Datadog/Grafana parity. Since this is documentation rather than code, I'll focus on content quality, strategic alignment, and actionability.

---

✅ Strengths

1. Well-structured & comprehensive - Clear phasing (Q1 2026 → 2027+) with logical feature grouping
2. Executive-friendly - Includes success metrics, resource requirements, and competitive analysis
3. Actionable priorities - P0/P1 labels help focus execution
4. Risk awareness - Acknowledges technical, market, and business risks with mitigations
5. Detailed specifications - Appendix provides implementation details for key features

---

🔶 Concerns & Suggestions

1. Timeline Realism

• Issue: Phase 1 (Q1 2026) has ~35 features, many P0. With 8 engineers, that's aggressive.
• Suggestion: Either extend timeline or move more items to P1/Phase 2. Dashboard variables + table widget + service maps + alert routing + TimeFusion migration in one quarter is ambitious.

2. Missing from Roadmap

Based on README.md, these current priorities aren't in the roadmap:

• TimeFusion migration - Mentioned in README roadmap as high priority but only appears in Phase 1.4 (not prominently featured)
• AIOps workflow builder - In README roadmap but relegated to Phase 2.5
• Metrics aggregation rules - In README roadmap but not in ROADMAP.md

Recommendation: Reconcile README roadmap with ROADMAP.md or clearly mark this as a separate "feature parity" roadmap.

3. Resource Requirements Too Light

• Issue: Phase 1 lists 8 engineers total. For 35 features in 3 months, that's ~1.3 features per engineer (accounting for meetings, tech debt, bugs).
• Suggestion: Either reduce scope or increase team size. Consider dedicated teams per pillar (viz, APM, alerts).

4. Success Metrics Need Baselines

Examples lack current state:

• "80% of users create custom dashboards" - what's current %?
• "50% of projects have configured alerts" - current %?

Suggestion: Add "Current: X% → Target: Y%" format for measurability.

5. Competitive Analysis - Missing Context

• Datadog APM cost is a major differentiator (can be 10x S3 costs) but not emphasized
• Grafana's plugin ecosystem took 5+ years to build - Phase 3 timeline may be optimistic

6. Technical Debt Not Addressed

Roadmap doesn't mention:

• Code quality improvements
• Test coverage goals
• Performance optimization of existing features
• Migration path for existing users (e.g., TimescaleDB → TimeFusion)

---

📝 Content Quality

Positives:

• Clear, scannable formatting
• Good use of tables and categories
• Realistic feature descriptions

Improvements:

1. Reduce repetition - "Dashboard" appears 40+ times, "Alert" 30+ times. Consider consolidating sections.
2. Add visual roadmap - A Gantt chart or timeline graphic would help executives quickly grasp phasing.
3. Link to issues/RFCs - For P0 features, link to GitHub issues or RFCs for deeper dives.

---

🎯 Strategic Observations

Differentiation Strategy

The roadmap leans heavily on feature parity, but Monoscope's unique strengths are:

• S3-native storage (cost advantage)
• AI-powered insights (LLM queries, anomaly detection)
• Open-source AGPL-3.0

Suggestion: Emphasize these differentiators more. Consider "Phase 0" focusing on doubling down on AI/cost advantages before feature parity.

Market Positioning

• Phase 1-2: Competing with Grafana (dashboards, viz)
• Phase 3: Competing with Datadog (APM, RUM, enterprise)
• Phase 4: Innovation (eBPF, cost optimization)

This is sound, but consider: Is the goal to be "Datadog alternative" or "AI-first observability platform"? Current roadmap tries to be both.

---

✅ Recommendation: Approve with Suggestions

This is solid strategic planning work. Before finalizing:

1. Reconcile with README roadmap - Ensure consistency
2. Add current metrics - For success criteria
3. Right-size Phase 1 scope - 35 features in Q1 is risky
4. Highlight S3 + AI differentiators earlier in the document
5. Add migration strategy - How do existing users upgrade?
6. Create GitHub project - Link roadmap items to trackable issues

---

Minor Fixes

• Line 776: Document cuts off mid-sentence ("Error Budge")
• Typo: "Monscope" in one place (search for it)
• Consistency: Sometimes "Phase 1", sometimes "Q1 2026" - pick one format

---

Overall: Excellent planning artifact. With scope adjustments and alignment to current priorities, this will be a strong north star for the team. Great work! 🚀

[claude]

PR Review: Feature Roadmap for Monoscope

This PR adds a comprehensive 731-line roadmap document. Here's my analysis:

✅ Strengths

1. Well-structured & comprehensive - The roadmap is logically organized into phases with clear timelines and priorities
2. Strategic clarity - Executive summary effectively frames Monoscope's competitive position vs Datadog/Grafana
3. Actionable features - Features are broken down into P0/P1 priorities with checkboxes for tracking
4. Competitive analysis - The feature matrix provides clear comparison points
5. Risk awareness - Includes risk analysis and mitigation strategies
6. Success metrics - Defines measurable outcomes for each phase

📝 Documentation Quality Issues

1. Inconsistent formatting - Mix of styles (some features have descriptions, others don't)

2. Excessive length - At 731 lines, this is difficult to navigate and maintain

   • Consider splitting into multiple files: ROADMAP.md (high-level), roadmap/phase-1.md, roadmap/phase-2.md, etc.
   • Or create a GitHub Project board for better tracking

3. Truncated content - The conclusion is cut off mid-sentence (line 731: "Ship dashboard variables, service maps, alert routing, and RBAC before venturing into R")

4. Outdated references - "Last Updated: January 2, 2026" but we're currently in 2026, making this feel stale immediately

   • Better: "Version 1.0 - Q1 2026" or use git history for dating

5. Unrealistic timeline assumptions - The roadmap assumes significant team expansion without context on current team size or funding

🎯 Content Recommendations

1. Add a TL;DR section at the top with just the 5-10 most critical features for Q1 2026
2. Link to issues - Convert P0 items to GitHub issues and link them from the roadmap
3. Version this document - Add version number and changelog section to track updates
4. Remove speculation - The "Immediate Actions (This Week)" section will be outdated quickly; move to GitHub Projects
5. Condense appendices - The detailed feature specs (Section A-D) could be separate RFC documents

📐 Structural Improvements

Consider this structure for better maintainability:

ROADMAP.md (high-level vision, current state, phases overview)
├── roadmap/
│   ├── 2026-Q1-foundation.md
│   ├── 2026-Q2-Q3-advanced-features.md  
│   ├── 2026-Q4-2027-Q1-enterprise.md
│   └── rfcs/
│       ├── 001-dashboard-variables.md
│       ├── 002-service-maps.md
│       └── 003-aiops-workflows.md

⚠️ Potential Issues

1. Scope creep risk - This is an extremely ambitious roadmap (731 features/items). Without careful prioritization, this could lead to:

   • Team burnout
   • Half-finished features
   • Quality issues

2. Maintenance burden - A 731-line markdown file will quickly become outdated. Consider:

   • GitHub Projects for tracking
   • Living document with quarterly reviews
   • Auto-generated status from issue labels

3. No current baseline - Missing info on:

   • Current team size
   • Current user count/adoption
   • Current technical debt
   • Which features are already in progress

🔧 Immediate Action Items

Before merging, please address:

1. Fix truncated conclusion - Complete the last sentence
2. Add table of contents - For easier navigation
3. Consider splitting - 731 lines is too much for one file
4. Link to tracking - Add links to GitHub Projects or Issues for actual tracking
5. Remove time-sensitive content - "This Week" actions will be stale immediately

💡 Alternative Approach

Instead of one massive file, consider:

• ROADMAP.md: High-level vision (100-150 lines)
• GitHub Projects: Living roadmap with actual progress tracking
• RFC process: Detailed specs for major features as separate docs
• CHANGELOG.md: Track completed features

Overall Assessment

This is solid strategic thinking, but the execution as a single 731-line markdown file is suboptimal for a living, breathing roadmap. The content is valuable - the format needs work.

Recommendation: Break this into smaller, more maintainable pieces before merging, or clearly mark this as a "strategic vision document" separate from an actual working roadmap.

---

Review generated by Claude Code - considering documentation quality, maintainability, and project management best practices