# Wiki.js Python SDK - Risk Management

**Project**: wikijs-python-sdk  
**Stage**: MVP Development  
**Version**: 1.0  
**Last Updated**: July 2025  

---

## 🎯 Overview

This document identifies and addresses key risks for the MVP development phase. As a project in early development, we focus on the most critical risks that could impact successful delivery.

### **Risk Management Approach**
- **Proactive Identification**: Anticipate issues before they occur
- **Practical Mitigation**: Focus on actionable solutions
- **Regular Review**: Assess risks weekly during development
- **Continuous Learning**: Update strategies based on experience

---

## 🔴 High Priority Risks

### **R1: Development Timeline Delays**
**Risk**: MVP development takes longer than 2-week target  
**Probability**: Medium | **Impact**: High | **Level**: 🔴 HIGH

**Causes:**
- Underestimated task complexity
- Scope creep during development
- Technical challenges with Wiki.js API integration
- Development session limitations affecting development flow

**Mitigation Strategies:**
- ✅ **Strict Scope Control**: No feature additions during MVP development
- ✅ **Daily Progress Tracking**: Update completion status in CLAUDE.md
- ✅ **Buffer Time**: Built-in 20% buffer for unexpected issues
- ✅ **Fallback Plan**: Reduce MVP scope if timeline at risk

**Monitoring:**
- Track actual vs. estimated time for each task
- Weekly milestone reviews
- Early warning if >20% behind schedule

---

### **R2: Wiki.js API Compatibility Issues**
**Risk**: Changes in Wiki.js API break SDK functionality  
**Probability**: Medium | **Impact**: High | **Level**: 🔴 HIGH

**Causes:**
- Wiki.js API changes without notice
- Undocumented API behavior
- Version compatibility issues
- Authentication method changes

**Mitigation Strategies:**
- ✅ **Version Pinning**: Test against specific Wiki.js versions
- ✅ **Graceful Degradation**: Handle API errors without complete failure
- ✅ **Documentation**: Clear supported version requirements
- ✅ **Testing**: Comprehensive integration tests with real Wiki.js instance

**Monitoring:**
- Test against latest Wiki.js releases
- Monitor Wiki.js changelog and releases
- Community feedback on compatibility issues

---

### **R3: Quality Standards Not Met**
**Risk**: Code quality falls below professional standards  
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: High | **Level**: 🔴 HIGH

**Causes:**
- Rushing to meet timeline
- Skipping tests or documentation
- Inconsistent code style
- Insufficient error handling

**Mitigation Strategies:**
- ✅ **Automated Checks**: CI/CD pipeline with quality gates
- ✅ **Test Coverage**: Maintain >85% coverage requirement
- ✅ **Code Review**: All changes reviewed before merge
- ✅ **Documentation**: API docs required for all public methods

**Quality Gates:**
- [ ] Tests: 100% pass rate
- [ ] Coverage: >85% line coverage  
- [ ] Types: 100% mypy compliance
- [ ] Lint: 0 flake8 errors
- [ ] Format: 100% black compliance

---

## 🟡 Medium Priority Risks

### **R4: Package Distribution Issues**
**Risk**: Problems publishing to PyPI or package installation  
**Probability**: Medium | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟡 MEDIUM

**Mitigation:**
- Test packaging and installation locally
- Use automated publishing workflow
- Validate package metadata and dependencies

### **R5: Documentation Gaps**
**Risk**: Incomplete or unclear documentation affects adoption  
**Probability**: High | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟡 MEDIUM

**Mitigation:**
- Write documentation alongside code
- Include practical examples for all features
- Test documentation with fresh install

### **R6: Community Reception Issues**
**Risk**: Negative feedback or low adoption  
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟡 MEDIUM

**Mitigation:**
- Focus on solving real developer problems
- Engage with Wiki.js community early
- Gather feedback and iterate quickly

---

## 🟢 Low Priority Risks

### **R7: Performance Issues**
**Risk**: SDK performance doesn't meet expectations  
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: Low | **Level**: 🟢 LOW

**Note**: Performance optimization planned for Phase 3, not critical for MVP

### **R8: Security Vulnerabilities**
**Risk**: Security issues in dependencies or code  
**Probability**: Low | **Impact**: Medium | **Level**: 🟢 LOW

**Mitigation**: Automated security scanning in CI/CD pipeline

---

## 📊 Risk Monitoring

### **Weekly Risk Review**
Every week during MVP development:
1. **Assess Current Risks**: Review probability and impact
2. **Check Mitigation Status**: Ensure strategies are working
3. **Identify New Risks**: Add emerging risks to list
4. **Update Action Plans**: Adjust strategies as needed

### **Risk Indicators**
**Red Flags** (Immediate attention required):
- >1 day behind schedule on critical path
- Test coverage drops below 80%
- Major Wiki.js compatibility issue discovered
- Critical bug discovered in core functionality

**Yellow Flags** (Monitor closely):
- Minor delays in non-critical tasks
- Documentation feedback indicates confusion
- Community engagement lower than expected

### **Escalation Process**
1. **🟢 Low Risk**: Handle in normal development process
2. **🟡 Medium Risk**: Discuss in weekly reviews
3. **🔴 High Risk**: Immediate mitigation action required
4. **🚨 Critical Risk**: Consider scope reduction or timeline adjustment

---

## 🔄 Contingency Plans

### **Timeline Recovery Plan**
**If >20% behind schedule:**
1. **Assess**: Identify specific blockers and time needed
2. **Prioritize**: Focus only on core MVP features
3. **Reduce Scope**: Remove non-essential features
4. **Communicate**: Update timeline expectations

**Minimum Viable Features** (Cannot be removed):
- Basic HTTP client with Wiki.js integration
- API key authentication
- Pages CRUD operations (list, get, create)
- Basic error handling
- Package installation via pip

### **API Compatibility Failure Plan**
**If Wiki.js API breaks compatibility:**
1. **Document**: Clearly specify supported Wiki.js versions
2. **Workaround**: Implement fallback behavior where possible
3. **Communicate**: Notify users of compatibility limitations
4. **Update**: Plan fix for next release

### **Quality Failure Plan**
**If quality standards not met:**
1. **Stop**: Halt new feature development
2. **Fix**: Address quality issues first
3. **Review**: Identify process improvements
4. **Resume**: Continue with improved practices

---

## 📈 Risk Learning & Improvement

### **Post-MVP Risk Review**
After MVP completion, conduct comprehensive review:
- **What Risks Materialized**: Which predictions were accurate
- **What We Missed**: Risks that weren't anticipated
- **Mitigation Effectiveness**: Which strategies worked best
- **Process Improvements**: How to improve risk management

### **Future Phase Risk Planning**
Use MVP experience to improve risk management for:
- **Phase 2**: Essential features and community feedback
- **Phase 3**: Production readiness and performance
- **Phase 4**: Enterprise features and scaling

---

## 🎯 Success Criteria

**MVP Risk Management Success:**
- [ ] MVP delivered within 2-week timeline (±20%)
- [ ] All quality gates passed before release
- [ ] No critical bugs discovered in first week after release
- [ ] Package successfully installed by early users
- [ ] Documentation sufficient for basic usage

**Risk Management Process Success:**
- [ ] All high-priority risks actively monitored
- [ ] Mitigation strategies effectively implemented
- [ ] Early warning systems prevented major issues
- [ ] Lessons learned documented for future phases

---

*This risk management plan focuses on MVP development. A comprehensive risk framework will be developed for later phases based on lessons learned and project growth.*