Backlog
Under consideration
No Backlog issues
Next up
Committed and queued
No Next up issues
In Progress
1Actively being built
Done
6Recently shipped
Coach and recruiter candidate search
Summary Allow authorized programs to discover relevant athletes using criteria tied to a specific program or recruitment opportunity. Possible scope Filter by sport, event or position, performance, academic profile, intended entry period, preferences, and verification status. Rank by the fit with a named program rather than a generic school score. Save athletes to a shortlist. Record a limited recruitment status after the privacy and consent model is validated. Dependencies Program data model. Explainable matching. Athlete visibility controls. Access permissions and audit trail. Rules against bulk export and scraping. Feedback question Which three filters would be essential for a first recruiting search, and which filters could create unfair or unnecessary screening?
Consent-based profile visibility and document access
Summary Give athletes explicit control over discoverability, contact information, and access to sensitive documents. Target requirements Separate profile completeness from profile visibility. Classify data as public, restricted, or sensitive. Keep transcripts, test reports, identity records, and similar documents out of public search. Grant access by role, purpose, and athlete consent. Record sensitive access and important changes. Support correction, export, deletion, and retention rules. Address age checks and guardian involvement where legally required. Protect the candidate database against bulk scraping and misuse. Status note These are product requirements. They are not a claim that the controls are already implemented. Feedback question Which information should a coach see before the athlete approves contact, and which information should always require a separate permission?
Explainable matching prototype
Summary Produce reviewable program-level matches that separate mandatory criteria from weighted fit and explain the result in plain language. Planned dimensions Academic fit. Athletic fit. Preference fit. Scholarship fit. Program fit. Data confidence. Intended output A clearly defined fit band or score. Component-level results. Reasons for relevance. Failed or borderline criteria. Missing or unverified information. Calculation date and rule version. A visible reminder that the result is not a college decision. Not a goal The prototype will not calculate an exact admission probability or guarantee eligibility, roster placement, coach contact, or scholarship funding. Feedback question What explanation would help you trust a match—and what would make a score feel misleading?
Program-level college data model
Summary Model the university separately from each athletic program and, where useful, from a time-limited recruitment opportunity. Why it matters One institution can have several teams with different coaches, events or positions, performance expectations, academic criteria, recruiting priorities, and support options. A university-only match is too broad. Planned scope Institution identity, location, size, study areas, and general contacts. Athletic program, sport, association, division, coaches, and supported events or positions. Program-specific academic and athletic recruiting criteria. Scholarship or financial-aid information with sources and dates. Optional recruitment opportunity with entry period, need, deadline, and status. Feedback question Which program-level facts change a recruiting decision most often but are usually difficult to find or keep current?
Public project foundation
Summary Create one consistent public identity for REKRUTME with a canonical website, public roadmap, public documentation, and startup profile. Why it matters A project that is still in development needs a clear source of truth. Reviewers and potential pilot participants should be able to understand the product concept, current stage, limitations, next milestones, and official contact channels without finding conflicting descriptions. Included scope Canonical website at rekrutme.team. Public feedback, roadmap, and updates in Featurebase. Public project documentation on GitHub. F6S startup profile. Consistent claims, links, and stage language. Not included Public product accounts. Athlete applications or document uploads. A public beta. Recruiting outcomes or traction claims. Feedback question What information would you need to decide whether REKRUTME is credible enough for a pilot conversation?
Structured athlete profile
Summary Create a profile organized into Personal, Academics, Sports, and Preferences so that an athlete's original information remains structured and understandable. Planned scope Personal and contact information relevant to the recruiting process. Original academic records and grading system. Standardized or language test records with dates and evidence. Sport, events or positions, performances, personal bests, and achievements. College, study, location, division, and scholarship preferences. Completeness and verification indicators. Design principle A normalized value must not replace the original record. The profile should preserve source values, units, dates, documents, and verification status. Open questions Which fields are essential before matching begins? Which fields can remain private until the athlete approves access? How should team sports and qualitative evidence be represented? Feedback question Which profile field is essential for a useful first match, and which common field would create unnecessary collection risk?