Library Reading Challenge Portal Development for Salem Teams

Relevant work: Club 2030 learning and member progress

The published Club 2030 case describes a Hebrew, right-to-left Next.js, React, TypeScript and Supabase platform. Courses, lessons, completion tracking, recordings and scheduled Zoom events sit alongside profiles, forums, messages and administration. Roles and subscription levels control access through Supabase row-level security. The Israel-recorded project demonstrates connected member content and saved progress. It does not document a library reading challenge; campaign entries, household permissions and library staff review would be separately scoped.

• Read the Club 2030 learning-platform case

Name what a reading entry and milestone actually record

Agree whether readers submit a book title, an activity, a time entry or another approved item. Define what the portal records when someone submits it and whether staff review changes its status. A progress marker should describe the action performed in the software. It should not imply independent verification of reading when the product only stores a self-report. Decide how readers correct entries and how repeated actions appear to staff without losing the original campaign context.

• Full stack entry and progress workflows

Maintain campaign rules without losing earlier context

Define how a revised rule affects entries already submitted and what an archived challenge shows to returning readers. Staff need a clear distinction between correcting an entry and changing the campaign itself. Review an unfinished draft after a rule update, plus a reader who joins two challenges. AI accelerates familiar dashboard components and data mapping; engineers review campaign boundaries, saved state and permissions. The library team owns the challenge content, review policy and information shown to participants.

• Next.js reading challenge dashboards
• SaaS member administration

Follow one reading entry across campaign and review states

For a new engagement, bring approved challenge rules, reader and staff roles and sample entries. Proposed acceptance examples: an entry belongs to the intended reader and campaign; a self-reported entry remains distinguishable from staff-reviewed progress; changing a campaign rule follows the approved policy for existing entries; and joining a new challenge does not move earlier entries silently. Include a corrected entry, a repeated submission and an archived campaign. These are proposed library checks, not claims about historical Club 2030 library delivery, reading verification or challenge administration.

A product partner through the next reading campaign

Reader questions and staff review tasks show where entry wording, progress displays and campaign setup need improvement. We work on those findings through a shared backlog and reviewed releases. Monthly AI-accelerated development starts from $2,000, with scope, capacity and operating responsibilities agreed in writing. Curiosive LLC collaborates remotely with Salem teams through agreed Pacific-time review windows, with engineering led from Ankara. The partnership continues as the portal and its recurring programs develop together.

• Long-term development for US organizations
• Monthly engagement terms