`doctor` told users to run `./cli.py backend setup`. cli.py is a four-line
wrapper at the repo root that calls bot_bottle.cli:main, and it does not ship —
[tool.setuptools.packages.find] includes only bot_bottle*, so anyone who
installed rather than cloned has no such file. Confirmed against a real
install: the user's tree contains exactly one executable, `bot-bottle`, and no
cli.py anywhere, while doctor recommended `./cli.py` three times. Invisible in
development, where ./cli.py works fine from a checkout, which is why only a
clean-install test surfaced it.
The two entry points are the same code, so the fix is to name the one that
always exists. 141 replacements across 45 files: the runtime messages that
caused this, plus README, docs, PRDs, research notes and test prose, so nothing
teaches the invocation a user cannot run.
scripts/demo.sh is deliberately untouched — it *executes* ./cli.py from a
checkout, where that is the correct and available path.
Verified end to end: a sandbox install now reports
"Run: bot-bottle backend setup --backend=firecracker", and bot-bottle is on
that user's PATH. Unit suite unchanged against the pre-existing baseline.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEfZZhakx13bxTfXcZCoS5
Adds a research note on whether/how to scan for malicious code (not just
secrets) in commits pushed through the git-gate, and whether the semantic
(LLM) layer is a defensible paid feature.
Verdict: no scanner reliably detects malicious code (undecidable +
adversarial), so the frame is raise-cost + cover-the-obvious + human-gate
the dangerous. Ranked layers: dependency/supply-chain scanning (Socket/OSV/
GuardDog) > heuristic/obfuscation (Semgrep-on-diff) > risk-based human
gating via the existing supervise plane > best-effort LLM diff-review.
Fast scanners inline in the synchronous pre-receive; heavy analysis async.
Monetization: the paid unit is the governed git-egress review bundle
(managed semantic review + web-console human-review flow + RBAC + audit +
cross-run policy), not the raw scanner — which stays OSS like gitleaks.
Extends the egress audit+custody wedge to code artifacts; the supervise
console generalizes across all proposal types (egress, gitleaks, commit
review). Sell the workflow, not the detector's accuracy.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YBCHap11yGAKuKfsehNPaD
didericis