The project started life as bash scripts and got rewritten to Python
(documented in docs/research/bash-vs-python-vs-go.md). Several docs
still carried the old "bash-first" framing — misleading for anyone
reading them now (8.7k lines of Python vs. ~130 lines of bash, all
in scripts/demo*.sh).
- CLAUDE.md "What this is" + "Conventions": orchestrator is Python,
posture is stdlib-first.
- docs/prds/0010-cred-proxy.md, docs/research/manifest-format-and-
grouping.md: quoted CLAUDE.md's old wording — re-quote.
- docs/research/built-in-supervisor-design.md, landscape-containerized-
claude.md, agent-sandbox-landscape.md, pipelock-assessment.md,
network-egress-guard.md: drop "bash-first" claims about the project,
keep accurate descriptions of external tools' bash usage.
Leaves untouched: bash code-fence syntax in examples, README's
literal `bash scripts/demo.sh` invocation (the demo IS bash),
Claude Code's "Bash tool" references, IVIJL/devbox bash description
(that project actually is bash), and the bash-vs-python-vs-go
research note that records the rewrite decision.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Captures the two open questions surfaced by PRD 0011: should bottles and agents stay grouped in one file or split per file, and should the format stay JSON or move to YAML / MD-with-frontmatter.
Recommends per-file MD-with-frontmatter (with agents shaped close to Claude Code's subagent spec so they can drop into ~/.claude/agents/ as a side effect), explicitly flags the PyYAML runtime dependency as a user-decision crossing the project's "low deps by default" line, and leaves several other choices (hidden dotdir vs visible, migration tooling) as open questions.
Companion to docs/prds/0011-cwd-manifest-trust-boundary.md (which solves the trust problem at the resolver layer); this doc explores a structural alternative that would make the boundary self-documenting on disk.
didericis