Files
didericis 049103ac99
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 50s
test / integration (pull_request) Successful in 17s
test / coverage (pull_request) Failing after 1m4s
docs: mark smolmachines-specific PRDs + research as superseded
Add a "Superseded (2026-07-11)" banner and flip Status: Active →
Superseded on the 8 smolmachines-specific docs (7 PRDs + the VM-backend
research). Bodies are left intact as a historical record; the banner
points at the removal commit and the landscape doc so a reader isn't
misled into thinking the backend still exists.

Incidental mentions in other PRDs (git-gate, cred-proxy, print-parity,
etc.) are left as-is.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WBMWTEtQdJ4W5UrWuLHCck
2026-07-11 19:09:43 -04:00
..
2026-05-07 22:45:36 -04:00

Research notes

Investigations into a question or a design space — landscape surveys, tradeoff analyses, "should we do X or Y," assessments of an approach before (or instead of) committing it to a PRD. A research note is where the thinking lives; a PRD is where a decided feature lives, and a decision record is where a settled choice lives (see ../README.md for picking between them).

Notes are opinionated. They reach a conclusion rather than dumping a neutral survey — the point is to move a decision forward and leave a durable record of why it went the way it did.

Naming

kebab-case-topic.md, named by subject and not numbered (unlike PRDs and decision records). Pick a name that says what was investigated: bash-vs-python-vs-go.md, pipelock-assessment.md, issue-tracking-vs-in-repo-decision-history.md.

Shape (freeform)

There's no fixed template — use whatever structure fits the question. In practice most notes share a loose shape:

  • Open with the question — a sentence or two on what's being investigated and why it came up.
  • Lead with the verdict — a ## Summary near the top stating the conclusion, so a reader gets the answer without reading the whole thing.
  • Then the analysis — whatever the argument needs: comparison tables, per-option sections, failure-mode walkthroughs, the axes that actually matter.
  • End with a recommendation when the note exists to drive a decision.

Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the "why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.