didericis
cd9f023f3d
`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
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
## Summarynear 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.