didericis
898b6350bc
Captures the four-turn working-through of the monetization line under the forge-as-orchestrator shape: - The orchestrator IS the control plane and can be closed/private from day one; the runtime stays OSS. - Charge for the moat (see-inside-the-run + cross-run aggregation), not the webhook/orchestration plumbing the forge vendors build free. - Heuristic: single-run/single-node = free; cross-run aggregation + central enforcement + identity/fleet = paid (== individual vs team). - Provenance: emit signed provenance via a free API (tamper-evident offline, BYO-SIEM); sell retention/search/policy. Forge footer is an optional off-by-default consumer, not the audit record. - On-prem priority: self-hosted runners > self-hosted provenance; sell the governed fleet, not a single runner (which is just the free runtime). - Fly = metered capacity line, not the moat; self-host == same closed control plane licensed, not a separate product. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WL77TgFxKbs3cidGMG9dz7
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.