didericis
c69642e568
Re-enables the macos-container backend on the shared per-host orchestrator + gateway, replacing the per-bottle companion container removed in #385. This is the last backend in PRD 0070's roadmap. Apple Container 1.0.0 forced three departures from the docker shape, each verified against the live CLI (findings recorded in the networking spike): - No `--ip`. The address is DHCP-assigned and knowable only once the container runs, so the order inverts: gateway up -> run agent -> read its address -> register. The identity token is minted by registration and therefore cannot be in the agent's run-time env; it rides the proxy URL applied at `container exec` time (bare `--env` names keep it off argv). - No container DNS. The gateway can only be handed the control plane's IP, so the orchestrator starts first and the gateway is pointed at its address. - No `network connect`. Networks are fixed at run time, so the shared host-only network is created up front; per-bottle networks would restart the gateway on every launch and defeat the consolidation. The agent runs with `--cap-drop CAP_NET_RAW`: Apple grants NET_RAW by default, which would let an agent forge a neighbour's source address on the shared segment. NET_ADMIN is already absent, so this closes the source-address half of PRD 0070's attribution invariant. Verified end-to-end on real Apple Container 1.0.0: both images build, the control plane comes up healthy, the gateway reaches it by IP, and a registered agent gets 200 for a host in its routes and 403 for one outside them. Bring-up is idempotent — a second launch does not churn the singletons. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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.