didericis-claude
814c7338a1
- Broaden scope from "Claude Code in Docker" to "AI coding agents in isolated sandboxes" - Add SuperHQ (superhq.ai, v0.4.4) as a new adjacent-competitor entry: macOS-only microVM desktop app, overlaps on isolation/credential-proxy/multi-provider but has no manifest layer and no audit logging - Note SuperHQ's user-voiced audit gap (Brian Cheong, Dunialabs.io) and that bot-bottle already covers it - Update differentiation list to reflect three backends (Docker, Apple container, smolmachines) and three built-in providers (Claude Code, Codex, Pi) plus plugin system - Add in-flight directions for forge-native dispatch (#317) and paid web control plane (#327) with honest framing: lifecycle concept is not novel vs. cloud services (Devin, Copilot Workspace); differentiation is self-hosted + manifest-driven + stronger isolation
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.