didericis
aa224c4381
Adds CubeSandbox (Tencent Cloud, Apache 2.0, RustVMM/KVM microVM) to the agent-sandbox landscape survey: per-project note, comparison-table column, and a dated addendum on what it means for positioning. CubeSandbox is the first surveyed project to bundle a connection-level egress allowlist + audit + in-flight credential custody, but it does NOT do content DLP on authorized channels — that plus the orchestration layer is where bot-bottle stays distinctive. Also corrects two stale self-descriptions the survey (2026-05-11) baked in and I'd propagated: - Default isolation is now a VM per bottle (Firecracker microVM on KVM Linux, Apple Container on macOS); Docker is only the legacy fallback, per _default_backend_name(). Was described as Docker-by-default. - Outbound DLP is bot-bottle's own mitmproxy egress scanner + gitleaks on git push, not pipelock (removed). All references updated; a note records the change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01YBCHap11yGAKuKfsehNPaD
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.