didericis
d2081839c9
Fold in the forge-native angle: the git forge (GitHub/GitLab/Gitea) as the orchestrator, with bot-bottle as the safe runtime it launches into. Same moat (custody + audit + policy), better vehicle — the forge supplies identity, state, triggers, review, audit, and permissions for free, and lands the product where teams already live. Adds: the crowding map (generic 50-100+ vs forge-native ~10-30 vs self-hostable-least-priv-audited single digits); the GitHub/GitLab first-party trap and why to lead Gitea + sovereignty buyers; the buyer reconciliation (self-hosted-forge compliance orgs); a moat-vs-cost split of the "hard parts"; run-provenance-on-every-PR as the killer feature; the `@bot-bottle fix this` MVP riding the headless primitive; and two forge-specific risks. Sources for the forge landscape noted as conversation-provided, not independently re-verified. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NkwFXLFff9PYPy4wgVBJp9
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.