vision: describe the ecosystem by capability model, not named tools - #17
Merged
Conversation
The vision credits peers via docs/README.md rather than naming tools by their gaps; the build-vs-assemble argument stays.
Kiran01bm
marked this pull request as ready for review
August 7, 2026 01:15
Kiran01bm
requested review from
JashLal,
aparajon,
eeSeeGee,
jayjanssen,
jemiahw and
morgo
as code owners
August 7, 2026 01:15
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Rewords the "Where the existing ecosystem stops" section of the vision to describe the
ecosystem by capability model (declarative diff-and-plan, expand/contract, online repack,
versioned-file frameworks) instead of naming peer tools and calling out their gaps.
What
docs/vision.mdonly: the named-tool bullet list becomes two prose paragraphs; peer toolsstay credited where they already are —
docs/README.mdnames them as the sources thisengine deliberately mines. The build-vs-assemble argument and the link to the recorded
diff-engine decision are unchanged.
Why
The project's standing position is to credit peer tools, not frame them by their
weaknesses — the flagship vision doc especially. The named comparison landed in #2's
review follow-ups and contradicted that; this restores it while keeping the reviewer's
ask (an explicit argument for building rather than assembling) intact.