@hongmaple0820/scale-engine 0.40.1 → 0.43.0

package/docs/AI_ENGINEERING_OS_POSITIONING.md

@@ -1,607 +0,0 @@
-# SCALE Engine Strategic Positioning
-
-> Date: 2026-05-20  
-> Status: strategic direction with a v0.27.0 runtime baseline
-> Audience: maintainers, contributors, roadmap reviewers, and product-facing documentation owners
-
-SCALE Engine should be positioned as an **Agent Governance Runtime** evolving toward an **AI Engineering OS**.
-
-The project is no longer best described as a prompt toolbox. Its durable value is the runtime layer around AI coding agents:
-
-- workflow state machines
-- hard gates and verification evidence
-- hook-based tool interception
-- role and permission boundaries
-- artifact persistence
-- context budgets
-- memory provider routing
-- skill, MCP, CLI, and adapter orchestration
-
-The core thesis is:
-
-> Use system constraints, evidence, and runtime gates to replace agent self-discipline.
-
-This positioning is intentionally stronger than "prompt engineering", but it must stay evidence-backed. SCALE can describe the direction as AI Engineering OS; it should only describe measurable gains after benchmark, eval, or runtime evidence exists.
-
-## Reference Inputs
-
-This document consolidates:
-
-- the current SCALE Engine architecture and documentation surfaces
-- maintainer review of SCALE as an Agent Governance Runtime
-- the external Harness Engineering framing in [SCALE OS v10.0: AI 编码的认知操作系统](https://segmentfault.com/a/1190000047756584)
-
-External performance claims from ecosystem articles are positioning inputs, not SCALE Engine release claims. Public SCALE claims should still be backed by local evals, runtime evidence, or release reports.
-
-## 1. Market Category
-
-SCALE sits between four emerging categories:
-
-| Category | SCALE relationship |
-| --- | --- |
-| AI Engineering OS | Long-term positioning: one governed operating layer for agent-driven engineering |
-| Agent Governance Runtime | Current strongest fit: gates, hooks, evidence, role boundaries, and policy enforcement |
-| Workflow Orchestration Runtime | Current fit: FSM, phase commands, artifacts, verification, and ship flow |
-| Harness Engineering Infrastructure | Methodology fit: constraints + feedback + workflow + continuous improvement |
-
-SCALE should avoid being framed as only:
-
-- prompt templates
-- agent rules
-- a Claude/Cursor/Codex config generator
-- an AutoGPT-style chain executor
-- a generic skills catalog
-
-Those may exist around the project, but they are not the core defensible layer.
-
-## 2. Problem Definition
-
-AI coding failures are not only model-quality failures. They are engineering runtime failures:
-
-| Failure mode | Typical prompt-only response | SCALE response |
-| --- | --- | --- |
-| Fake completion | "Please verify before finishing" | verification gates and final evidence checks |
-| Skipped tests | reminder text | FSM and verification status before completion |
-| Repeated blind retries | "try a different approach" | retry and behavior detectors |
-| Context overload | longer instructions | context budgets, lazy loading, scoped packs |
-| Agent drift | more rules | persisted workflow state and phase boundaries |
-| Hallucinated delivery | review prompt | runtime evidence ledger and ship gates |
-| Lost learning | chat history | memory artifacts, failure replay, lessons, rule candidates |
-| Multi-agent confusion | role descriptions | role gateway and tool permission boundaries |
-| Tool overreach | trust agent judgment | hook interception and policy gateway |
-
-The strategic target is not to make the model "more obedient". The target is to make non-compliant behavior observable, blockable, and recoverable.
-
-## 3. Current Strengths
-
-### 3.1 Runtime Constraints
-
-SCALE already has the right architectural instinct: lower critical rules from prompt text into runtime checks.
-
-Relevant surfaces:
-
-- `docs/ENGINEERING_STANDARDS.md`
-- `docs/RUNTIME_EVIDENCE.md`
-- `docs/DEPENDENCY_AUDIT.md`
-- `src/workflow/gates/GateSystem.ts`
-- `src/guardrails/Gateway.ts`
-- `src/artifact/fsm.ts`
-
-This is the primary moat. Prompt rules can be ignored; runtime gates can block progress.
-
-### 3.2 Workflow State Machine
-
-The workflow is driven by artifact state, not by chat momentum.
-
-Strategic value:
-
-- prevents premature completion
-- forces phase-specific evidence
-- makes stalled or skipped phases visible
-- supports resume and handoff across long sessions
-- gives agent platforms a shared lifecycle model
-
-The FSM should remain strict at phase boundaries and flexible inside each phase.
-
-### 3.3 Hook and Gateway Layer
-
-Hooks, pre-tool checks, post-tool checks, stop checks, and role-aware gateway decisions form the AI runtime interceptor layer.
-
-Strategic value:
-
-- agents do not receive raw, unlimited tool authority
-- unsafe operations can be blocked before execution
-- tool output can be converted into evidence
-- repeated failure patterns can be detected outside the model
-
-This layer makes SCALE closer to an admission controller than a prompt pack.
-
-### 3.4 Evidence-Backed Delivery
-
-SCALE's strongest anti-hallucination capability is engineering hallucination control:
-
-- no test evidence means no verified claim
-- no runtime evidence means no product-smoke claim
-- no reviewed file scope means no governed ship
-- no dependency audit evidence means weaker security confidence
-
-This reduces fake completion more reliably than instruction text.
-
-It does not fully solve reasoning hallucination. Architecture decisions, root-cause analysis, and technical tradeoffs still need evaluator intelligence.
-
-### 3.5 Adapter and Platform Surface
-
-The agent-platform adapters let SCALE act as a shared governance layer for different coding agents.
-
-Strategic value:
-
-- one governance model across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, Windsurf, Kiro, Cline, and related tools
-- fewer duplicated rule files
-- lower switching cost between agents
-- consistent evidence and workflow semantics
-
-Adapter expansion should not become the main roadmap by itself. The strategic value comes from shared governance semantics, not from the count of supported agents.
-
-## 4. Honest Capability Assessment
-
-SCALE can already claim:
-
-- stronger engineering governance than prompt-only rules
-- structured workflow execution with phase and artifact state
-- hard verification gates for delivery claims
-- evidence-based runtime reporting
-- first-class supply-chain audit direction
-- growing adapter coverage
-- memory and skill orchestration foundations
-
-SCALE should not yet overclaim:
-
-- fully autonomous self-evolution
-- human-level long-term memory
-- guaranteed token reduction percentages
-- guaranteed hallucination reduction percentages
-- adaptive cognitive planning
-- universal skill routing intelligence
-
-Use target ranges only in roadmap or evaluation documents, not as product claims, until eval evidence supports them.
-
-## 5. Current Gaps
-
-### 5.1 Memory Architecture
-
-Current state is closer to engineering knowledge persistence than true cognitive memory.
-
-Existing strengths:
-
-- artifacts persist decisions and work state
-- memory brain stores evidence-backed learnings
-- failure replay can preserve incidents
-- provider routing gives the right extension point
-
-Missing layers:
-
-| Memory type | Target meaning |
-| --- | --- |
-| Working memory | short-lived task context with strict token budget |
-| Episodic memory | past task episodes, failures, fixes, and outcomes |
-| Semantic memory | stable project facts and domain concepts |
-| Procedural memory | reusable ways of doing work |
-| Strategy memory | learned routing, verification, and recovery strategies |
-
-The next memory work should focus on provider-backed retrieval quality, not more local file accumulation.
-
-### 5.2 Context Compiler
-
-SCALE has context structure and budgets. It does not yet have a full context compiler.
-
-Current capability:
-
-- categorize context
-- budget context
-- lazy-load selected material
-- assemble role/task-specific packs
-
-Target capability:
-
-- rank relevance
-- slice semantically
-- compress adaptively
-- route retrieval by task intent
-- explain why each context item was included
-- measure token saved vs evidence lost
-
-This is the highest-leverage path for token reduction.
-
-### 5.3 Adaptive Workflow
-
-The current workflow is mostly rule-driven.
-
-The target workflow should adapt based on:
-
-- task risk
-- code ownership boundaries
-- prior failure rate
-- changed-file blast radius
-- missing evidence
-- tool reliability
-- agent capability confidence
-
-The system should not make every task heavy. It should apply stricter gates when risk rises and keep small documentation or config changes lightweight.
-
-### 5.4 Skill Routing Intelligence
-
-SCALE already models skills, MCP, CLI, browser, desktop automation, and evidence requirements.
-
-The missing layer is strategy:
-
-- when to call a skill
-- why that skill is preferred
-- what evidence it must produce
-- what to do when it fails
-- when to switch to MCP or CLI
-- when to avoid tool use entirely
-
-Skill routing should become a planned execution graph, not an ad hoc recommendation list.
-
-### 5.5 Evaluator Intelligence
-
-Current gates are strong for engineering completion, but weaker for reasoning quality.
-
-Needed evaluator layers:
-
-- critique loop for architecture and root cause
-- uncertainty scoring
-- adversarial review on high-risk changes
-- tradeoff comparison
-- failure hypothesis ranking
-- "evidence is insufficient" verdicts
-
-This is the path to reducing reasoning hallucination rather than only delivery hallucination.
-
-### 5.6 Self-Optimization Loop
-
-Evolution should mean more than summarizing lessons.
-
-The target loop:
-
-```text
-failure evidence
-  -> defect record
-  -> root-cause classification
-  -> lesson candidate
-  -> rule candidate
-  -> hook or gate proposal
-  -> shadow validation
-  -> regression check
-  -> promoted governance behavior
-```
-
-The promotion step must remain evidence-backed. Automatically generating rules without validation risks turning mistakes into permanent friction.
-
-## 6. Roadmap Direction
-
-### 6.1 Planning Principle
-
-The roadmap has release horizons plus a long-range vision:
-
-| Horizon | Purpose | Claim boundary |
-| --- | --- | --- |
-| 0.27.x baseline | establish the AI OS Runtime primitives and adoption path | "runtime baseline", not "complete AI OS" |
-| 0.28.0 closure | make planning, execution, verification, dashboard, benchmark, and adoption usable as a closed loop | "usable closed-loop beta", not "stable final OS" |
-| 0.29.0 intelligence | make memory, context, and skill routing measurably smarter | "intelligence beta", not proven long-term cognition |
-| 0.30.0 governance maturity | strengthen enterprise governance, upgrade, evaluator, and evolution controls | "governance maturity", not commercial stability |
-| 1.0.0 beta | integrate the loop into a public AI Engineering OS beta | "public beta", backed by demos and benchmark evidence |
-| Long-range vision | keep SCALE moving toward an AI Engineering OS with memory, context, governance, and tool intelligence | directional until backed by eval data |
-
-The near-term work should be aggressive, but public wording must stay precise. SCALE can ship beta capabilities quickly; it should only claim stable, industry-leading AI OS behavior after repeated project evidence, benchmarks, and upgrade validation.
-
-### 6.2 0.27.0: Cognitive Runtime Layer
-
-Theme: make context, memory, and skill use more intelligent and explainable.
-
-Core work:
-
-| Module | Outcome |
-| --- | --- |
-| Context Compiler | relevance-ranked, budgeted, explainable context packs |
-| Memory Provider Runtime | gbrain, agentmemory, code memory, and local memory as provider choices |
-| Skill Routing Engine | task-intent routing with evidence requirements and fallback decisions |
-| Governance ROI | quantify token cost, evidence quality, and gate friction |
-
-Implemented baseline in v0.27.0:
-
-```bash
-scale ai-os plan \
-  --task-id TASK-123 \
-  --task "Fix OAuth callback auth token handling and verify browser flow" \
-  --level L \
-  --files src/auth/oauth.ts,src/ui/callback.tsx \
-  --budget 8000 \
-  --json
-```
-
-The command returns one runtime plan containing:
-
-- `governance`: progressive mode, risk signals, required behaviors
-- `context`: Context Compiler ranking, included sections, omitted sections, token savings
-- `memory`: provider order, selected providers, fallback status, recalled items, memory context pack
-- `skillPlan`: detected intents plus executable skill/artifact/verification steps
-- `adaptiveWorkflow`: risk-adaptive gates and exit criteria for the task
-- `roi`: benefit and overhead modules for context, memory, skill routing, and governance
-
-Exit criteria:
-
-- each context item has an inclusion reason: baseline implemented by `ContextCompiler`
-- memory recall has provider, score, and evidence source: baseline implemented by Memory Provider Router
-- skill recommendations include why, when, and required proof: baseline implemented by skill execution plans
-- context pack generation reports token budget and omissions: baseline implemented by `context.pack.compiler`
-
-### 6.3 0.27.x: Runtime Baseline and Adoption Path
-
-Theme: make the AI OS Runtime installable, inspectable, and safe to adopt.
-
-Current landing status:
-
-- `scale ai-os plan` exists as the unified planning entry point for governance, context, memory, skill routing, adaptive workflow, and ROI.
-- `scale ai-os run --dry-run` exists as the first beta execution slice.
-- `scale ai-os run --mode guarded --verify "<command>"` executes explicit verification commands through the safe command runner, records each command as runtime evidence, and blocks the run when verification fails.
-- `scale ai-os status --lang zh|en` checks runtime directories, plan/run evidence, guarded verification, dashboard health, benchmark evidence, and adoption evidence in one closed-loop readiness report; when verification evidence is missing, it recommends concrete guarded verification commands from `.scale/verification.json` or `package.json`.
-- `scale ai-os dashboard` summarizes persisted run reports into ready/blocked counts, guarded verification health, pending evidence, failure learning candidates, and next recommendations.
-- `scale ai-os benchmark` runs fixed beta scenarios and reports context token use, estimated savings, memory recall, skill steps, governance modes, and the current dashboard health snapshot.
-- `scale ai-os migrate` creates or verifies the `.scale/ai-os` runtime directories and writes an idempotent migration report.
-- `scale ai-os adopt` runs migrate, the first dry-run, benchmark, and doctor as one adoption path, then writes `.scale/ai-os/adoption.json`.
-- `scale ai-os doctor --lang zh|en` checks AI OS runtime readiness without mutating the project and blocks adoption when required directories or dashboard health are broken.
-- `scale upgrade check/plan` includes AI OS readiness, so existing projects see adoption, migration, and doctor steps through the normal upgrade workflow.
-- The upgrade and adoption CLI surfaces now have human-facing Chinese and English output while preserving JSON for scripts, CI, and agent integrations.
-
-Boundary:
-
-- 0.27.x is the baseline. It proves the runtime surface and adoption path, but it does not yet prove autonomous source mutation, PR creation, long-term memory, or stable commercial AI OS behavior.
-
-### 6.4 0.28.0: Usable Closed-Loop Enhancement
-
-Theme: turn `ai-os plan` into a runnable beta loop.
-
-Target timebox: 2-3 weeks.
-
-Core work:
-
-| Module | Outcome |
-| --- | --- |
-| `scale ai-os run` | execute the unified plan through workflow, context, memory, skill routing, and verification steps |
-| Runtime Status | show whether plan, run, verification, dashboard, benchmark, adoption, and doctor evidence exist for the project |
-| Verification Recommendation | derive suggested verification commands from task level, changed files, project verification profile, and risk signals |
-| Failure Learning Closure | convert failed guarded runs, gate failures, and missing evidence into reviewed lesson/rule candidates |
-| Closed-Loop Demo Pack | provide repeatable docs and code task demos that exercise plan -> run -> verify -> dashboard -> benchmark |
-| Memory Provider Bridge | keep gbrain, agentmemory, code memory, and local memory selectable through one provider contract |
-| Context Compiler v2 | merge task intent, risk level, files, memory recall, and role into one explainable context pack |
-| Skill Router v2 | create an execution graph for skills, MCP tools, CLIs, artifacts, and required evidence |
-| Adaptive Workflow Profiles | choose light, standard, or strict gates from risk and changed-file signals |
-| AI OS Dashboard CLI | summarize gate health, memory hits, context budget, skill evidence, and ROI |
-| Upgrade/Migration | migrate older `.scale` state and warn about incompatible local governance files |
-| AI OS Adoption and Doctor | keep one-command adoption and readiness checks aligned with the normal upgrade workflow |
-| Bilingual DX | keep key CLI help, errors, README guidance, and tutorials readable in Chinese and English |
-| Benchmark Pack | run fixed samples for token budget, recall, gate pass rate, and skill-routing evidence |
-
-Exit criteria:
-
-- `scale ai-os run` can complete at least one documentation task and one code task in dry-run or guarded execution mode
-- `scale ai-os status` or equivalent doctor output shows what is missing for a closed loop
-- verification recommendations are explainable and can be overridden by explicit `--verify` commands
-- execution output records context decisions, memory provider choices, skill decisions, gate results, and failure lessons
-- benchmark output compares context token budget against a full-load baseline
-- beta docs clearly state what is automated, what is proposed, and what still requires human approval
-
-Current implementation status:
-
-- In progress on the post-0.27.1 development branch.
-- Runtime baseline, status visibility, verification recommendation, adoption, doctor, dashboard, benchmark, migration, upgrade integration, and bilingual adoption guidance are already landed.
-- Remaining 0.28.0 work should focus on failure-learning closure and repeatable end-to-end demo evidence.
-- It does not yet create PRs or mutate source files; richer skill execution remains a later implementation slice unless explicitly approved.
-
-Explicitly deferred:
-
-- default automatic PR creation or merge without review
-- deep dynamic dependency sandboxing beyond audit, lockfile diff, and high-risk pattern checks
-- full VLM visual judgment beyond screenshot capture and interface placeholders
-- claims of human-level long-term memory or fully autonomous engineering
-
-### 6.5 0.29.0: Memory, Context, and Skill Intelligence
-
-Theme: make the beta loop measurably smarter rather than only broader.
-
-Target timebox: 4-6 weeks.
-
-Core work:
-
-| Module | Outcome |
-| --- | --- |
-| Memory Quality Scoring | score recall precision, contradiction risk, accepted memory rate, and stale-memory risk |
-| Provider Fallback Policy | choose between gbrain, agentmemory, code memory, local memory, or no memory with an explicit reason |
-| Context Compression | summarize low-risk context while preserving high-risk evidence verbatim |
-| Skill Strategy Learning | learn preferred tools from successful evidence, failures, and user overrides |
-| Workflow Eval Integration | turn benchmark results into release-gate evidence |
-
-Current first slice:
-
-- `scale ai-os status --json` now includes an `intelligence` report with `memory-recall`, `context-savings`, `skill-routing`, and `benchmark-intelligence` signals; memory recall includes a quality score based on confidence, relevance, and evidence-backed items.
-- Context intelligence now reports `contextQuality` with omitted sections, total omitted tokens, compression risk, and evidence-loss warnings when runtime evidence is dropped by budget constraints.
-- Human `scale ai-os status --lang zh|en` output surfaces the same intelligence readiness summary so release reviewers can see whether 0.29.0 memory/context/skill gains are backed by run and benchmark evidence.
-
-Exit criteria:
-
-- memory recall has acceptance/rejection feedback
-- context packs show savings, omissions, and evidence-loss warnings
-- skill routing decisions can be compared against outcome quality
-- release notes include measured deltas instead of aspirational percentages
-
-### 6.6 0.30.0: Enterprise Governance and Upgrade Maturity
-
-Theme: deepen adaptive governance beyond the v0.27.0 baseline.
-
-Target timebox: 6-10 weeks.
-
-Core work:
-
-| Module | Outcome |
-| --- | --- |
-| Adaptive Workflow Router | production policy controls for dynamic gate profiles beyond the v0.27.0 planning output |
-| Evaluator Intelligence | critique and uncertainty gates for architecture/root-cause work |
-| Tool Strategy Planner | cost, retry, fallback, and evidence graph for tools |
-| Evolution Shadow Promotion | lessons become rules only after validation |
-
-Current first slice:
-
-- `scale ai-os plan` now emits `evaluator` intelligence with strategy `evaluator-intelligence-v1`, required gates, risk level, uncertainty score, drivers, and recommendations.
-- Architecture, root-cause, security, and release-risk tasks can automatically add `architecture-critique`, `root-cause-review`, `security-threat-model`, `release-readiness-review`, and `uncertainty-decision-log` gates to the adaptive workflow.
-- `scale ai-os run` carries evaluator gates into the executable step list and evidence requirements, so reasoning-heavy work cannot be represented as a plain low-friction run.
-- `scale ai-os status` now includes an `evaluator-intelligence` signal plus evaluator gate count and average uncertainty for release and milestone review.
-- `scale ai-os plan` now emits `toolStrategy` with strategy `tool-strategy-v1`, converting skill, artifact, and verification steps into a cost, retry, fallback, side-effect, and evidence graph.
-- `scale ai-os status` now includes a `tool-strategy` signal plus tool step count, estimated cost units, high-risk step count, and fallback coverage.
-
-Exit criteria:
-
-- small tasks can stay lightweight with evidence
-- risky tasks escalate automatically
-- reasoning-heavy tasks get critique/evaluator gates
-- evolution proposals can be traced to failure evidence and validation results
-
-### 6.7 1.0.0 Beta: AI Engineering OS
-
-Theme: integrate governance, memory, context, and tools into an operating layer.
-
-Target timebox: 8-12 weeks.
-
-Target capabilities:
-
-- unified agent workspace policy
-- provider-neutral memory and code intelligence
-- cross-agent execution ledger
-- adaptive workflow templates
-- measurable token and quality reports
-- ecosystem-safe skill and MCP lifecycle governance
-
-Release criteria:
-
-- install, upgrade, run, dashboard, benchmark, and migration flows work on clean projects
-- at least three representative project types have documented smoke results
-- failure learning produces reviewed rule candidates without silently hardening bad rules
-- bilingual docs explain the core workflow without requiring maintainer context
-- public claims are tied to `WORKFLOW_EVAL`, benchmark output, or release evidence
-
-### 6.8 1.0.0 Stable and Long-Range Vision
-
-This is the strategic north star, not the 0.28.0 closed-loop promise.
-
-| Time horizon | Target state | Evidence required before public claim |
-| --- | --- | --- |
-| 8-12 weeks | AI Engineering OS beta: usable end-to-end loop across planning, execution, verification, memory, and dashboard | repeatable demo projects and benchmark reports |
-| 3-6 months | stable governance runtime: upgrades, adapters, memory providers, and eval gates are reliable in real repositories | release-to-release regression data and field reports |
-| 6-12 months | industry-leading agent engineering layer: adaptive workflows, strategy memory, tool intelligence, and cross-agent governance mature together | comparative evals, sustained issue closure, external adoption evidence |
-
-Long-range capability themes:
-
-- Cognitive memory: working, episodic, semantic, procedural, and strategy memory with explicit source and freshness controls.
-- Adaptive orchestration: workflows selected by risk, ownership, failure history, and tool reliability instead of one fixed path.
-- Tool intelligence: skills, MCP, CLIs, browser automation, and agent adapters treated as governed capabilities with cost, evidence, and fallback policy.
-- Evaluator intelligence: critique loops, uncertainty scoring, adversarial review, and evidence insufficiency verdicts for reasoning-heavy tasks.
-- Governance economics: token cost, gate friction, verification quality, and maintenance overhead measured as first-class product metrics.
-- Ecosystem governance: external skills, memory providers, adapters, and templates integrated through attribution, license, source pinning, and supply-chain checks.
-
-Non-negotiable boundary:
-
-> The long-range vision can guide architecture, but it must not be used as a release claim until the corresponding evidence exists.
-
-## 7. Measurement Plan
-
-Strategic claims must be tied to measurement.
-
-| Claim | Required metric |
-| --- | --- |
-| Fewer fake completions | final-check failure rate before/after gates |
-| Fewer skipped steps | FSM blocked transition count and successful recovery rate |
-| Fewer blind retries | repeated-command detector hits and fix iteration count |
-| Lower token use | context pack token count vs baseline full-context load |
-| Better memory | recall precision, accepted memory rate, contradiction count |
-| Better skill use | recommended skill acceptance rate and evidence completion rate |
-| Better workflow quality | pass@1, average fix iterations, failure replay closure rate |
-| Safer dependencies | dependency audit block count and reviewed baseline count |
-
-Target ranges can be tracked internally, but public claims should use measured values from `WORKFLOW_EVAL`, runtime evidence, or release reports.
-
-## 8. Messaging Rules
-
-Use:
-
-- "Agent Governance Runtime"
-- "AI Engineering OS direction"
-- "runtime constraints instead of prompt-only discipline"
-- "evidence-backed workflow gates"
-- "provider-based memory and context orchestration"
-
-Avoid:
-
-- "fully autonomous engineer"
-- "guaranteed 90% AI coding rate"
-- "eliminates hallucination"
-- "zero human governance"
-- "universal memory"
-- "all tools are safe by default"
-
-The product message should be ambitious, but the engineering message must stay falsifiable.
-
-## 9. Non-Goals
-
-SCALE should not try to own every layer.
-
-Non-goals:
-
-- replacing all agent platforms
-- building a full IDE
-- becoming a generic automation shell
-- implementing every memory backend internally
-- copying external skills without attribution
-- turning every task into heavyweight enterprise ceremony
-
-The correct posture is:
-
-> Govern agent engineering work, integrate external capability providers, and require evidence at the boundaries.
-
-## 10. Documentation Placement
-
-Recommended documentation split:
-
-| Surface | Content |
-| --- | --- |
-| `README.md` / `README.en.md` | concise positioning, installation, core value, current capabilities |
-| `docs/AI_ENGINEERING_OS_POSITIONING.md` | strategic category, gaps, roadmap, messaging rules |
-| `docs/CONTEXT_BUDGET.md` | context budget and compiler mechanics |
-| `docs/MEMORY_BRAIN.md` / `docs/MEMORY_FABRIC.md` | memory provider and recall behavior |
-| `docs/SKILL_RADAR.md` / `docs/TOOL_ORCHESTRATION.md` | skill and tool routing behavior |
-| `docs/WORKFLOW_EVAL.md` | measurable evidence and improvement claims |
-
-README should not absorb this whole strategy. It should link here and keep the first screen user-focused.
-
-## 11. Strategic Summary
-
-SCALE's strongest current differentiator is not more prompts. It is a runtime governance model for AI engineering:
-
-```text
-Agent intent
-  -> governed workflow state
-  -> scoped context
-  -> role/tool policy
-  -> evidence-producing execution
-  -> verification gates
-  -> memory and evolution feedback
-```
-
-The next stage is to make this runtime more cognitive:
-
-- compile context, do not just load it
-- route memory, do not just store it
-- plan skill use, do not just recommend it
-- adapt workflow, do not just enforce one path
-- validate evolution, do not just summarize lessons
-
-If these are implemented with measurable evidence, SCALE can credibly move from "AI workflow engine" to "AI Engineering OS".

package/docs/BACKGROUND_HUNTER.md

@@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
-# Background Hunter
-
-Background Hunter is the readonly proactive scan layer for SCALE Engine V2.
-It turns existing governance signals into an actionable hunt queue without editing application code.
-
-## Boundary
-
-Default behavior is intentionally conservative:
-
-- scan only, no automatic code changes
-- no automatic LLM repair
-- no automatic commit or pull request
-- no release bypass
-- ignore decisions are explicit and written to `.scale/hunt/ignored-findings.json`
-
-The hunter reuses existing checks instead of creating a second rule system. The first implementation consumes:
-
-- `EngineeringStandards`
-- `ReviewAnalyzer` when status and diff input are provided by callers
-
-## Commands
-
-```bash
-scale hunt scan
-scale hunt scan --json
-scale hunt report
-scale hunt diagnose <finding-id>
-scale hunt ignore <finding-id> --reason "Accepted legacy debt tracked elsewhere"
-```
-
-`hunt scan` and `hunt report` do not modify source files. They classify findings as `open` or `ignored`.
-
-`hunt diagnose <finding-id>` creates a normal `DiagnosticLoop` from the finding. This keeps the debugging workflow evidence-first:
-
-- reproducible command
-- expected failure
-- changed files
-- verification commands
-- hypotheses and cleanup checklist
-
-`hunt ignore` records the finding id and stable fingerprint. The same finding will remain visible in the report as `ignored`, but it is removed from the open queue.
-
-## Finding Identity
-
-Every finding gets:
-
-- `id`: short deterministic SHA-256 id derived from the fingerprint
-- `fingerprint`: stable source/rule/path/line/message tuple
-- `source`: currently `engineering-standards` or `review-analyzer`
-- `diagnosticInput`: ready-to-use `DiagnosticLoopInput`
-
-This allows repeated scans to avoid noisy duplicates and lets teams explicitly accept or defer known debt.
-
-## Recommended Flow
-
-1. Run `scale hunt scan --json`.
-2. Triage open findings.
-3. For real issues, run `scale hunt diagnose <finding-id> --json`.
-4. Fix through the normal plan/TDD/verify workflow.
-5. For accepted legacy debt, run `scale hunt ignore <finding-id> --reason "..."`
-
-Do not promote Background Hunter to automatic repair until the project has enough evidence that its findings are stable and low-noise.