loki-mode 9.50.2 → 9.50.3

package/docs/COMPETITIVE-INTEL-2026-09.md

@@ -0,0 +1,444 @@
+# Competitive intel, 30 days to 2026-09-14
+
+Window: **2026-08-15 to 2026-09-14**. Every claim below carries a URL or a
+file:line. Anything without one is in the UNVERIFIED section at the bottom and
+is deliberately excluded from the ranked list.
+
+**Prior document.** `docs/COMPETITIVE-NEXT-10.md` was written 2026-09-09 and is
+the same shape of deliverable (ranked build list vs factory.ai and 8090, with
+already-exists verdicts). This document does NOT supersede it. It covers what is
+new since it, and every ranked item below states whether it is a NEXT-10 item or
+not. Re-proposing a NEXT-10 open item as a fresh discovery would be this repo's
+signature failure committed at the document level rather than the item level.
+
+**Evidence labelling used throughout:**
+
+- `[measured]` - a command run against this repo on 2026-09-14, output quoted.
+- `[sourced: URL]` - a page actually fetched on 2026-09-14.
+- `vendor-claimed` - the vendor's own page or blog. Evidence that a CLAIM exists,
+  not that the capability works.
+- `UNVERIFIED` - could not be cited. Never ranked.
+
+---
+
+## 1. What genuinely shipped in the window (2026-08-15 to 2026-09-14)
+
+### Factory.ai
+
+**Aug 27, 2026 - "What it Takes for Coding Agents to Complete Large Software
+Tasks"** [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/what-it-takes-for-coding-agents-to-complete-large-software-tasks]
+
+The most strategically relevant thing any competitor published in this window.
+Factory argues a single agent validating its own work stops early with "much of
+the outcome absent", and reports that splitting the run into orchestrator /
+implementer / validator separated by an information barrier they call **"the
+wall"** produces large gains. The validator authors an independent measurement
+instrument BEFORE implementation begins, so the implementer cannot tailor work to
+visible test cases.
+
+Numbers, all **vendor-claimed**, on ProgramBench (partial-credit behavioral
+parity, not pass/fail):
+
+| Subject | Single agent | With the wall |
+|---|---|---|
+| GDAL | 36% | 90% |
+| 7-Zip | 54% | 95% |
+| DuckDB | 34% | 80% |
+| Fable 5 median, 24 tasks | 56.7% | 89.3% |
+| Kimi K3 median | 45.1% | 75.4% |
+| GPT-5.6-Sol median | 48.6% | 66.2% |
+
+Note on reading these: ProgramBench's own paper reports that "none fully resolve
+any task" [sourced: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.03546]. That is NOT a
+contradiction of Factory's figures - ProgramBench scores partial behavioral
+parity, so a high median partial score and zero fully-resolved tasks are
+compatible. Treat the table as vendor-claimed on a partial-credit metric.
+
+**Sep 1, 2026 - CLI v0.209.0** [sourced: https://docs.factory.ai/changelog/release-notes]
+Default model for new sessions became GPT-5.6 Sol. Session archiving.
+
+**Aug 17 - Sep 1, 2026 - changelog band** [sourced: same]
+Roughly twenty releases. Read in bulk, it is overwhelmingly **UI and session
+polish**, not capability: diff line wrapping, sidebar width persistence, session
+search speed, model-list search box, voice dictation accuracy, markdown tables,
+mermaid rendering. Three items have substance: `droid doctor` for connectivity
+diagnostics (Aug 25), the explorer droid gaining every read-only tool (Aug 18),
+and org admins being able to disable image generation (Aug 21).
+
+**Sep 9, 2026 - Factory listed on Claude Marketplace**
+[sourced: https://factory.ai/news/claude-marketplace]
+Enterprises can spend existing Anthropic commitments on Factory, removing a
+separate procurement cycle. This is a **distribution and procurement** move, not
+an engineering one. It is ranked separately below for that reason.
+
+### Frontier models
+
+**Sep 3, 2026 - GPT-6 Astra** [sourced: https://openai.com/index/gpt-6-astra/,
+https://simonwillison.net/2026/Sep/3/gpt6-astra/]. Closed multimodal reasoning
+model; headline upgrade is native computer use.
+
+**Claude Fable 5.1** - released in the window per
+[sourced: https://patmcguinness.substack.com/p/claude-fable-51-gpt-6-astra-and-the].
+Exact date not established from a primary Anthropic source; see UNVERIFIED.
+
+**Meta Muse Spark 1.3** - named in the same roundup as one of five models pushing
+efficiency at lower cost. Secondary source only; see UNVERIFIED.
+
+### Independent / community signal
+
+**Verification is now the named bottleneck.** Multiple September HN digests
+converge on the same sentence: the constraint is no longer generation speed but
+verification capacity
+[sourced: https://www.developersdigest.tech/blog/what-hacker-news-gets-right-about-ai-coding-agents-2026].
+This is the market moving toward this repo's stated wedge, not away from it.
+
+**Docket** (github.com/yielab/docket) [sourced: https://github.com/yielab/docket]
+is the closest direct competitor to the receipt. It gives every AI-written commit
+a hash-chained JSONL audit log with a `docket audit verify` command. It is
+self-labelled `v0.2.0-beta.2` and warns "Expect breaking changes between beta
+releases"; no public star count was visible on the page I fetched, and the fetch
+could not establish repo age or last-commit date, so **treat its adoption as
+unmeasured rather than zero**. The durable point is architectural, and does not
+depend on adoption: verification is hash-chain only, with **no cryptographic
+signatures and no offline third-party verification**. Its own docs concede "an
+operator able to delete all docket state can erase both the log and its backup."
+
+---
+
+## 2. Context: important, but OUTSIDE the 30-day window
+
+Kept separate so nothing here is mistaken for a recent development.
+
+- **Apr 1, 2026 - Legacy-Bench** [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/legacy-bench,
+  https://github.com/factory-ai/legacy-bench]. Apache-2.0, 19 stars. COBOL 46%,
+  Java 7 32%, BASIC/C89/Fortran/Assembly 5-6% each. Pass rates **16.9% to 42.5%**
+  across 12 model-agent combos, against >70% for the same models on
+  Terminal-Bench 2 and SWE-bench Verified. Droid + GPT-5.3-Codex tops it at
+  42.5%. Ten sample tasks are public; the full set requires contacting Factory.
+  Factory states "We welcome evaluation submissions."
+- **Jun 30, 2026 - "Building to the Test: Coding Agents Deliver What You Check,
+  Not What You Requested"** [sourced: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.28430]. Ma,
+  Kereopa-Yorke, Schultz. Independent, non-vendor evidence for exactly the
+  failure mode Factory's "wall" post claims to fix.
+- **Jun 1, 2026 - Factory Router** [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/factory-router].
+  "cuts token spend by 20-25%", private research preview, measured on
+  Terminal-Bench 2 and Legacy-Bench against an Opus 4.7 baseline.
+- **Aug 13, 2026 - Agent Effectiveness** [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/agent-effectiveness].
+  Thirty-two days out, so just outside. **"Currently in Private Preview"** - a
+  claim of a product, not a shipped one. Measures cycle time, work intent, and
+  attribution of sessions to shipped artifacts.
+- **Jan 23, 2026 - Signals** [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/factory-signals].
+  Shipped and running daily; friction detection that auto-files Linear tickets
+  and assigns them to Droid.
+- **Sep 25, 2025 - Terminal-Bench 58.75%** [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/terminal-bench].
+  Self-reported by Factory, run on their own Ubuntu machines.
+- **Aug 13, 2026 - DeepSeek V4-Pro GA and `deepseek-harness`** (MIT, everything a
+  plugin) [sourced: https://www.digitalapplied.com/blog/deepseek-harness-open-source-agent-framework-2026].
+  Secondary source; the post itself notes the package is `v0.1.0-rc.5` with no
+  GitHub release behind it.
+
+### 8090.ai
+
+**Nothing shipped in the window that I could cite.** The site sells
+Software Factory (an "AI-native SDLC control plane") and 8090 Enterprise
+[sourced: https://www.8090.ai/]. Most recent datable events are the EY.ai PDLC
+launch (Mar 2026) and a $135M Series A led by Salesforce Ventures (Jun 2026)
+[sourced: https://siliconangle.com/2026/06/29/ai-software-development-startup-8090-nabs-135m-funding-round/].
+Absence of evidence reported as a finding, not filled with a guess.
+
+**CORRECTION to a prior repo audit, and it goes the inconvenient way.** This
+repo previously established that 8090's public site yields no verifiable product
+evidence, and I was asked to confirm that in one fetch and move on. It does not
+confirm [sourced: https://www.8090.ai/software-factory]. Present today: a free
+trial at `factory.8090.ai` ("Get Started for Free"), public documentation at
+`docs.8090.ai`, a demo video playlist, a pricing page, and a published CMS
+claims-modernization case study. Still absent: benchmark numbers, a changelog,
+and any version history.
+
+So the accurate 2026-09-14 statement is **not** "no public product surface". It
+is: 8090 has a self-serve on-ramp and docs, but publishes **no versioned release
+history and no benchmarks**, which is what actually blocks capability comparison.
+Recording this as a correction rather than a confirmation because the prior
+finding's premise has changed, and re-asserting a stale finding as verified is
+the same failure shape as an uncited claim.
+
+### Correction to a prior repo finding
+
+The repo previously established that factory.ai, 8090 and Devin have **no**
+G2/Capterra/ProductHunt listings. **That is now outdated for factory.ai.** A G2
+product page exists at https://www.g2.com/products/factory-ai/reviews. I could
+not fetch it (403), and the secondary report of "1 G2 review, 3 Product Hunt
+reviews, Capterra 4.2"
+[sourced: https://theaiagentindex.com/agents/factory-ai] is second-hand, so treat
+the counts as unconfirmed. The correct statement is: **a listing now exists, with
+too few reviews for aggregate sentiment comparison.** For 8090 I found listings
+only on SourceForge/Slashdot aggregators, no G2/Capterra/ProductHunt.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Ranked build list
+
+Ranked by (user value delivered) / (effort). Each item states whether it closes a
+gap or extends a lead, and its NEXT-10 status.
+
+### 1. Put an information barrier between checklist authoring and implementation
+
+**Closes a gap. Extends an existing lead once closed. Not in NEXT-10.**
+
+**ALREADY EXISTS: PARTIALLY - and the existing half is the valuable half.**
+I nearly filed this as "build a validator role", which would have repeated the
+8-of-11 mistake. The check refuted it:
+
+- The checklist is derived from the PRD **before** implementation
+  `[measured]` `autonomy/run.sh:20483` instructs the agent to create
+  `.loki/checklist/checklist.json` from the PRD on the first iteration, with
+  per-item verification checks (`file_exists`, `file_contains`, `tests_pass`,
+  `grep_codebase`, `command`). `checklist_init` is called at
+  `autonomy/run.sh:22349`; the module is `autonomy/prd-checklist.sh`.
+- It is **independently re-verified after** a completion claim `[measured]`
+  `checklist_verify` at `autonomy/run.sh:23973`, and
+  `council_reverify_checklist` at `:24858` and `:25604`, executed by the
+  deterministic `autonomy/checklist-verify.py`.
+
+So Loki already has a pre-authored, deterministically-rechecked standard. What it
+does **not** have is Factory's wall: the **same agent** writes the checklist and
+then implements against it. That is precisely the failure mode
+`arXiv:2606.28430` names, and it is independent of Factory's marketing.
+
+**Do:** have the checklist authored by a dispatch that does not see, and is not
+continued by, the implementing context. The verification machinery is already
+built, so this is a dispatch-boundary change, not a new subsystem. Highest
+value-over-effort item on this list because the expensive half already exists.
+
+### 2. Tamper-evidence: nothing to build, and a stale internal note to retract
+
+**Extends the lead. Not in NEXT-10. NO BUILD REQUIRED.**
+
+**ALREADY EXISTS: YES, FULLY.** I nearly ranked "wire `writeWitness`" as the
+single highest-value item on this list, on the strength of an internal memory
+(`project-audit-chain-not-tamper-proof`) stating it existed with **zero
+production callers**. Checking the source refuted that memory outright. It is
+outdated and should be retracted:
+
+- `writeWitness` is defined at `src/audit/crosslink.js:234` and **has production
+  callers** `[measured]`: `src/audit/subscriber.js:142` (periodic) and `:155`
+  (session end), both via `writeWitnessSafely`, plus the wrapper export at
+  `src/audit/index.js:226,278`.
+- The reconciliation half that the memory said was missing now exists:
+  `reconcileWitnessedPrefix` at `src/audit/crosslink.js:560` `[measured]`.
+- Most importantly it is **wired into the verdict**, not merely present:
+  `crosslink.js:392` calls it and `:398-399` ANDs `witnessedPrefix.valid` into
+  the overall `valid`. The comparison is prefix-based, not tip-equality, so
+  legitimate chain growth does not false-positive, and the three states
+  (`checked` / `no_records` / `unreadable`) are explicitly never collapsed, with
+  `no_records` documented as "NOT a pass."
+
+So the honest competitive position is stronger than the memory implied, and it
+needs no work. Against Docket: `autonomy/receipt_jwt.py` exists `[measured]` and
+`loki proof verify --jwks <url|file>` checks an Ed25519 attestation against a
+published key set including **from a local `jwks.json` with no network**
+`[measured: autonomy/loki:900-910]`, so a third party can check WHO produced a
+receipt with no API token and no key import. Docket has neither signatures nor
+offline verification, and concedes an operator can erase its log and backup.
+
+**Do: nothing in code.** Update the memory file so a future session does not
+re-propose this. The lesson generalises and is why this section survives at rank
+2 despite requiring no build: a memory is evidence of what was true when written,
+never of what is true now.
+
+### 3. Persist a per-run human-intervention counter
+
+**Closes a gap against Agent Effectiveness. Cheap. Not in NEXT-10.**
+
+**REFUTED 2026-09-14 by the integrator. ALREADY EXISTS: FULLY.** This item was
+filed on the belief that the reader exists and the writer does not. Both halves
+of the chain ship:
+
+- **Writer:** `handle_pause` in `autonomy/run.sh` increments
+  `.loki/state/interventions.json` (the counter block at `autonomy/run.sh:25712`).
+  Counted there deliberately: every pause path funnels through `handle_pause`,
+  and the `_PAUSE_IN_PROGRESS` guard makes one blocking pause count once.
+- **Proof:** `autonomy/lib/proof-generator.py:1147-1151` reads that file into the
+  journey; `:1544-1545` mirrors it to top-level `proof["interventions"]`.
+- **Reader:** `_interventions_value` in `autonomy/lib/trust_trajectory.py`.
+
+Verified empirically: replaying the writer's logic yields count 1 then 2 across
+two pauses. **No build required.**
+
+The trap that made it look missing: `_AXIS_HIGHER_IS_BETTER = {"interventions":
+False, ...}` reads like a disable flag. It is POLARITY (lower-is-better), and
+`iterations` is `False` for the same reason. There are only three `_AXIS_*`
+dicts and none gates availability. The axis honestly reports `available: false`
+until a proof carries the count, which is by design, not a gap.
+
+The stale docstring that seeded this belief was corrected in `a9a02681`.
+
+Original (incorrect) reasoning retained below for the record:
+
+**~~ALREADY EXISTS: THE READER DOES, THE WRITER DOES NOT.~~** This is the
+reader/writer key contract trap this repo has hit before.
+`autonomy/lib/trust_trajectory.py` already declares `interventions` as a tracked
+metric with a lower-is-better direction `[measured: lines 13, 46, 54, 61]`, and
+`_interventions_value` reads it at line 145. But its own docstring says
+`[measured]`: *"There is no per-run intervention counter persisted today."* It is
+gated off (`"interventions": False` at line 46).
+
+Loki already computes things Factory's Private-Preview product does not, notably
+**cost-per-VERIFIED-task** `[measured: autonomy/lib/trust_metrics.py:397]`, whose
+denominator is a verified outcome rather than a shipped artifact. Factory's
+headline metric is "how much independent work Droids do between human
+interactions" - which is exactly the field Loki declares and never fills.
+
+**Do:** persist the counter at the existing `check_human_intervention` site and
+flip the flag. Small diff, and it completes a metric surface that is otherwise
+stronger than the competitor's.
+
+### 4. Run healing mode against Legacy-Bench
+
+**Extends the lead, on the one axis with the most headroom. Not in NEXT-10.**
+
+**ALREADY EXISTS: NO.** `[measured]` `benchmarks/` contains SWE-bench,
+swebench-pro-pilot, HumanEval and internal A/B harnesses. Zero Legacy-Bench
+coverage; the only `legacy|COBOL` hits are unrelated (`speed-benchmark.sh`,
+equivalence reports, SWE-bench patch files).
+
+This is the best-matched external scoreboard in existence for this repo's
+brownfield wedge (`project-brownfield-wedge-evidence`: proof-of-function on
+legacy migration is unclaimed by every vendor). It is Apache-2.0, runnable via
+the Harbor harness, and Factory explicitly welcomes submissions. Frontier agents
+score 16.9-42.5% where they score >70% elsewhere, so the headroom is real and the
+ceiling is not yet claimed by anyone credible.
+
+**Caveat that must not be skipped:** only 10 of the tasks are public and the full
+set requires contacting Factory, who also own the benchmark and currently top it.
+A self-run number on 10 public tasks is a pilot, not a leaderboard claim, and must
+be published as such.
+
+### 4b. Surface the receipt at the end of the run (added after founder steer)
+
+**Closes a delivery gap, not a capability gap. Very cheap. Not in NEXT-10.**
+
+The founder's framing reorders this list: rank by whether an item reduces human
+round-trips or proves completion, not by feature parity. Under that lens the
+sharpest question is not "do we have proof" but "does the user GET it at the end
+of one run, without asking".
+
+**ALREADY EXISTS: GENERATION YES, SURFACING BARELY.** `[measured]` The receipt is
+produced automatically and is opt-OUT, not opt-in: `LOKI_PROOF` defaults to `1`
+at `autonomy/run.sh:26810`, `:26894` and `:26979` (all `${LOKI_PROOF:-1}`), and
+`generate_proof_of_run` is called on the terminal path "fire-and-forget on both
+success and failure runs" (`:26893`). It is regenerated idempotently after
+HANDOFF.md and commit writers finish so `proof.tree_sha256` describes the exact
+returned tree (`:26975-26981`).
+
+So we already beat the bar the steer set. What is thin is the last inch: the
+only place the artifact's location reaches the user is a single echo,
+`autonomy/run.sh:8115` - `(or open $proofs_dir/$latest/index.html)`. A user who
+does not already know `loki proof` exists can finish a successful run without
+ever learning a checkable receipt was written for them.
+
+**Do:** print the receipt path plus the one-line verdict and the
+`loki proof verify <id>` command in the end-of-run summary. This is the
+highest value-per-line-of-code item on the list: the expensive machinery is
+built, defaulted on, and currently under-announced.
+
+### 5. Publish the verification-bottleneck position while the market names it
+
+**Extends the lead. Zero engineering effort. Not in NEXT-10.**
+
+**ALREADY EXISTS: THE CAPABILITY YES, THE POSITIONING ARTIFACT NO.**
+`loki verify --fast` runs exogenous checks only, no model call and no network, so
+every verdict is reproducible by anyone at the same commit
+`[measured: autonomy/loki:18131-18145]`, at a documented 19ms diff-scoped against
+an 11,040ms baseline. `loki proof verify` re-checks a receipt for tamper and
+drift with `--human` prose output `[measured: autonomy/loki:36195-36210]`.
+
+Independent HN consensus has now converged on "verification is the bottleneck",
+and the nearest competing artifact (Docket) is a 0-star beta with no signatures.
+This is the cheapest item here: the product is built, the market just started
+using our vocabulary.
+
+### Models are not products: the cost-per-task question
+
+The founder's comparison set mixes two categories and they must not be blurred.
+**factory.ai and 8090 are PRODUCTS** and are ranked above. **DeepSeek, Muse,
+Claude Fable and GPT-6 Astra are MODELS.** For a provider-agnostic harness the
+useful question about a model is not feature parity but: can we route to it, and
+at what cost per completed task.
+
+**ALREADY EXISTS: TIERED ROUTING YES, CHEAP-FRONTIER ROUTE NO.** `[measured]`
+`providers/models.sh:19-24` exposes generic `small|medium|high` tiers and
+explicitly forbids callers naming a vendor model, with `medium` the default.
+That is the right abstraction and it is already built. But the only MiniMax
+reference in the entire repo is a **comment**, not a route:
+`providers/opencode.sh:25` records "MiniMax M2.5 resolved 75.8 at $36.64 total
+vs Claude Opus 4.6 at 75.6". That is a measured near-parity result at roughly
+7.5x lower cost, sitting in a comment.
+
+Two competitive signals make this timely. Factory **removed MiniMax M2.5 from
+model selection** on Aug 11 [sourced: https://docs.factory.ai/changelog/release-notes],
+and DeepSeek V4 ships open weights under MIT (Aug 13 V4-Pro GA, secondary
+source). A competitor retiring the cheap near-parity model is the moment a
+provider-agnostic harness can differentiate on cost per completed task.
+
+**Do:** promote the opencode cheap-frontier result from a comment to a selectable
+tier with a published cost-per-completed-task number. Low effort, directly serves
+the "2-3x value" ask, and it is the one item here where being provider-agnostic
+is a structural advantage rather than a parity feature.
+
+**Honest limit:** the $36.64 figure is a single internal benchmark run recorded
+in a comment. It must be re-measured before it is published anywhere external.
+
+### Ranked separately: apply to the Claude Marketplace partner waitlist
+
+**Business decision, not an engineering item** - listed apart so it does not
+distort the value-over-effort ordering above.
+
+Factory listed on Sep 9 [sourced: https://factory.ai/news/claude-marketplace] and
+the marketplace lets enterprises spend existing Anthropic commitments, which
+removes a procurement cycle. Loki already ships the required artifacts
+`[measured]`: `.claude-plugin/marketplace.json` and
+`plugins/loki-mode/.claude-plugin/plugin.json` at 9.50.1. Entry is via a partner
+waitlist [sourced: https://claude.com/platform/marketplace], so this is a founder
+call, not a build.
+
+### Deliberately NOT ranked (open NEXT-10 items, status unchanged)
+
+Re-listed only so this document cannot be read as re-proposing them. See
+`docs/COMPETITIVE-NEXT-10.md` for the evidence:
+
+- **NEXT-10 item 5** - `loki init` writes dead config keys. Open.
+- **NEXT-10 item 6** - `llm_review` verdict influence deferred. Open by design.
+- **NEXT-10 item 8** - flaky `test-review-assurance-tail.sh`. Open; deliberately
+  not patched.
+- **NEXT-10 item 10** - hard command blocklist. Designed, not built.
+
+---
+
+## 4. UNVERIFIED
+
+Excluded from the ranked list. Listed so the absence is a finding.
+
+- **Factory, "Why model routing must be in the harness" (24 Aug 2026).** The news
+  index lists this title and date, but three URL attempts 404'd and two searches
+  failed to surface the post. Worse, three **conflicting** cost figures circulate
+  for Factory routing: "20-25%" (Factory Router, Jun 1, primary source), "58%",
+  and "cost per successful run is 80.5% of Opus on Terminal-Bench 2 and 78.0% on
+  Legacy-Bench" (both secondary). I did not pick one. The post may exist; I could
+  not read it, and no routing figure other than the Jun 1 "20-25%" should be
+  quoted.
+- **Claude Fable 5.1 exact release date.** Named in a secondary roundup only; no
+  primary Anthropic announcement fetched.
+- **Meta Muse Spark 1.3.** Secondary roundup only. The founder named "Muse"; I
+  could not confirm whether this is the same product.
+- **DeepSeek V4 SWE-bench figures.** Several secondary blogs give numbers. No
+  primary DeepSeek source fetched, so none are reproduced here.
+- **G2/Capterra/ProductHunt review counts for factory.ai.** g2.com returned 403.
+  The listing exists; the counts are second-hand.
+- **Factory's ProgramBench table.** Vendor-claimed, self-run. ProgramBench is an
+  academic benchmark (arXiv:2605.03546) but I found no independent leaderboard
+  entry confirming Factory's figures (benchmarklist.com returned 403).
+- **"Claude Mythos Preview tops SWE-bench Verified at 93.9%"** surfaced in
+  search. Not fetched from a primary source, outside the window, and this repo
+  has been burned by exactly this class of number
+  (`project-swebench-9967-was-string-counting`). Recorded, not used.

package/docs/INSTALLATION.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 The flagship product of [Autonomi](https://www.autonomi.dev/). Loki Mode is a spec-driven autonomous builder with a built-in trust layer that takes any spec to a deployed product and verifies completion with evidence (quality gates plus a completion council), not just a "done" claim. Complete installation instructions for all platforms and use cases.
 
-**Version:** v9.50.2
+**Version:** v9.50.3
 
 ---