memorylink 1.0.0

package/docs/GEMINI_SUPERMEMORY_TREE_SITTER_MANDATE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+Gemini AI - Supermemory Data & Tree-sitter Architectural Mandate  
+Date: December 16, 2025  
+
+Summary:  
+This response strongly validates your global analysis and argues that MemoryLink’s ultimate promise as a **Universal Structural Memory Layer** cannot be fully realized without multi-language structure support. It treats Tree-sitter-based support for Python/Java/Go as a **P0 architectural mandate** for the “true” universal launch (v1.5), while accepting that current JS/TS-only v1.3 is a powerful but partial solution.
+
+Key Validations:  
+- Multi-language development is the norm: most serious projects use many languages (average ≈7 per project), and over 90% of developers report cross-language linking issues.  
+- State-of-the-art LLMs systematically **fail** at cross-programming-language (CPL) reasoning and cross-file context, so tools must provide explicit structural support instead of relying on model intelligence.  
+- Developers universally want tool support for cross-language links to prevent runtime failures; MemoryLink’s structural memory is well-positioned to fill this gap.  
+- The current JS/TS-only state makes MemoryLink feel **partial** for polyglot teams, especially for senior/zero-trust users who demand verifiable structural coverage.  
+
+Why Tree-sitter is Treated as P0 (for v1.5 “true launch”):  
+1. **Zero-trust for code intelligence**  
+   - If a Python/Java developer runs `memorylink impact` and it fails to follow an important dependency into their stack, trust is broken and the tool is likely uninstalled.  
+   - MemoryLink’s core differentiator is structural memory where LLMs are weakest; without multi-language structure, that differentiator is missing for much of the market.  
+2. **Eliminating the “silent break” risk**  
+   - Cross-language links are rarely validated at design time and typically fail at runtime.  
+   - A cross-language code graph built on Tree-sitter is necessary for MemoryLink to act as an **Architectural Guardian** that identifies cross-language failure paths before deployment.  
+3. **Leveraging local-first, Git-native architecture**  
+   - Cloud-first systems that infer cross-language structure require shipping proprietary code to remote services, which is a barrier for enterprises.  
+   - MemoryLink’s local, Git-native architecture is a key advantage; full multi-language structure inside that boundary maximizes this value for security-conscious teams.  
+
+Proposed P0 Execution Plan (0–4 weeks, v1.5-focused):  
+- **P0.1 – Tree-sitter Integration**  
+  - Integrate the Tree-sitter engine and grammars for Python, Java, and Go.  
+  - Success metric: reliably parse at least ~5 files per language into a normalized AST representation.  
+- **P0.2 – Cross-Language Graph Builder**  
+  - Extend the existing code graph builder to consume these multi-language ASTs and create cross-language dependency edges.  
+  - Success metric: a “Cross-Language Trace Test” where a change in a Python file correctly marks linked Java/TypeScript files as impacted.  
+- **P0.3 – Documentation & Messaging**  
+  - Finalize v1.5 messaging that honestly, but confidently, positions MemoryLink as a **Universal Structural Memory Layer** with cross-language impact analysis.  
+  - Success metric: internal sign-off that claims about “universal” structural support are accurate.  
+
+Position of Other Features (P1/P2 after P0):  
+- **P1.1 – VS Code Extension**: critical for adoption (since ~76% of devs use VS Code), but layered on top of a working multi-language memory core; treated as UX rather than architectural.  
+- **P1.2 – Web Dashboard**: important for non-developer consumers (auditors, PMs), but relies on logs/graphs already working; considered an audit/compliance layer.  
+
+Conclusion:  
+- Gemini frames Tree-sitter-based multi-language structure as the **fixed architectural cost** required to deliver the universal UVP, with v1.5 as the “true” universal launch once that work is complete.  
+- It does not reject v1.3; instead, it treats v1.3 as a strong JS/TS-focused launch and v1.5 as the moment when MemoryLink can honestly claim to be the universal structural memory solution across major languages.  
+
+

package/docs/GEMINI_VALIDATION_RESULTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@
+# Gemini Validation Results - Codebase Verification
+
+**Date:** December 13, 2025  
+**Status:** ✅ Verified
+
+---
+
+## 🔍 CODEBASE VERIFICATION
+
+### 1. Semantic Search / Vector Indexing
+
+**Gemini's Claim:** Semantic search is CRITICAL and MISSING
+
+**Codebase Check:**
+- ❌ `retrieve-context` command: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ Semantic search: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ Vector indexing: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ Embedding store: **NOT FOUND**
+- ✅ Keyword search: **FOUND** in `src/commands/search.ts`
+- ✅ Filtering: **FOUND** (`--limit`, `--since`, `--tag` in `get-context`)
+
+**Verdict:** ✅ **CLAIM VERIFIED** - Semantic search does NOT exist
+
+**Current Workaround:**
+- Keyword search exists
+- Filtering by tags, time, limit exists
+- Not semantic/relevance-based
+
+---
+
+### 2. Conflict Resolution
+
+**Gemini's Claim:** Conflict detection exists but resolution/precedence missing
+
+**Codebase Check:**
+- ✅ Conflict detection: **FOUND** in `src/commands/doctor.ts` (`detectMemoryConflicts`)
+- ✅ Duplicate detection: **IMPLEMENTED**
+- ✅ Contradictory rules detection: **IMPLEMENTED**
+- ❌ Precedence system: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ Automatic resolution: **NOT FOUND**
+- ⚠️ User must manually resolve conflicts
+
+**Verdict:** ⚠️ **PARTIALLY VERIFIED** - Detection exists, resolution/precedence missing
+
+---
+
+### 3. Memory Compaction / Summarization
+
+**Gemini's Claim:** Compaction tool is MISSING
+
+**Codebase Check:**
+- ❌ `doctor --compact`: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ Compaction command: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ Summarization tool: **NOT FOUND**
+- ✅ Filtering exists: `--limit`, `--since` help reduce context size
+
+**Verdict:** ✅ **CLAIM VERIFIED** - Compaction tool does NOT exist
+
+---
+
+### 4. Memory Visibility Tool
+
+**Gemini's Claim:** `memorylink whoami` or `memorylink show-rules` is MISSING
+
+**Codebase Check:**
+- ❌ `whoami` command: **NOT FOUND**
+- ❌ `show-rules` command: **NOT FOUND**
+- ✅ `get-context` command: **FOUND** (shows active rules)
+- ✅ `sync-rules` command: **FOUND** (generates rules.md)
+- ⚠️ No dedicated "show all active rules" command
+
+**Verdict:** ⚠️ **PARTIALLY VERIFIED** - Visibility exists via get-context, but no dedicated command
+
+---
+
+### 5. Input Sanitization
+
+**Gemini's Claim:** Input sanitization is REQUIRED
+
+**Codebase Check:**
+- ✅ Prompt injection detection: **FOUND** in `src/utils.ts` (`detectPromptInjection`)
+- ✅ Secret detection: **FOUND** in `src/utils.ts` (`detectSecrets`)
+- ✅ `checkSecretsBeforeWrite`: **FOUND** (blocks writes with secrets/prompt injection)
+
+**Verdict:** ✅ **CLAIM ADDRESSED** - Input sanitization EXISTS
+
+---
+
+### 6. Large Project Handling
+
+**Gemini's Claim:** Current system fails with large projects (1000+ entries)
+
+**Codebase Check:**
+- ✅ `--limit` flag: **FOUND** in `get-context` (limits output)
+- ✅ `--since` flag: **FOUND** (filters by time)
+- ✅ `--tag` flag: **FOUND** (filters by tags)
+- ✅ Performance docs: **FOUND** in README.md (tested up to 5,000 entries)
+- ⚠️ No semantic relevance ranking
+
+**Verdict:** ⚠️ **PARTIALLY ADDRESSED** - Filtering exists but not semantic
+
+**Current Capabilities:**
+- Can filter by tags, time, limit
+- Performance documented for up to 5,000 entries
+- No relevance-based ranking
+
+---
+
+## 📊 CONSOLIDATED FINDINGS
+
+### Gemini's Claims Verified
+
+| Claim | Status | Verification |
+|-------|--------|-------------|
+| Semantic search missing | ✅ VERIFIED | Not implemented |
+| Conflict detection exists | ✅ VERIFIED | Exists in doctor.ts |
+| Precedence system missing | ✅ VERIFIED | Not implemented |
+| Compaction tool missing | ✅ VERIFIED | Not implemented |
+| Visibility tool missing | ⚠️ PARTIAL | get-context exists, no dedicated command |
+| Input sanitization | ✅ ADDRESSED | Prompt injection detection exists |
+| Large project handling | ⚠️ PARTIAL | Filtering exists, no semantic ranking |
+
+### Gemini's Assessment Accuracy
+
+**Critical Gap (Context Rot):**
+- ✅ **VALID CONCERN** - Context rot is real for large projects
+- ⚠️ **CURRENT STATE:** Filtering helps but not semantic
+- ⚠️ **QUESTION:** Is this a v1.0 blocker or v1.1 enhancement?
+
+**Solution (ASM):**
+- ✅ **VALID PROPOSAL** - Semantic retrieval would solve context rot
+- ⚠️ **IMPLEMENTATION:** Requires vector indexing (significant work)
+- ⚠️ **TIMELINE:** Could be v1.1 enhancement
+
+**Launch Readiness:**
+- ⚠️ **DISAGREES WITH OTHERS** - Gemini says NOT READY, others say READY
+- ✅ **VALID PERSPECTIVE** - Focus on large projects
+- ⚠️ **TARGET AUDIENCE:** Need to clarify (small/medium vs large projects)
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 PRIORITY ASSESSMENT
+
+### Gemini's Must-Fix Before Launch:
+
+1. **Semantic Indexing** - ⚠️ CRITICAL for large projects, optional for small/medium
+2. **New Agent Contract** - ⚠️ Function calling is nice-to-have, current contract works
+3. **Security/Conflict** - ✅ Mostly addressed (conflict detection exists, sanitization exists)
+
+### Comparison with Other AIs:
+
+**ChatGPT:** Semantic search is v1.1 enhancement  
+**Perplexity:** Semantic search is v1.1 enhancement  
+**Grok:** Semantic search is v1.1 enhancement  
+**Gemini:** Semantic search is CRITICAL for launch
+
+**Consensus:**
+- ✅ All agree semantic search is valuable
+- ⚠️ Disagree on whether it's a v1.0 blocker
+
+---
+
+## ✅ FINAL VERDICT
+
+**Gemini's Assessment:** ⚠️ **NOT READY TO LAUNCH** - Must add semantic retrieval
+
+**Validation:**
+- ✅ All claims verified (semantic search missing, conflict detection exists, etc.)
+- ✅ Valid concerns about large projects
+- ⚠️ Disagrees with other AIs on launch readiness
+- ⚠️ Question: Target audience determines if this is blocker
+
+**Status:** ⚠️ **VALIDATED - CRITICAL CONCERN FOR LARGE PROJECTS**
+
+**Recommendation:**
+- **If targeting small/medium projects (100-1000 entries):** ✅ Ready to launch
+- **If targeting large projects (5000+ entries):** ⚠️ Semantic search may be critical
+- **Compromise:** Launch v1.0 with clear documentation of limits, add semantic search in v1.1
+
+---
+
+**Last Updated:** December 13, 2025
+

package/docs/GROK_AI_ANALYSIS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,278 @@
+# Grok AI Comprehensive Analysis: MemoryLink Global Competitiveness
+
+**Date**: December 14, 2025  
+**Source**: Grok AI Comprehensive Validation  
+**Status**: ✅ Stored in MemoryLink
+
+---
+
+## 📊 Executive Summary
+
+Grok AI provided comprehensive validation of gap analysis, priority rankings, completion plans, architecture feedback, competitive analysis, and strategic recommendations. This analysis confirms MemoryLink's strengths while identifying critical gaps needed for global competitiveness, especially against Chinese AI coding tools.
+
+---
+
+## 🔍 1. Gap Analysis
+
+### Critical Missing Features (Validated Risks for Abandonment)
+
+#### 1. Code Structure Memory ❌
+- **Competitors**: Qwen3-Coder, Sourcegraph Cody excel at mapping file dependencies
+- **Current State**: MemoryLink stores decisions but not structural graphs
+- **Example Gap**: Cannot track "auth.js depends on config.js"
+- **Risk**: Developers abandon for tools that prevent cascading errors
+
+#### 2. Change Impact Analysis ❌
+- **Competitors**: DeepSeek's long-context, GLM-4.6's reasoning predict ripple effects
+- **Current State**: MemoryLink tracks SUCCESS/FAILED but not affected files
+- **Example Gap**: Cannot predict breaking changes
+- **Risk**: Teams switch to enterprise tools for safety
+
+#### 3. Team Pattern Learning ❌
+- **Competitors**: Tabnine Enterprise, Codeium/Windsurf learn team preferences
+- **Current State**: MemoryLink's learnings.log is individual-focused
+- **Example Gap**: Lacks aggregated team insights
+- **Risk**: Teams switch for consistent patterns
+
+#### 4. Workspace/Context Awareness ❌
+- **Competitors**: Codeium/Windsurf integrate IDE state (open tabs, terminals)
+- **Current State**: MemoryLink's manual logging misses real-time connections
+- **Example Gap**: No workspace state awareness
+- **Risk**: Friction vs seamless codebase handling
+
+### Features That Could Cause Abandonment
+
+1. **Lack of structural awareness** → Developers abandon for tools preventing cascading errors
+2. **No team-scale memory** → Teams switch to enterprise tools for consistent patterns
+3. **Manual vs agentic integration** → Friction in Chinese models' seamless codebase handling
+
+### Must-Have vs Nice-to-Have
+
+**Must-Have** (to compete globally, especially vs Chinese tools):
+- Code structure tracker
+- Change impact predictor
+- Basic team pattern detection
+
+**Nice-to-Have**:
+- Full knowledge graphs
+- Multimodal support (e.g., DeepSeek's features)
+
+**Other Gaps**:
+- No built-in compliance/audit for enterprise (like GLM's safety features)
+- Limited to content over relationships
+
+---
+
+## 📈 2. Priority Ranking
+
+Reprioritized with focus on **structural memory** to bridge "content vs connections" gap:
+
+1. **Code Structure Tracker** (highest)
+   - Addresses core gap vs Qwen/DeepSeek
+   - Enables dependency mapping
+
+2. **Change Impact Predictor** (critical)
+   - Critical for refactoring safety
+   - Inspired by GLM's reasoning
+
+3. **MCP server/auto-injection**
+   - Still key for UX
+   - Now tied to injecting structural context
+
+4. **Team Pattern Detector**
+   - Privacy-preserving
+   - Match Tabnine/Codeium's team learning
+
+5. **Vector search/embeddings**
+   - Enhances structural search relevance
+
+6. **Auto-capture/file watcher**
+   - Captures changes for impact analysis
+
+7. **Pagination/streaming**
+   - Scales structural data
+
+8. **Conflict resolution**
+   - Handles Git merges with dependencies
+
+9. **Cross-project memory**
+   - Extends to global team patterns
+
+10. **Web dashboard**
+    - Visualizes graphs/patterns
+
+---
+
+## 🛠️ 3. Completion Plans
+
+### Partial Features Enhancement
+
+| **Feature** | **What's Missing** | **Why Important** | **How to Complete** | **Effort** |
+|-------------|-------------------|-------------------|---------------------|------------|
+| **Auto-logging** | File watcher + structure capture | Captures dependencies dynamically | Integrate chokidar; on change, parse AST (e.g., via @babel/parser) to log dependencies in code-graph.json | Medium (2-4 weeks) |
+| **Semantic Search** | Embeddings + structural vectors | Searches relationships, not just content | Add sentence-transformers for code embeddings; index dependencies/impacts with FAISS; hybrid query | High (4-8 weeks) |
+| **Context Injection** | Auto with structure | Injects connections for AIs | Extend MCP to include code-graph data; auto-update rules.md with dependency summaries | High (4-6 weeks) |
+| **Tag Suggestions** | Intelligent + pattern-based | Suggests based on team patterns | Use local LLM for classification; mine learnings.log for patterns | Low-Medium (1-3 weeks) |
+
+### New Suggestions
+
+| **Feature** | **Implementation** | **Effort** |
+|-------------|-------------------|------------|
+| **Code Structure Tracker** | Add CLI command; use ts-morph or esprima for parsing; store in JSONL extension | Medium (3-5 weeks) |
+| **Change Impact Predictor** | Simulate diffs via git-diff; traverse graph to list affects | Medium-High (4-6 weeks) |
+| **Team Pattern Detector** | Aggregate anonymized learnings; use simple stats/ML | Medium (2-4 weeks) |
+
+---
+
+## 🏗️ 4. Architecture Feedback
+
+### Current Architecture Strengths
+
+- ✅ Easily extensible for structure (add code-graph.jsonl)
+- ✅ Git versioning suits change tracking
+- ✅ Validated scalability: Handles up to 20K entries
+- ✅ Chinese tools like DeepSeek (671B params, 200K+ context) manage massive data via efficient inference
+
+### Scalability Concerns
+
+- ⚠️ Without graphs/indexes, scanning for dependencies slows at scale (100K+ entries in enterprise)
+- ⚠️ Git pollution from frequent structure updates (e.g., on every change)
+
+### Performance Bottlenecks
+
+- ⚠️ Linear reads for impact prediction
+- ⚠️ No caching for patterns/graphs
+
+### Future-Proofing Needs
+
+- ✅ Add optional graph DB (e.g., Neo4j local) for relationships while keeping JSONL core
+- ✅ Streaming + pagination for large graphs
+- ✅ For enterprise: Privacy modes for team patterns (like Tabnine's)
+- ✅ Global competitiveness: Integrate local parsing for structure without cloud (leverage local-first edge vs Chinese cloud models)
+
+**Overall**: Solid base; add graph extensions for connections, and it scales to team/enterprise like GLM's compliance-focused design.
+
+---
+
+## 🎯 5. Competitive Analysis
+
+### Our Strengths vs Competitors
+
+1. **Local-first privacy + Git-native**
+   - Beats cloud-dependent Qwen/DeepSeek/GLM on data security
+
+2. **Enforcement (protection, failures)**
+   - Unique vs Tabnine's suggestions or Codeium's agents
+
+3. **Cross-AI universality**
+   - Works beyond IDEs like Windsurf
+
+### Our Weaknesses vs Competitors
+
+| **Competitor** | **Strength** | **MemoryLink Gap** |
+|----------------|--------------|-------------------|
+| **Qwen3-Coder/CodeQwen** | Agentic multi-file analysis, hybrid reasoning | Lacks autonomous structure mapping |
+| **DeepSeek** | Long-context (128K+), multimodal coding | No equivalent for project-wide retention |
+| **GLM-4/CodeGLM** | Vulnerability detection, extended context (200K) | Missing audit/change justification |
+| **Sourcegraph Cody** | Code graph, semantic search across repos | Missing code graph capabilities |
+| **Tabnine Enterprise** | Privacy team insights, adapts to org patterns | Missing team pattern aggregation |
+| **Codeium/Windsurf** | Agentic IDE, workspace state awareness | Missing workspace integration |
+
+### Unique Value Proposition
+
+> **"Git-native, privacy-first memory that enforces decisions and bridges content with code connections – for teams avoiding cloud lock-in."**
+
+### Market Positioning
+
+- **Niche**: Team knowledge persistence (wide open globally)
+- **Western tools** (Cody, Tabnine): Focus individual
+- **Chinese tools** (Qwen, DeepSeek): Focus org efficiency
+- **MemoryLink**: Uniquely combines via local Git
+
+---
+
+## 📋 6. Recommendations – What to Do Next
+
+### Immediate (v1.1)
+- ✅ Implement `map-codebase` and `predict-impact` as suggested
+- ✅ Start with basic AST parsing for dependencies
+
+### Global Strategy
+- ✅ Lean into local-first vs Chinese cloud
+- ✅ Add team patterns to differentiate in efficiency-focused markets
+
+### v1.5
+- ✅ Vector-enhanced graphs
+- ✅ Cross-file relationships
+
+### Risk Mitigation
+- ✅ Test with 50K+ entries simulating enterprise
+- ✅ Gather feedback on structure features
+
+### Launch v1.0
+- ✅ **Yes**, but promote as "content foundation" while teasing structure in roadmap
+- ✅ Focus on niche: Cross-tool team memory
+
+---
+
+## ✅ 7. Confirmation
+
+### Current Features Sufficient for v1.0 Launch?
+**Yes** – Strong on content/decisions; validated as **80% to world-class**.
+
+### Future Roadmap Correct?
+**Yes**, but **accelerate structure/change features** per global gaps.
+
+### Priorities Right?
+**Yes**, with structure additions **elevated for competitiveness**.
+
+### No Critical Gaps?
+**No** – Code connections are the big one, as noted.
+
+### Architecture Will Scale?
+**Yes**, with graph extensions.
+
+### Competitive Positioning Clear?
+**Yes** – Unique in local enforcement; add connections to rival Chinese scale.
+
+### Identified Items
+
+**Critical Missing**:
+- Code structure
+- Change impact
+- Team patterns
+
+**Partial Needing Completion**:
+- Enhance with global-inspired connections
+
+**Technical Debt**:
+- Graph handling
+- Large-scale scanning
+
+**Integrations Needed**:
+- AST parsers
+- Local ML for patterns
+- VS Code for Windsurf-like reach
+
+**UX Improvements**:
+- CLI commands for predictions
+- Visual graph outputs
+
+---
+
+## 🚀 Final Validation
+
+**Solid validation** – Analysis nails the global edge; adding connections positions MemoryLink strongly!
+
+**Key Takeaway**: MemoryLink's current features are **80% world-class** for content/decisions. Adding structural memory (code connections, change impacts, team patterns) closes the remaining gap and positions MemoryLink as a **globally competitive** tool that combines:
+- Local-first privacy (vs Chinese cloud models)
+- Git-native workflow (unique differentiator)
+- Structural awareness (vs content-only tools)
+- Team pattern learning (vs individual-focused tools)
+
+---
+
+**Source**: Grok AI Comprehensive Validation  
+**Stored**: December 14, 2025  
+**Status**: ✅ Validated and stored in MemoryLink
+

package/docs/GROK_AI_CLARIFICATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Grok AI Clarification – 33% Risk Focus
+
+**Date**: December 15, 2025  
+**Context**: Response to AI Panel Clarification Request (67% vs 33% split)  
+**Position**: Endorses hybrid safeguard—launch v1.3 now; pre-announce v1.5 (Tree-sitter + lightweight dashboard in 2–4 weeks); thresholds; speed over completeness.
+
+## Key Quantified Insights
+- **Abandonment Risk (JS/TS-only, CLI-first)**  
+  - Overall: ~15–25% early adopter loss.  
+  - Polyglot (Python/Go backend + TS frontend): ~20% immediate churn if graph/impact fails on Python.  
+  - Visual/non-CLI: 30–40% churn without dashboard/IDE view.  
+  - Early users: 65–75% JS/TS-focused; at-risk 25–35% polyglot; 40% GUI-preferring users abandon fastest.
+
+- **Time-to-Failure**  
+  - Polyglot teams: first task (hours) when impact/graph on non-JS fails.  
+  - Non-CLI teams: 1–3 days (manual injection feels clunky vs seamless memory).  
+  - Evidence: Copilot surveys—seamless installs day 1; friction drops retention 30–50%.
+
+- **Mitigations**  
+  - Pre-announce v1.5 (2–4 weeks) → churn reduction 40–60%.  
+  - “JS/TS Optimized” tag + roadmap → retention boost to 80–85% with concrete timeline.  
+  - Threshold hint: ≥50 Python/Go issues triggers build.
+
+- **Market Now vs 60 Days**  
+  - Speed-to-market worth 2–3× stars growth; fast-launch OSS devtools gain 500–2k stars/week; 60-day delay misses boom window.  
+  - Momentum > perfection in current AI wave.
+
+- **User Intent Mix**  
+  - Early users: ~70% JS/TS, 30% Python/Go/Rust.  
+  - CLI-comfortable: 65–75%; visual-first: 25–35%.  
+  - Risk is manageable: JS/TS power users drive initial stars/feedback.
+
+- **AI Company Moves (Q4 2025)**  
+  - Priorities: MCP expansion (Linux Foundation; 10k+ servers), VS Code/JetBrains integrations, agentic features.  
+  - Multi-lang via better parsers; dashboards secondary (Claude Code added team metrics mid-2025).  
+  - Deferring Tree-sitter short term = low risk if MCP seamless.
+
+- **Minimal Commitment**  
+  - “v1.5: Full Tree-sitter (Python/Go/Rust) + lightweight read-only dashboard in ~4 weeks, triggered by community demand.”
+
+- **Proof Points**  
+  - Tree-sitter decisive: polyglot monorepo impact/refactors; prevents 20–30% refactor errors.  
+  - Dashboard decisive: PMs/EMs/compliance; non-decisive for solo JS/TS CLI users.
+
+## Final Recommendations (Grok)
+- **Launch v1.3 in 3 days**: Add simple read-only viewer; minimal website (landing + quickstart).  
+- **Pre-announce v1.5 (2–4 weeks)**: Tree-sitter + lightweight dashboard.  
+  - Suggested thresholds: ≥75 Python/Go requests OR ≥40 dashboard requests (GitHub/X).  
+- **Messaging**: Clear, honest; “JS/TS optimized; Python/Go + dashboard in v1.5 (2–4 weeks).”  
+- **VS Code extension**: Slip to v1.4 (post-launch, ~1 week); not a pre-launch blocker.  
+- **Business model**: Free Forever core; tease Enterprise (audit/SSO); prioritize speed over early paywalls.
+