docs: Add Meta-Boundary guide to clarify Application vs Tooling domains
This commit is contained in:
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
|
||||
| Guide | Contents |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| [Architecture](guide_architecture.md) | Thread domains, cross-thread data structures, event system, application lifetime, task pipeline (producer-consumer), Execution Clutch (HITL), AI client multi-provider architecture, Anthropic/Gemini caching strategies, context refresh, comms logging, state machines |
|
||||
| [Meta-Boundary](guide_meta_boundary.md) | Explicit distinction between the Application's domain (Strict HITL) and the Meta-Tooling domain (autonomous agents), preventing feature bleed and safety bypasses via shared bridges like `mcp_client.py`. |
|
||||
| [Tools & IPC](guide_tools.md) | MCP Bridge 3-layer security model, all 26 native tool signatures, Hook API GET/POST endpoints with request/response formats, ApiHookClient method reference, `/api/ask` synchronous HITL protocol, session logging, shell runner |
|
||||
| [MMA Orchestration](guide_mma.md) | Ticket/Track/WorkerContext data structures, DAG engine (cycle detection, topological sort), ConductorEngine execution loop, Tier 2 ticket generation, Tier 3 worker lifecycle with context amnesia, Tier 4 QA integration, token firewalling, track state persistence |
|
||||
| [Simulations](guide_simulations.md) | `live_gui` pytest fixture lifecycle, `VerificationLogger`, process cleanup, Puppeteer pattern (8-stage MMA simulation), approval automation, mock provider (`mock_gemini_cli.py`) with JSON-L protocol, visual verification patterns, ASTParser (tree-sitter) vs summarizer (stdlib `ast`) |
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user