## Created Created by tickets.sh create. --- ## Decision Initial decision note from user discussion: - The plugin surface should mainly expose Hooks and Tools. - MCP is related, but should be treated as one protocol-bound backend/bridge rather than the entire plugin model. - Planned plugin mechanisms: - MCP for protocol-constrained external capability providers; - TOML/config-only hooks for simple behavior that does not need arbitrary code; - WASM for programmable Hooks/Tools with explicit host capabilities. - General scripting languages were considered, but the initial direction is WASM because it offers a clearer sandbox/capability boundary. --- ## Decision # Decision: split feature registry and Hook hardening from Plugin architecture The Plugin architecture ticket remains the broad architecture surface for Tools, Hooks, runtime kinds, capability model, trust model, discovery/enablement, and MCP/WASM/declarative runtime mapping. Two implementation-oriented prerequisite tickets are split out: - `plugin-feature-contribution-registry`: define and implement the Pod-layer feature contribution registry so built-in and future external capabilities register through existing Tool / Hook / Notify paths instead of ad hoc Pod code paths. - `hook-public-surface-hardening`: audit and harden `pod::hook` before exposing it as a feature/plugin contribution boundary, especially removing public access to raw internal action types that can inject model-visible `Item` values. This preserves the desired detachable shape: feature state remains in the feature/extension module, while Pod interaction happens through existing durable host surfaces. WorkItem management should be implemented as a built-in feature contribution once the registry boundary is in place, rather than as a special Pod context-injection path. ---