2.0 KiB
2.0 KiB
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 hardenpod::hookbefore exposing it as a feature/plugin contribution boundary, especially removing public access to raw internal action types that can inject model-visibleItemvalues.
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.