58 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
58 lines
5.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: landscape-scan
|
|
description: Survey the competitive/comparable-project landscape for CapableMind every couple of days — projects similar or too-identical to what we're building. Generative, not anxious: learn, borrow, sharpen our bet, and notice the day someone builds the governed/epistemic-integrity angle we depend on. Applies a two-tier lens, checks known entries for movement, and appends to the living landscape register. Sibling of /tooling-scan (which scans for dev tooling that helps us build).
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Landscape Scan
|
|
|
|
Survey the field around CapableMind and keep the **living landscape register** current. This is the competitive/comparable-project scan — for tooling that could help us *build*, use `/tooling-scan` instead.
|
|
|
|
## Principle
|
|
|
|
> *Research is important, but it must push us to make something better — not defeat us.* (steward)
|
|
|
|
Generative, not anxious. We already know **capability is commodifying** and **our differentiator is governance + epistemic integrity**. So scanning for "is someone more capable" is a treadmill — the answer is always yes and it doesn't matter. The scan that earns its keep is narrower (Tier 2 below). Breadth without that lens is just anxiety; resist it.
|
|
|
|
## §0 — Resolve the workstream lens
|
|
|
|
This skill is **workstream-parametrized** — one method, many lenses ("simple exterior, complex underneath"). Default workstream: **`capablemind`**.
|
|
|
|
If invoked as `/landscape-scan <workstream>` (e.g. `studium-engine`), FIRST read `~/_Dev/CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/research/lens-<workstream>.md` and use its values — **the bet**, **what a real threat looks like** (the Tier-2 focus), **the register path**, and **workstream-specific sources** — in place of the CapableMind specifics named below. Those specifics are the `capablemind` lens (also written out in `lens-capablemind.md`); the card overrides them per workstream. If no card exists for the named workstream, say so and stop — never scan against a guessed lens.
|
|
|
|
## The two-tier lens
|
|
|
|
- **Tier 1 — Capability / standards pulse** (quick): what's becoming table-stakes, what techniques/standards are worth borrowing, what's worth a deeper look later. Skim.
|
|
- **Tier 2 — The threat watch** (the real work): is anyone building *governed / constitutional / epistemic-integrity* memory — memory you can **trust**, not just memory that's **capable**? That is the only landscape that can defeat our bet. Spend the weight here.
|
|
|
|
**Movement matters as much as novelty.** Re-check known register entries for change, not just hunt new ones. (Canonical lesson: Hermes's self-improvement loop read *"overstated/static"* on 2026-04-09 and *"verified real"* on 2026-05-27 — same name, moved underneath.)
|
|
|
|
## Procedure
|
|
|
|
1. **Open the register** — `~/_Dev/CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/research/landscape-register.md`. Read current entries, `Last scanned`, and the watch list. This is the canonical source — append in place, never fork.
|
|
|
|
2. **Tier 2 sweep first** (governed/epistemic-integrity memory). Targeted search — e.g. "constitutional AI memory", "governed agent memory", "trustworthy / auditable memory substrate", "honest degradation memory", "human-in-the-loop memory governance". The expected (and so-far-true) result is *nothing credible* — confirm that's still true, and name anything adjacent that's drifting toward the lane.
|
|
|
|
3. **Tier 1 pulse.** New capability/tooling/standards in the space (agent frameworks, memory systems, skill standards, inference infra). Sources: GitHub (trending + stars in the niche), HN, the register's watch list (review the highest-priority unreviewed item, e.g. `obra/superpowers`), arXiv for the Tier-2 terms, and the `agentskills.io` ecosystem (the one real standardization signal). Also **re-check known entries for movement.**
|
|
|
|
4. **Assess each find through the lens.** For each: *what it is · overlap with CapableMind · governed? · verdict* (`THREAT | LEARNING | CONFIRMS | TOOLING | INFRA`). **Verify from source/code or primary docs, not marketing** — cite. Mark inferences `[SPECULATIVE]`. The governance/epistemic-integrity axis is the signal; capability rank is noise.
|
|
|
|
5. **Dedup + depth.** Check the find isn't already in the register or a dated study (`research/`). If a find is consequential enough to warrant detail, spin a dated deep-dive (e.g. `research/YYYY-MM-DD-<name>-study.md`) and link it from the register's index — don't bloat the register itself.
|
|
|
|
6. **Update the register.** Append/adjust entries, update `Last scanned`, move reviewed items off the watch list. Then **surface a short digest** to the steward: Tier-2 status (still open? / something moving?), notable new Tier-1 finds, and any movement in known entries. Recommend deeper scouts where warranted — but don't decide adoption: findings are for steward + jurist (governed initiative).
|
|
|
|
## Output
|
|
|
|
A tight digest (not a wall):
|
|
- **Tier 2:** lane still open? / anything drifting toward it?
|
|
- **New / moved (Tier 1):** the few that matter, each one line with its verdict.
|
|
- **Register updated:** what changed; any new dated study spun.
|
|
- **Recommend:** any find worth a full scout, or a watch-list item to prioritize next time.
|
|
|
|
## Constraints
|
|
|
|
- **Generative, not anxious.** The output should make us build better, not feel behind. If a scan only produces "X is more capable," it found nothing — re-aim at Tier 2.
|
|
- **Verify from source.** No claims from marketing pages or memory; read the repo/primary docs and cite. Mark speculation.
|
|
- **Surface, don't decide.** Adoption/architecture calls are steward + jurist territory (the loop is load-bearing). The scan informs; it does not commit.
|
|
- **Proportion.** This is a couple-of-days pulse, not a research project. The lens matters more than coverage; don't let the scan become the work instead of the building.
|
|
- **Pool with Seb.** He scans independently — the register is the shared canonical record so finds aren't double-chased.
|