Speculate on replacing embedded ward ops forgejo with an external boundary #1249

New issue

Open

opened 2026-07-14 08:32:18 +00:00 by coilyco-ops · 0 comments

coilyco-ops commented

2026-07-14 08:32:18 +00:00

Member

Decision

No implementation approval from coilysiren/inbox#210.

Kai explicitly marked this as speculative and not something she wants to think through yet. Capture the question, but do not treat it as a build ticket.

Scope

Describe possible future boundaries for ward ops forgejo after current workflows are stable.
Compare embedded ops, MCP, JSON-RPC, and other external tool boundaries at a high level.
Identify prerequisites and risks, especially impact to director/surface workflows.

Non-goals

Do not replace embedded ward ops forgejo.
Do not introduce an MCP or JSON-RPC implementation.
Do not change the current operator command surface.

Parent: coilysiren/inbox#210.

## Decision No implementation approval from coilysiren/inbox#210. Kai explicitly marked this as speculative and not something she wants to think through yet. Capture the question, but do not treat it as a build ticket. ## Scope - Describe possible future boundaries for ward ops forgejo after current workflows are stable. - Compare embedded ops, MCP, JSON-RPC, and other external tool boundaries at a high level. - Identify prerequisites and risks, especially impact to director/surface workflows. ## Non-goals - Do not replace embedded ward ops forgejo. - Do not introduce an MCP or JSON-RPC implementation. - Do not change the current operator command surface. Parent: coilysiren/inbox#210.

coilyco-ops added the

consult

labels

2026-07-14 08:32:18 +00:00

coilyco-ops referenced this issue

2026-07-14 10:08:49 +00:00

Define discoverability contract for the post-ward-ops broker surface #1269