Zoo Code

The deciding trait is that nothing has to be relearned. Code, Architect, Ask and Debug are where they were, custom modes still work the way you configured them, and the settings structure is unchanged, so switching costs you an afternoon rather than a fortnight. Continuity is an underrated feature and this is the clearest example of it on the board.

What is new sits on top rather than replacing anything underneath. Pick it if you are already fluent in these modes. Pick the larger project if you are starting from nothing.

The trade is stated plainly and it is still the wrong way round. Approval prompts are removed because a filter is expected to catch the harmful cases, which inverts the usual safety posture: instead of allowing what is known to be safe, it refuses what is known to be dangerous, and everything nobody enumerated runs without a prompt. Shell syntax is very good at not looking like itself.

What it does right is scope the servers. Restrictions can be applied per mode, so a debugging session does not inherit the tool list an architecture session needed.

1. Removing an explicit indexing phase is a real usability gain, since a stale index is the most common reason retrieval quality degrades without anyone noticing. 2. The cost has to appear somewhere, either as latency in the query or as work done incrementally on a file change, and the documentation does not say which.

2. Parent and child task recovery is the other structural addition, and it is the one that matters for delegation, because a subtask that fails without a defined return path leaves a parent waiting on nothing.

Most community continuations have no business model and no plan to find one. This one shipped a metered endpoint alongside the free path, which means somebody is thinking about how the maintenance gets paid for, and declining to attach a subscription to it is a deliberate choice that keeps the free route credible instead of quietly degrading it.

Moat: the installed base it inherited, which is real and decays if the roadmap stalls. Likely acquirer: a model vendor wanting an editor surface. Position: the healthiest free extension on this row, and watch the gateway margin.

Path controls are the detail that changes my answer. A repository containing several projects with different sensitivity is the normal case in my organisation, and being able to bound which roots an agent may touch is the difference between a tool I permit and a tool I argue about. The licence costs nothing and clears review in one pass.

What is still absent is the estate layer: no console, no directory integration, no audit export, nothing running in a pipeline. Approved with conditions: path restrictions defined centrally and pushed, not left to each engineer.

This is the configuration I keep asking for. A permissive licence on a fork that already proved it can be forked, keys billed directly by whoever I chose rather than marked up in the middle, and two local runtimes named by the documentation instead of mentioned as a possibility somebody once tested.

The source is readable, the mode definitions are files, and my servers attach as they do everywhere else. If the maintainers ever go the way of the project this came from, the same thing that happened last time happens again, which is the strongest longevity argument available.