docs: follow up on tywrapped RFC review items

[bbopen]

Follow-up to #189.

Addresses the remaining valid review feedback by expanding the RFC doc with:

• More realistic trademark cost budgeting (fees vs. legal/search).
• Governance + fund allocation mechanics (who decides, how, transparency).
• Concrete support-breadth implementation notes (dist-tags, CI matrix, publish flow, install commands).
• Republish policy operational notes (canaries, batching, rate limits, rollback).
• Human-gate fallback mechanisms (backup maintainers, timeouts, emergency overrides).
• Enterprise stability options (stable/lts channels, migration notes, pinning guidance).
• Browser support enforcement guidance (CI validation + runtime/boundary guards).
• Transport large-data design notes.
• Scope-consistent runtime import example.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Rate limit exceeded

@bbopen has exceeded the limit for the number of commits that can be reviewed per hour. Please wait 21 minutes and 37 seconds before requesting another review.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After the wait time has elapsed, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans have higher rate limits than the trial, open-source and free plans. In all cases, we re-allow further reviews after a brief timeout.

Please see our FAQ for further information.

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 252ea29 and 0a361a9.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request updates an RFC document outlining the tywrapped ecosystem vision. Changes include additions to operational scalability, governance and fund allocation, enterprise stability options, runtime package naming conventions, CI/CD pipelines with fallback procedures, and implementation sketches with validation guidance.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Ecosystem Vision RFC docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md	Enhanced RFC with new sections on operational scalability (canary rollouts, publishing gates, rate limits), governance and fund allocation (decision body, maintainer stipends, bounties), enterprise stability channels, runtime package naming validation, CI/CD fallback procedures, and detailed implementation sketches. Updated terminology clarifying @tywrapped/\* vs @tywrap/\* package relationships.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• docs: add tywrapped ecosystem vision #189: Direct predecessor to this RFC; earlier iteration of updates to the same tywrapped ecosystem vision document covering foundational governance and versioning strategies.

Poem

🐰 Hop along the vision clear,
Governance blooms, scalability's near,
Enterprise channels, funding flows true,
The ecosystem grows with each RFC view! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately reflects the main objective: following up on RFC review feedback with expanded documentation details across multiple sections.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description is directly related to the changeset, providing a clear bullet-point list of all major additions that align with the file modifications.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.
Merge Conflict Detection	✅ Passed	✅ No merge conflicts detected when merging into main

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/followup-rfc-review-items

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In `@docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md`:
- Around line 421-423: The wording in the design notes uses "very large" but
should be tightened to "large" and minor stylistic cleanup is requested; update
the three bullet lines referencing sendBinary/send(ArrayBuffer)/Transferables,
out-of-band transfer (file paths, HTTP URLs, object-store URIs), and streaming
semantics (streamStart/streamChunk/streamEnd with backpressure and AbortSignal)
to replace "very large" with "large" and apply consistent phrasing and
punctuation per LanguageTool suggestions (e.g., consistent code formatting for
sendBinary, ArrayBuffer, Transferables, streamStart/streamChunk/streamEnd,
AbortSignal and parallel structure across bullets).
- Around line 287-292: Update the documentation example to use the correct API
and package: replace the non-existent setRuntime and InProcessBridge with the
actual exports setRuntimeBridge and NodeBridge, and import both from the single
'tywrap' package (i.e., use setRuntimeBridge and NodeBridge from 'tywrap') so
the snippet calls setRuntimeBridge(new NodeBridge()).

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between dce1292 and 252ea29.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (6)

📚 Learning: 2026-01-20T01:33:12.841Z

Learnt from: bbopen
Repo: bbopen/tywrap PR: 136
File: src/runtime/node.ts:238-249
Timestamp: 2026-01-20T01:33:12.841Z
Learning: In the tywrap repository, when reviewing init/startup patterns, prioritize cases that break core functionality over edge cases with diagnostic-only impact (e.g., missing bridgeInfo metadata). If workers are healthy and operational, defer low-impact defensive checks to follow-up PRs.

Applied to files:

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

📚 Learning: 2026-01-19T21:48:45.693Z

Learnt from: bbopen
Repo: bbopen/tywrap PR: 127
File: src/runtime/bridge-core.ts:260-298
Timestamp: 2026-01-19T21:48:45.693Z
Learning: In `src/runtime/bridge-core.ts`, keep `normalizeErrorPayload` to validate error payloads from the Python subprocess. The subprocess boundary is effectively untrusted, and normalizing error responses prevents `undefined: undefined` errors on malformed payloads. Error responses are not the hot path, so the small validation overhead is acceptable for the added resilience.

Applied to files:

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

📚 Learning: 2026-01-19T21:14:40.872Z

Learnt from: bbopen
Repo: bbopen/tywrap PR: 127
File: src/runtime/bridge-core.ts:260-263
Timestamp: 2026-01-19T21:14:40.872Z
Learning: In `src/runtime/bridge-core.ts` and similar hot request/response loop implementations in the tywrap repository, avoid adding extra defensive validation (e.g., runtime shape checks on error payloads) in tight loops unless the protocol boundary is untrusted or there's a concrete bug report. The Python bridge protocol is controlled and validated via tests, so defensive checks would add unnecessary branching overhead without meaningful benefit.

Applied to files:

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

📚 Learning: 2026-01-20T16:01:14.323Z

Learnt from: bbopen
Repo: bbopen/tywrap PR: 152
File: docs/adr/002-bridge-protocol.md:599-602
Timestamp: 2026-01-20T16:01:14.323Z
Learning: In `src/runtime/node-bridge.ts` (NodeBridge), a test message is sent to the Python subprocess to confirm the bridge is responsive before marking it as ready.

Applied to files:

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

📚 Learning: 2026-01-20T16:01:39.136Z

Learnt from: bbopen
Repo: bbopen/tywrap PR: 152
File: docs/adr/002-bridge-protocol.md:826-830
Timestamp: 2026-01-20T16:01:39.136Z
Learning: In the tywrap BridgeProtocol architecture (ADR-002), `HttpIO` (and other Transport implementations like `ProcessIO`, `PyodideIO`) implements only the `Transport` interface (methods: `send`, `isReady`, `dispose`). The `RuntimeExecution` interface methods (`call`, `instantiate`, `callMethod`, `disposeInstance`) are implemented by `BridgeProtocol`, which delegates to `Transport` instances. Transport implementations should not include RuntimeExecution methods.

Applied to files:

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

📚 Learning: 2026-01-20T16:01:14.323Z

Learnt from: bbopen
Repo: bbopen/tywrap PR: 152
File: docs/adr/002-bridge-protocol.md:599-602
Timestamp: 2026-01-20T16:01:14.323Z
Learning: In the tywrap repository, bridges currently use implicit ready detection: the first successful response from the Python subprocess proves the bridge is ready to handle requests.

Applied to files:

• docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

🪛 LanguageTool

docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md

[style] ~422-~422: As an alternative to the over-used intensifier ‘very’, consider replacing this phrase.
Context: ... available. - Out-of-band transfer: for very large payloads, send references (file paths, ...

(EN_WEAK_ADJECTIVE)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: os (windows-latest)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

docs/plans/2026-01-22-tywrapped-ecosystem-vision.md (1)

404-411: No changes needed. The documentation at lines 404-411 accurately reflects the Transport interface defined in src/runtime/transport.ts. The interface includes init(), send(), isReady, and inherits dispose() from Disposable, exactly as shown in the doc snippet. There is no API drift.

Likely an incorrect or invalid review comment.

_{✏️ Tip: You can disable this entire section by setting review_details to false in your review settings.}