You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current README hero leads with "deterministic tool paths waste an LLM call between every step; compile them away." That framing invites the strongest objection a skilled reader can raise: "If I already know the exact sequence, I'll just write a Python function with four calls — why do I need a framework?" The before/after diagram (4 LLM calls → 0) reads as a strawman, because nobody who already knows a deterministic path is putting a model between each step.
This caps our addressable audience and is the likely reason engagement is flat despite strong engineering.
The stronger value props (already in the repo, under-sold)
Observe → compile → replace (the moat).ChainAnalyzer + the runtime observer (Implement runtime chain observer with auto-flow suggestion #78) + suggest imply a capability no competitor ships: watch an agent repeat a tool sequence at runtime, then auto-propose compiling it into a deterministic flow. You don't hand-write the flow — the system discovers it. This answers "why a framework" directly.
Governance / observability for tool pipelines. Typed I/O at every step, file-serializable flows, schema-drift detection, determinism attestation, property fuzzing, structured audit traces, profiling. The value is disciplined, auditable, portable deterministic pipelines — not "run 3 functions."
Proposal
Rewrite the README hero and docs/index.md to lead with discovery + governance; keep the cost/latency argument as a secondary supporting point, not the headline.
Add an explicit "Why not just write a function?" FAQ entry that answers the objection head-on (discovery, schemas, traces, drift, attestation, portability/export).
Re-frame the comparison matrix so the differentiator reads as "the only LLM-free, typed, file-serializable, auto-discovered tool-flow runner."
Acceptance criteria
README hero no longer leads with the "N LLM calls → 0" diagram as the primary message.
A "Why not just write a plain function?" section exists and answers the objection in ≤6 bullets.
docs/index.md and the readthedocs landing page mirror the new positioning.
Problem
The current README hero leads with "deterministic tool paths waste an LLM call between every step; compile them away." That framing invites the strongest objection a skilled reader can raise: "If I already know the exact sequence, I'll just write a Python function with four calls — why do I need a framework?" The before/after diagram (4 LLM calls → 0) reads as a strawman, because nobody who already knows a deterministic path is putting a model between each step.
This caps our addressable audience and is the likely reason engagement is flat despite strong engineering.
The stronger value props (already in the repo, under-sold)
ChainAnalyzer+ the runtime observer (Implement runtime chain observer with auto-flow suggestion #78) +suggestimply a capability no competitor ships: watch an agent repeat a tool sequence at runtime, then auto-propose compiling it into a deterministic flow. You don't hand-write the flow — the system discovers it. This answers "why a framework" directly.Proposal
docs/index.mdto lead with discovery + governance; keep the cost/latency argument as a secondary supporting point, not the headline.Acceptance criteria
docs/index.mdand the readthedocs landing page mirror the new positioning.Related: #78, #17.