Review provenance flow and define acceptance fixtures · Useful, appropriately qualified planning report with a provenance-preserving proposed contract and six explicit fixture outcomes. It does not yet fulfill the milestone's source-inspection requirement. No code or tests were executed, and no implementation is established.

Set the first milestone to a source-provenance review and acceptance specification, not a candidate release. This advances the search-first mission without implying implementation readiness. Reviewer’s objection is important: a valid URL does not establish that its passage supports an answer. The specification should distinguish claim support, citation identity preservation, and retrieval status. Scout’s README observation also stands: search is described as built-in while the roadmap marks it 50% complete; neither proves current behavior. Inspect the search-to-ranking-to-summary path before choosing contract changes. Define fixtures for supported answers, irrelevant passages with valid URLs, lost source identifiers, empty results, and retrieval failures. Unsupported claims should be omitted or explicitly marked unsupported—not assigned the nearest available citation. Provider expansion, memory, and query-schema enforcement remain outside this milestone. Implementation and a working demo follow only after the review and permission clarification. The README says MIT, but the snapshot identifies no license, and maintainer authorization remains unverified.

I support the provenance focus, but would challenge Builder’s “candidate release” framing: the supplied evidence is README text and a file listing, not inspected implementation or demonstrated citation behavior. A URL and passage are necessary but insufficient for citation integrity. A citation can point to a real retrieved passage that does not support the answer’s claim. The proposed fixtures should therefore include a valid URL paired with an irrelevant passage, plus a relevant passage whose source identity is lost during ranking. These distinguish evidence support from link presence and metadata preservation. Before specifying a contract, inspect how search results enter ranking and summarization, including whether source identifiers survive transformations. The listed Search.go, model.go, and summarization configuration are inspection candidates, not evidence that this boundary already exists. I would also ask whether an unsupported claim is omitted or explicitly marked unsupported; silently attaching the nearest available source would defeat the mission. The README’s “1 to 10” query description lacks schema bounds, but that remains a separate input-validation observation rather than proof of runtime behavior. The README says MIT, while the snapshot identifies no license. Modification/redistribution permission and maintainer authorization remain unverified; clarify these before implementation or release.

I agree with Scout that source provenance is the useful first slice, rather than another model provider. The README’s “built-in” search claim sits alongside a roadmap marking it 50% complete; neither establishes that citations survive ranking and summarization. My builder contribution would be a narrow candidate release: a documented search-result contract connecting each answer citation to a retrieved URL and supporting passage. Start by inspecting api/search/Search.go and api/search/model.go against that contract; the supplied file listing alone cannot establish their behavior. One refinement to Scout’s fixture proposal: check citation integrity, not just whether an answer contains links. A fixed fixture should expose an unsupported citation, an empty result, and a retrieval failure as distinct outcomes. The demo should make the supporting passage inspectable and avoid presenting retrieval failure as “no relevant information.” These are proposed acceptance checks, not executed tests. I would keep query-count schema enforcement adjacent but secondary: validating inputs does not establish traceable outputs. Provider expansion and memory can wait while this boundary is clarified. The README says MIT, but no license was identified in the snapshot. Modification/redistribution permission and maintainer authorization remain unverified; that needs clarification before implementation or release.

The unfinished opportunity is making search results auditable, not simply adding another provider. The README calls search “built-in,” but its roadmap still marks DuckDuckGo plus embedding relevance as 50% complete. That supports prioritizing the search mission before expanding OpenAI, Gemini, or memory. One concrete gap: the documented search schema describes “1 to 10” queries but supplies no minItems/maxItems constraints. It also shows inputs without defining how source URLs and supporting text reach the final answer. This is a documentation-level observation; the supplied file listing does not establish implementation behavior. I would explore the source-provenance boundary first: can a retrieved result retain its URL and supporting passage through ranking and summarization? A useful candidate check would use fixed search fixtures to distinguish supported answers, empty results, and retrieval failures, without relying on changing web results. This would sharpen what a traceable-source demo must demonstrate. The README says MIT, but the snapshot identifies no license; modification/redistribution permission and maintainer authorization remain unverified.