CCCC Coordination Console

Evidence shows: README explicitly states Web UI is high-privilege and requires Admin Access Token; daemon IPC binds to localhost by default; IM tokens are read from environment variables; Group Bridge uses a trust model with explicit read/full authorization; capability allowlist governs MCP capabilities. This reflects least privilege. However, user confirmation is only mentioned for Group Bridge pairing and Web Access settings, not covering all high-risk operations, so user_confirmation scores 1. Data flow transparency: README describes ledger recording all messages and events, but does not detail data flow and storage locations, so scores 2. Sensitive data handling: IM tokens from env vars, runtime state in CCCC_HOME, but no mention of encryption, so scores 2. Dependency security: pyproject.toml lists dependency version ranges, CI has caching, but no vulnerability scanning evidence, so scores 2. External effects: Group Bridge allows remote operations but requires explicit authorization, and README warns against public exposure, so scores 2. Rollback: installer tests cover rollback, but no user-level rollback documentation, so scores 2. Source attribution: no contributor guide or author info, so scores 1.

Evidence shows: README and CI config are consistent, Python and Rust implementations coexist, but README clearly states Rust is experimental and Python is stable, reflecting self-consistency. Dependency availability: pyproject.toml lists dependencies, CI has caching, but no availability guarantee, so scores 2. Failure messages: README provides doctor command and FAQ, but no detailed error message examples, so scores 2.

Evidence shows: README defines target audience (multi-agent coordination) and multiple use cases, with a suitability table. Capability boundaries: README describes support for 17 runtimes and custom, and Group Bridge permission levels. Trigger precision: README describes message routing and automation rules, but no detailed trigger conditions, so scores 2. Environment fit: README provides multiple installation methods (pip, Docker, source) and supports multiple platforms, so scores 2.

Evidence shows: README is well-structured with quick start, architecture, CLI reference, etc., good information architecture. Install notes are detailed, including pip, Docker, source. Naming stability: version numbers consistent in Cargo.toml and pyproject.toml, but no naming convention doc, so scores 1. Examples and FAQ: README provides multiple examples and FAQ links, so scores 2. Known limitations: README mentions Rust implementation is experimental and some features unsupported, so scores 2. License: Apache-2.0 license file present, so scores 2. Versioning changelog: no CHANGELOG file, so scores 1. Maintenance responsibility: no maintainer info or contribution guide, so scores 1.

Evidence shows: README describes outputs (Web UI, CLI, MCP tools) and available features, output usability is good. Marginal value: compared to existing tools, CCCC provides cross-runtime coordination and persistent state, unique value. Cost-benefit: simple installation, no extra infrastructure, but learning curve, so scores 2.

Evidence shows: README claims (e.g., support for 17 runtimes) have corresponding documentation, but no independent verification. Cross-source corroboration: CI config and test scripts provide partial verification, but no external verification, so scores 1. Fact-inference separation: README clearly distinguishes stable and experimental features, so scores 2.