Add breathing room to the walgit comparison header.

Add breathing room to the walgit comparison header.

Generated with [Devin](https://devin.ai)

Co-Authored-By: Devin <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-Authored-By: Devin <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Deploy story

What this commit did to the running system — joined from the forge receipt chain, the part a commit page elsewhere cannot show.

pushed: by user · WAL seq 283 · 2026-08-24T05:21:25.903667Z

Changed files

modified docs/2026-08-24-walgit-forge-architecture-comparison.md

Diff

1 file changed, +9 -1

# walgit and the forge: two implementations of one architecture

**Date:** 2026-08-24

**Subject:** `walgit` at commit `8e3ece5` ("walgit: initial public release", 68,231 lines of Rust across eight crates) compared with `OpenAgents.Forge` at commit `b5eb4ee` (15,519 lines of Elixir across 55 modules in `lib/openagents/forge/`).

**Question:** Both systems put a write-ahead log in object storage, make it the only ref authority, and treat every node's disk as a cache. What did each build on top of that, what does the other's shape reveal, and where does walgit's design expose a weakness in ours?
**Method:** direct reading of both implementations. On our side: `lib/openagents/forge/` — chiefly `wal.ex`, `wal/gcs.ex`, `wal/local.ex`, `sync.ex`, `pushes.ex`, `git_http.ex`, `git_plane.ex`, `verification.ex`, `independence.ex`, `janitor.ex`, `receipt_repository.ex`, `anchor.ex` — plus `INVARIANTS.md` (`REPOSITORY-002`, `REPOSITORY-003`, `EXIT-001` through `EXIT-006`) the disclosure in `docs/forge-operator-independence.md` and `docs/forge-exit-rehearsals.md`, and the audits in `docs/2026-08-21-repository-storage-architecture-audit.md`, `docs/2026-08-23-forge-wal-anchoring.md`, and `docs/2026-08-23-invariant-proof-audit.md`. On walgit's side: its Rust crates, protobuf schema, and simulation tests, with its `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `GOAL.md`, and `docs/` read second so that intent never stood in for implementation.

**Method:** direct reading of both implementations.

On our side: `lib/openagents/forge/` — chiefly `wal.ex`, `wal/gcs.ex`, `wal/local.ex`, `sync.ex`, `pushes.ex`, `git_http.ex`, `git_plane.ex`, `verification.ex`, `independence.ex`, `janitor.ex`, `receipt_repository.ex`, `anchor.ex` — plus `INVARIANTS.md` (`REPOSITORY-002`, `REPOSITORY-003`, `EXIT-001` through `EXIT-006`), the disclosure in `docs/forge-operator-independence.md` and `docs/forge-exit-rehearsals.md`, and the audits in `docs/2026-08-21-repository-storage-architecture-audit.md`, `docs/2026-08-23-forge-wal-anchoring.md`, and `docs/2026-08-23-invariant-proof-audit.md`.

On walgit's side: its Rust crates, protobuf schema, and simulation tests, with its `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `GOAL.md`, and `docs/` read second so that intent never stood in for implementation.

**Status:** Comparison only. No implementation changed. Follow-ups in section 7 are proposals, not decisions.

---

1	1		`# walgit and the forge: two implementations of one architecture`
2	2
3	3		`Date: 2026-08-24`
	4	+
4	5		Subject: `walgit` at commit `8e3ece5` ("walgit: initial public release", 68,231 lines of Rust across eight crates) compared with `OpenAgents.Forge` at commit `b5eb4ee` (15,519 lines of Elixir across 55 modules in `lib/openagents/forge/`).
	6	+
5	7		`Question: Both systems put a write-ahead log in object storage, make it the only ref authority, and treat every node's disk as a cache. What did each build on top of that, what does the other's shape reveal, and where does walgit's design expose a weakness in ours?`
6		-	Method: direct reading of both implementations. On our side: `lib/openagents/forge/` — chiefly `wal.ex`, `wal/gcs.ex`, `wal/local.ex`, `sync.ex`, `pushes.ex`, `git_http.ex`, `git_plane.ex`, `verification.ex`, `independence.ex`, `janitor.ex`, `receipt_repository.ex`, `anchor.ex` — plus `INVARIANTS.md` (`REPOSITORY-002`, `REPOSITORY-003`, `EXIT-001` through `EXIT-006`) the disclosure in `docs/forge-operator-independence.md` and `docs/forge-exit-rehearsals.md`, and the audits in `docs/2026-08-21-repository-storage-architecture-audit.md`, `docs/2026-08-23-forge-wal-anchoring.md`, and `docs/2026-08-23-invariant-proof-audit.md`. On walgit's side: its Rust crates, protobuf schema, and simulation tests, with its `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `GOAL.md`, and `docs/` read second so that intent never stood in for implementation.
	8	+
	9	+	`Method: direct reading of both implementations.`
	10	+
	11	+	On our side: `lib/openagents/forge/` — chiefly `wal.ex`, `wal/gcs.ex`, `wal/local.ex`, `sync.ex`, `pushes.ex`, `git_http.ex`, `git_plane.ex`, `verification.ex`, `independence.ex`, `janitor.ex`, `receipt_repository.ex`, `anchor.ex` — plus `INVARIANTS.md` (`REPOSITORY-002`, `REPOSITORY-003`, `EXIT-001` through `EXIT-006`), the disclosure in `docs/forge-operator-independence.md` and `docs/forge-exit-rehearsals.md`, and the audits in `docs/2026-08-21-repository-storage-architecture-audit.md`, `docs/2026-08-23-forge-wal-anchoring.md`, and `docs/2026-08-23-invariant-proof-audit.md`.
	12	+
	13	+	On walgit's side: its Rust crates, protobuf schema, and simulation tests, with its `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `GOAL.md`, and `docs/` read second so that intent never stood in for implementation.
	14	+
7	15		`Status: Comparison only. No implementation changed. Follow-ups in section 7 are proposals, not decisions.`
8	16
9	17		`---`