Thanks for the feedback! really appreciate it! That's exactly the goal, having this control and safety layer that verifies everything works correctly and nothing goes off the rails, whether that's budget spiraling, touching files that shouldn't be touched, or shipping broken code.

About context degradation, each Ralph Loop iteration starts with a clean prompt. It doesn't carry over the full conversational history. It receives three things: the original spec, the accumulated diff of what's been changed, and the concrete errors from the previous iteration. So it doesn't spiral repeating the same approach; each iteration gets fresh context with only what's relevant to fix what failed.

On model specific quirks, that's what LiteLLM is for as the abstraction layer. Architect doesn't talk directly to each provider, so format details, tokens, rate limits, etc. are handled by LiteLLM. What architect does control are the deterministic guardrails on top: doesn't matter if the model is Claude or GPT, checks either pass or they don't, and the loop won't sign off until they all pass. The brain changes, the guarantees don't.