SCBE-AETHERMOORE IDE: Architecture Options

Date: 2026-02-19 Status: Research / RFC Authors: SCBE Core Team Scope: Technology selection for the SCBE-governed IDE shell, editor engine, and backend runtime

---

Table of Contents

1. Core Shell: Tauri vs Electron
2. Editor Engine: Monaco vs CodeMirror 6
3. Backend Runtime: Rust vs Node
4. Competitive Teardown
5. Weighted Decision Matrix
6. Recommendation

---

1. Core Shell: Tauri vs Electron

Overview

Attribute	Tauri v2 (2.x, stable Oct 2024)	Electron (v33+, Chromium 130+)
Language	Rust backend + WebView frontend	Node.js backend + Chromium frontend
Rendering	OS-native WebView2 (Win), WebKit (macOS/Linux)	Bundled Chromium
Current Version	2.2.x (Feb 2025)	33.x / 34.x (Q1 2025)
License	MIT / Apache 2.0	MIT

Bundle Size

Metric	Tauri v2	Electron
Hello-world installer (Windows)	~3-6 MB	~85-120 MB
Hello-world installer (macOS)	~5-8 MB	~90-130 MB
Delta update payload	~2-4 MB (OS webview reused)	~60+ MB (full Chromium)

Tauri does not bundle a browser engine. On Windows 11, WebView2 is pre-installed as a system component. On macOS, WebKit ships with the OS. On Linux, WebKitGTK is a system dependency. This means Tauri installers are 10-20x smaller than Electron equivalents.

For an IDE that users install alongside other dev tools, the 80+ MB Electron overhead is tolerable (VS Code is ~100 MB). But Tauri’s small footprint is a meaningful differentiator for auto-update speed and for distribution in bandwidth-constrained environments.

Memory Footprint

Metric	Tauri v2	Electron
Idle (empty window)	~30-50 MB RSS	~80-150 MB RSS
Moderate workload (editor + file tree)	~80-150 MB	~250-400 MB
Heavy workload (multiple tabs, LSP, terminal)	~200-350 MB	~500-900 MB

Electron runs a full Chromium multi-process architecture: a main browser process, one GPU process, and one renderer process per window. Each renderer carries V8, Blink, and the full Chromium networking stack. Tauri uses a single native WebView process plus the Rust backend process, with far lower baseline overhead.

For an IDE that must coexist with language servers, Docker, and the user’s project processes, the memory delta is significant. Tauri’s lower baseline leaves more headroom for LSP processes and file indexing.

Startup Time

Metric	Tauri v2	Electron
Cold start (first launch)	~0.5-1.5s	~2-4s
Warm start (cached)	~0.3-0.8s	~1-2s

Tauri’s Rust binary initializes faster than Electron’s Node.js + Chromium bootstrap. For an IDE, perceived startup time matters for developer satisfaction, though both are acceptable.

Native API Access

Capability	Tauri v2	Electron
Filesystem	Full via Rust + IPC commands	Full via Node.js fs
Crypto (OpenSSL / ring)	Native Rust crates (ring, rustls)	Node.js crypto module
Process management	std::process, tokio	child_process, node-pty
System tray	Built-in plugin	Built-in
Shell integration	Plugin	Full Node.js access
Native menus	Built-in	Built-in
Auto-updater	Built-in plugin (differential)	electron-updater
Notifications	Built-in plugin	Built-in
Clipboard	Built-in plugin	Built-in
Global shortcuts	Built-in plugin	Built-in

Both frameworks provide comprehensive native access. Tauri’s advantage: native APIs run in Rust with no serialization overhead for compute-heavy operations (file indexing, crypto). Electron’s advantage: Node.js has a larger ecosystem of npm packages for native operations.

Critical for SCBE: The post-quantum crypto layer (ML-KEM-768, ML-DSA-65) currently uses Node.js bindings to liboqs. In Tauri, this would use the pqcrypto Rust crate or FFI to liboqs – both are mature. The Rust pqcrypto crate wraps the same PQClean reference implementations and is arguably more natural than the Node.js bindings.

Cross-Platform Support

Platform	Tauri v2	Electron
Windows 11 (primary)	Excellent (WebView2 pre-installed)	Excellent
Windows 10	Good (WebView2 auto-installs)	Excellent
macOS (Apple Silicon)	Excellent (native WebKit)	Excellent
macOS (Intel)	Good	Excellent
Linux (x86_64)	Good (WebKitGTK dependency)	Excellent
Linux (ARM64)	Experimental	Good

Electron’s bundled Chromium guarantees pixel-identical rendering across platforms. Tauri’s reliance on OS WebViews introduces potential rendering differences between WebView2 (Windows), WebKit (macOS), and WebKitGTK (Linux). In practice, modern CSS/JS works consistently, but edge cases exist – particularly with advanced CSS features and Web APIs.

Windows 11 primary: Both are excellent. WebView2 on Windows 11 is a first-class, evergreen component maintained by Microsoft.

Security Model

Aspect	Tauri v2	Electron
Process isolation	Rust backend + WebView (strict IPC)	Node main + Chromium renderer
Default permissions	Deny-all; explicit capability grants	Full Node.js access by default
IPC model	Typed commands with permission scoping	ipcMain/ipcRenderer (ad-hoc)
CSP enforcement	Strict by default	Manual configuration
Sandbox	WebView is sandboxed; Rust backend is native	Renderer sandbox (optional)
Supply chain surface	Smaller (Rust crates, audited)	Larger (npm ecosystem)

Tauri’s security model is fundamentally stronger. Its deny-by-default capability system maps directly to SCBE’s governance philosophy: every operation requires explicit permission, and the Rust backend acts as a trust boundary. This aligns with SCBE’s L13 decision gate (ALLOW/QUARANTINE/ESCALATE/DENY).

In Electron, the renderer process can access Node.js APIs unless explicitly sandboxed, and even with contextIsolation and nodeIntegration: false, the attack surface is larger. The SCBE extension gate (agents/extension_gate.py) would need significant hardening in Electron to match Tauri’s built-in isolation.

Plugin/Extension Architecture Feasibility

Aspect	Tauri v2	Electron
Plugin system	Tauri plugin API (Rust + JS bridge)	Full Node.js module system
Extension isolation	Can enforce via Rust IPC boundary	Requires manual sandboxing
Hot reload	WebView hot reload; Rust requires restart	Full hot reload
WASM support	Native via WebView	Native via Chromium
Extension marketplace precedent	None (would be first)	VS Code marketplace model

For SCBE’s signed extension manifests with governance gates, Tauri’s architecture is more natural: extensions run in the WebView sandbox, and their API access is mediated through typed Rust commands that can enforce SCBE governance checks at the IPC boundary. In Electron, achieving equivalent isolation requires building a custom sandbox layer.

Maturity, Community, Ecosystem

Metric	Tauri v2	Electron
GitHub stars	~88k (Feb 2025)	~115k
npm weekly downloads	~30k (@tauri-apps/cli)	~2.5M (electron)
Major apps built	1Password (portions), Cody, Clash Verge	VS Code, Slack, Discord, Figma, Notion
Age	v1.0: Jun 2022, v2.0: Oct 2024	v1.0: May 2014
Documentation quality	Good, improving rapidly	Excellent, mature
Stack Overflow questions	~3k	~50k+

Electron is vastly more mature with a proven track record for IDE-class applications (VS Code). Tauri v2 is production-ready but the ecosystem is younger. Fewer IDE-class reference implementations exist in Tauri.

Dev Velocity (Rust Learning Curve vs Node Familiarity)

Aspect	Tauri v2 (Rust backend)	Electron (Node backend)
Frontend dev velocity	Identical (both use web tech)	Identical
Backend dev velocity	Slower (Rust learning curve, borrow checker)	Faster (JavaScript/TypeScript familiarity)
Hiring pool	Smaller (Rust developers)	Larger (Node.js developers)
Compile times	30s-2min incremental, 5-15min clean	Instant (interpreted)
Debugging	Rust debugger + Chrome DevTools	Chrome DevTools + Node debugger
Prototype speed	Moderate (Rust boilerplate)	Fast

The Rust learning curve is real but bounded. For a team already working in TypeScript (SCBE’s canonical language), the backend logic (file watching, process management, IPC) requires moderate Rust competence. The SCBE pipeline itself remains TypeScript/Python and runs in the WebView or as a subprocess – the Rust layer is plumbing, not application logic.

---

2. Editor Engine: Monaco vs CodeMirror 6

Overview

Attribute	Monaco Editor	CodeMirror 6
Origin	Extracted from VS Code (Microsoft)	Marijn Haverbeke (independent)
Current Version	0.52.x (Feb 2025)	6.x (stable since Jun 2022)
License	MIT	MIT
Architecture	Monolithic class hierarchy	Modular, functional composition
Framework	Standalone (DOM-based)	Standalone (DOM-based)

Feature Completeness

Feature	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
IntelliSense / autocomplete	Built-in, VS Code-grade	Via extensions (basic built-in)
Multi-cursor editing	Full support	Full support
Minimap	Built-in	Community extension
Diff view	Built-in (side-by-side, inline)	Community extension (less polished)
Find and replace	Full (regex, whole word, case)	Full (regex, case)
Code folding	Built-in	Built-in
Bracket matching	Built-in	Built-in
Syntax highlighting	TextMate grammars (Monarch)	Lezer parser system
Inline hints / diagnostics	Built-in	Via extensions
Command palette	Built-in	Community extension
Drag and drop	Built-in	Via extensions
Collaborative editing	Not built-in	Designed for it (OT/CRDT ready)

Monaco ships with more features out-of-the-box because it is literally the VS Code editor extracted. CodeMirror 6 ships lean and expects you to compose exactly the features you need.

Bundle Size and Performance

Metric	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
Minimum bundle (gzipped)	~2.5-4 MB (with workers)	~150-300 KB (core + basic extensions)
Full-featured bundle	~5-8 MB	~400-800 KB
Initial parse time	~100-200ms	~30-80ms
Scroll performance (large files)	Good (virtualized)	Excellent (viewport-only rendering)
Memory per document (10k lines)	~15-30 MB	~5-10 MB
100k+ line files	Handles well	Handles very well

CodeMirror 6 is dramatically smaller and faster. Its modular architecture means you only pay for what you import. Monaco’s monolithic design pulls in the entire VS Code editor infrastructure even for basic use cases.

For an IDE that will also run SCBE governance checks, LSP processes, and connector integrations, CodeMirror 6’s lighter footprint leaves more resource headroom.

Customizability and Extensibility

Aspect	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
API design	Object-oriented, VS Code-like	Functional, state-transaction-based
Custom views/widgets	Possible but complex	First-class (decorations, panels, widgets)
Custom keymaps	Full support	Full support (precedence-based)
Theme engine	CSS-based, VS Code themes compatible	Theme facets, highly customizable
State management	Internal mutable state	Immutable state transactions (Redux-like)
Extension composition	Additive (register providers)	Composable facets and extensions

CodeMirror 6 was designed from the ground up for extensibility. Its facet/extension system allows clean composition without monkey-patching. This maps well to SCBE’s modular architecture: each SCBE layer can be an editor extension that decorates, annotates, or intercepts editor operations.

Monaco’s API is powerful but opinionated – it assumes you want a VS Code-like experience. Deviating from that assumption requires fighting the API.

Language Server Protocol (LSP) Support

Aspect	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
Built-in LSP client	No (but monaco-languageclient exists)	No (but codemirror-languageserver exists)
LSP integration maturity	Mature (monaco-languageclient, widely used)	Growing (less battle-tested)
Language support out-of-box	~30+ languages (syntax highlighting)	~20+ languages via @codemirror/lang-*
Custom language support	Monarch (regex-based tokenizer)	Lezer (incremental LR parser)

Both require external packages for LSP integration. Monaco has a slight maturity advantage here due to its VS Code heritage. However, the LSP protocol is standardized – the transport layer is straightforward in either editor.

Lezer vs Monarch: CodeMirror 6’s Lezer parser system produces actual parse trees (incremental, error-recovering), enabling deeper structural understanding of code. Monaco’s Monarch is regex-based tokenization – fast but shallow. For an AI-governed IDE that needs to understand code structure for governance decisions, Lezer’s parse trees are more valuable.

Theming and Accessibility

Aspect	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
VS Code theme compatibility	Direct (same format)	Requires conversion
Dark/light mode	Built-in	Built-in
High contrast	Built-in	Via theme extension
Screen reader support	Good (VS Code-derived)	Good (ARIA roles, live regions)
Keyboard navigation	Excellent	Excellent
RTL support	Partial	Built-in
Font size scaling	Built-in	Built-in

Monaco has a slight edge on accessibility due to VS Code’s enterprise accessibility investment. Both are acceptable for production use.

Mobile/Responsive Support

Aspect	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
Touch support	Limited (designed for desktop)	First-class (touch selection, gestures)
Mobile viewport handling	Poor	Good
Responsive layout	Fixed-size model	Flexible
Virtual keyboard handling	Problematic	Handled

CodeMirror 6 was designed with mobile and touch in mind. Monaco was extracted from a desktop application and has known issues on mobile. If the SCBE IDE ever targets tablets or responsive layouts, CodeMirror 6 is the clear choice.

Community and Maintenance

Metric	Monaco	CodeMirror 6
GitHub stars	~42k	~10k
npm weekly downloads	~2M	~1.5M (core)
Maintainers	Microsoft (VS Code team)	Marijn Haverbeke (+ community)
Release cadence	Monthly	As-needed (stable)
Bus factor concern	Low (Microsoft-backed)	Moderate (single primary maintainer)
Documentation quality	Good (VS Code docs crossover)	Excellent (comprehensive guide + API docs)

Monaco benefits from Microsoft’s resources. CodeMirror 6’s primary risk is its single-maintainer model, though Marijn Haverbeke has maintained CodeMirror for over 15 years and the codebase is exceptionally well-designed for community contribution.

---

3. Backend Runtime: Rust vs Node

Performance for File Watching, Indexing, Search

Operation	Rust	Node.js
Directory traversal (100k files)	~200-500ms (walkdir)	~1-3s (fs.readdir recursive)
Full-text index build (1M lines)	~2-5s (tantivy)	~8-15s (flexsearch/lunr)
File watching setup	~50ms (notify crate)	~100-300ms (chokidar)
Regex search across project	~100-300ms (ripgrep-core)	~500ms-2s (node regex)
Git status (large repo)	~50-200ms (gitoxide/libgit2)	~200-500ms (isomorphic-git)

Rust has a decisive performance advantage for I/O-bound and CPU-bound backend operations. The ripgrep crate alone (which is Rust) powers search in VS Code – this speaks to the performance ceiling.

For an IDE, backend performance directly impacts perceived responsiveness. File search, go-to-definition, and project indexing are core operations that run thousands of times per session.

Concurrency Model

Aspect	Rust	Node.js
Model	Async (tokio) + true parallelism (threads)	Event loop + worker_threads
CPU-bound work	Parallel across cores (rayon)	Single-threaded (or worker_threads with overhead)
I/O-bound work	Efficient async (tokio, zero-cost futures)	Efficient async (libuv)
Memory safety	Guaranteed at compile time	GC-managed (occasional pauses)
Deadlock prevention	Compile-time borrow checking	Runtime (developer discipline)

Rust’s ability to saturate all CPU cores for parallel indexing/search while maintaining memory safety is a structural advantage. Node.js can use worker_threads but with serialization overhead for data transfer between threads.

Integration with SCBE TypeScript/Python Codebase

Approach	Rust Backend	Node.js Backend
TypeScript SCBE pipeline	Subprocess or WASM compilation	Direct import (same runtime)
Python SCBE pipeline	Subprocess (python -m)	Subprocess (python -m)
IPC overhead	Tauri IPC (JSON serialization)	In-process (zero overhead)
Shared types	JSON schema or protobuf	Direct TypeScript imports
SCBE governance calls	HTTP to FastAPI or Rust port	HTTP to FastAPI or direct TS call

This is Electron/Node’s strongest argument. SCBE’s canonical implementation is TypeScript. In an Electron app, the governance pipeline (src/harmonic/pipeline14.ts) can be imported directly into the backend process with zero serialization overhead. In Tauri, the TypeScript pipeline would run in the WebView or as a separate Node subprocess, with IPC overhead for each governance call.

However, the SCBE API already exposes HTTP endpoints (/api/authorize, /api/govern, /v1/fleet/task). An IDE backend in any language can call these APIs. The overhead of localhost HTTP calls is ~1-5ms, which is negligible for governance decisions that happen per-action, not per-keystroke.

Hybrid approach: Tauri’s Rust backend handles performance-critical operations (file I/O, search, indexing), while the SCBE TypeScript pipeline runs as a sidecar Node process or in the WebView. This is exactly how VS Code works – the Electron main process delegates heavy work to extension hosts and language servers.

Build Tooling Complexity

Aspect	Rust	Node.js
Build system	Cargo (excellent, integrated)	npm/pnpm + bundler (Vite/esbuild)
Cross-compilation	cargo + cross (Docker-based)	pkg / electron-builder
CI build time	5-15 min (clean Rust build)	1-3 min
Dependency management	Cargo.lock (deterministic)	package-lock.json (deterministic)
Native dependencies	Cargo handles automatically	node-gyp (occasional pain)

Rust build times are longer but Cargo is arguably a better build system than npm. Cross-compilation for Tauri is well-supported via GitHub Actions and the tauri-action plugin.

Developer Availability and Hiring

Aspect	Rust	Node.js / TypeScript
Stack Overflow survey popularity	#1 “most admired” (2024)	#1 most used (TypeScript)
Job market supply	Growing but smaller	Very large
Average compensation	Higher (scarcity premium)	Market rate
SCBE team familiarity	Learning required	Already proficient
Onboarding time	2-4 months for productivity	Immediate

Node.js/TypeScript has a dramatically larger hiring pool. Rust developers are harder to find and more expensive. However, Rust skills are increasingly valued and the language’s popularity is growing rapidly.

---

4. Competitive Teardown

4.1 Cursor

What it does well:

• AI-first architecture: Every feature is designed around AI code generation and editing. The “Composer” multi-file edit mode and “Cmd+K” inline generation are best-in-class UX patterns.
• Context-aware completions: Uses a proprietary context engine that understands the full codebase, open files, recent edits, and terminal output. Completions feel aware of project-level patterns.
• VS Code compatibility: Forked from VS Code, so the entire extension ecosystem works. Users migrate without friction.
• Diff-based editing: AI edits are presented as diffs that can be accepted/rejected per-hunk. This gives the developer control without disrupting flow.
• Fast iteration: The team ships weekly. New models (Claude, GPT-4o, Gemini) are integrated within days of release.

Gaps we can exploit:

• Closed source: The core AI integration, context engine, and routing logic are proprietary. Users cannot audit what data leaves their machine, how prompts are constructed, or what telemetry is collected. SCBE’s open governance model and on-device 14-layer pipeline provide auditable, verifiable AI safety.
• No custom governance: Cursor has no concept of a governance layer. Any AI model can generate any code, execute any command. There is no ALLOW/QUARANTINE/ESCALATE/DENY gate. SCBE’s L13 decision gate fills this gap entirely.
• No connector/task engine: Cursor is a code editor. It cannot trigger Shopify deployments, Zapier workflows, n8n automations, or Slack notifications as part of a structured task pipeline. SCBE’s connector API (/mobile/connectors, /mobile/goals/{id}/bind-connector) provides this.
• Privacy concerns: Cursor sends code context to cloud APIs for completions. Enterprise teams with sensitive IP (financial, medical, defense) cannot use it without risk. SCBE’s post-quantum sealed envelopes and on-device governance enable air-gapped operation.
• No extension governance: Cursor inherits VS Code’s extension model where extensions have broad Node.js access. A malicious extension can exfiltrate code. SCBE’s Safe Extension Gate (agents/extension_gate.py) with turnstile resolution addresses this.
• Subscription lock-in: $20/month per developer. No self-hosted option. SCBE IDE can be self-hosted with local AI models.

4.2 Windsurf (Codeium)

What it does well:

• Flow-based AI: The “Cascade” feature maintains a persistent AI conversation that understands the developer’s intent across multiple edits. It feels like pair programming rather than autocomplete.
• Workspace understanding: Indexes the entire workspace and uses embeddings for semantic code search. Understands project structure, dependencies, and patterns.
• Free tier: Generous free tier makes it accessible. Low barrier to trial.
• Multi-file awareness: Cascade can reason about changes across multiple files simultaneously, understanding import chains and type dependencies.

Gaps we can exploit:

• Limited orchestration: Windsurf operates at the code-editing level. It cannot orchestrate multi-step workflows that span code, deployment, testing, and external service integration. SCBE’s fleet manager and task dispatcher enable Research -> Task -> Approve -> Execute loops.
• No governance layer: Like Cursor, there is no governance gate between AI suggestion and execution. No cost controls, no risk assessment, no approval workflows. SCBE’s harmonic wall (H(d) = exp(d^2)) makes adversarial operations exponentially expensive.
• Vendor lock-in: Codeium’s AI models are proprietary. If the service changes pricing or features, users have no recourse. SCBE IDE supports any LLM provider and can run fully offline.
• No task engine: Cannot bind AI operations to external connectors (Zapier, n8n, Shopify). Development is isolated from deployment and operations. SCBE’s connector onboarding system supports 10+ connector kinds.
• Weak extension model: Inherits VS Code extension architecture without additional security hardening. SCBE’s turnstile-based extension gate provides domain-aware security.
• No secrets governance: No post-quantum protection for API keys, tokens, or credentials stored in the IDE. SCBE’s ML-KEM-768 + ML-DSA-65 sealed envelopes protect secrets against quantum-era threats.

4.3 VS Code

What it does well:

• Ecosystem: 50,000+ extensions. If a developer tool exists, there is a VS Code extension for it. This is VS Code’s moat.
• LSP standard: VS Code popularized the Language Server Protocol, which is now the universal standard. Every language has an LSP server that works with VS Code.
• Ubiquity: ~74% developer market share (Stack Overflow 2024). It is the default choice.
• Performance (for Electron): Microsoft has invested heavily in performance optimization. VS Code is the proof that Electron apps can be fast with sufficient engineering.
• Remote development: VS Code Remote (SSH, Containers, WSL, Tunnels) enables development on remote machines with local UI. This is a significant enterprise feature.
• Debugging: Integrated debugging with DAP (Debug Adapter Protocol) supports every major language.
• Source control: Built-in Git integration with diff view, staging, and merge conflict resolution.

Gaps we can exploit:

• Extension security model is weak: Extensions run in a shared Node.js host process with broad API access. A malicious extension can read any file, make network requests, and access secrets. The extension marketplace has had supply-chain attacks (e.g., malicious extensions mimicking popular ones). SCBE’s Safe Extension Gate with threat scanning, manifest scoring, and turnstile resolution directly addresses this.
• No built-in AI governance: VS Code Copilot is an extension, not a governed subsystem. There is no cost control, no approval workflow, no risk assessment for AI-generated code. The settings.json approach to configuration provides no security guarantees. SCBE’s 14-layer pipeline provides mathematically-grounded governance.
• No task orchestration beyond tasks.json: VS Code’s task system is a thin wrapper around shell commands. It cannot orchestrate multi-step workflows with approval gates, external service connectors, or risk-based execution modes. SCBE’s goal/connector API with execution modes (manual, auto, connector) fills this gap.
• Bloated for focused use cases: VS Code tries to be everything to everyone. The result is a 500+ MB installation with features most developers never use. SCBE IDE can ship a focused, governance-first experience with a fraction of the footprint.
• No cryptographic secret protection: VS Code stores settings and secrets in plaintext JSON or OS keychain with no cryptographic envelope. No post-quantum protection. SCBE’s AES-256-GCM + ML-KEM-768 sealed envelope provides defense-in-depth.
• Microsoft telemetry: While open-source (MIT), VS Code’s telemetry collection is extensive. Enterprise and government users have compliance concerns. SCBE IDE can operate fully offline with zero telemetry.

4.4 Replit

What it does well:

• Instant dev environments: Zero setup. Open a browser, start coding. No local installation, no dependency management, no configuration.
• Multiplayer editing: Real-time collaborative editing with cursor presence, chat, and shared terminals. Best-in-class for pair programming.
• Integrated deployment: One-click deployment from editor to production. No CI/CD pipeline configuration needed.
• AI Agent: Replit Agent can scaffold entire applications from natural language descriptions, including file structure, dependencies, and deployment.
• Education: Excellent for learning and prototyping. Low barrier to entry.

Gaps we can exploit:

• Cloud-only: All computation happens on Replit’s servers. No offline mode, no local development, no air-gapped operation. Latency is noticeable (50-200ms per keystroke for completions). SCBE IDE runs locally with optional cloud features.
• Limited for large codebases: Replit struggles with repositories over ~50k files. The containerized environment has resource limits that large enterprise projects exceed. SCBE IDE’s Rust/Node backend can index and search million-line codebases locally.
• No security governance: No concept of operation governance, risk assessment, or approval workflows. Any code can be deployed with a single click. SCBE’s ALLOW/QUARANTINE/ESCALATE/DENY gate prevents unreviewed deployment.
• Vendor dependency: All code, data, and deployment live on Replit’s infrastructure. If Replit changes pricing, features, or goes offline, users lose their development environment. SCBE IDE is self-contained.
• Limited language/framework support: While Replit supports many languages, its Nix-based environment has gaps for complex build systems (Rust cross-compilation, C++ with custom toolchains, embedded systems). SCBE IDE delegates to the user’s local toolchain.
• Privacy and IP concerns: Code runs on shared infrastructure. Enterprise teams with sensitive IP cannot use it. SCBE IDE keeps all code and secrets on the developer’s machine, protected by post-quantum cryptography.

4.5 Our Differentiator: The SCBE-Governed IDE

The SCBE IDE is not another code editor with AI bolted on. It is a governance-first development environment where every operation – from AI code generation to deployment – passes through a mathematically-grounded security pipeline.

SCBE 14-Layer Governance as the IDE’s Permission/Execution Backbone

Every IDE operation maps to the 14-layer pipeline:

IDE Operation	SCBE Layer	Behavior
Extension install	L1-L4 (context embedding)	Extension manifest is embedded in Poincare ball
AI code generation	L5-L7 (hyperbolic distance)	Distance from safe operation center is measured
File system write	L8 (multi-well realms)	Operation must fall within an allowed realm
Command execution	L9-L10 (spectral coherence)	Command pattern is checked for coherence with project norms
Connector dispatch	L12 (harmonic wall)	Cost scales as H(d) = exp(d^2) with deviation
Deploy/publish	L13 (decision gate)	ALLOW/QUARANTINE/ESCALATE/DENY
Telemetry	L14 (audio axis)	FFT-based anomaly detection on operation patterns

Connector-Driven Task Engine

The SCBE IDE integrates the goal/connector API (/mobile/goals, /mobile/connectors) as a first-class task engine:

• Research phase: Developer or AI agent identifies a task (bug fix, feature, deployment).
• Task creation: Task is created as a goal with connector bindings (Shopify, Zapier, n8n, GitHub Actions, Slack, Notion, Linear, Discord).
• Approval gate: High-risk tasks pass through L13 governance. Human approval required for QUARANTINE/ESCALATE decisions.
• Execution: Approved tasks dispatch to bound connectors. Results flow back into the IDE.

Supported connectors (already implemented in src/api/main.py):

Connector Kind	Use Case
n8n	Complex multi-step automations
zapier	Simple trigger-action workflows
shopify	Store deployment, product management
slack	Team notifications, approval requests
notion	Documentation sync
airtable	Data management
github_actions	CI/CD pipeline triggers
linear	Issue tracking integration
discord	Community notifications
generic_webhook	Any HTTP-based service

Signed Extension Manifests with SCBE Governance Gates

The Safe Extension Gate (already implemented in agents/extension_gate.py) provides:

1. Threat scan: Prompt injection signatures, malware-like commands, external link pressure.
2. Manifest scoring: Permission risk (weighted by capability) + provenance risk (trusted source domain, SHA-256 pin, manifest completeness).
3. Combined suspicion: suspicion = 0.55 * scan + 0.25 * permission + 0.20 * provenance.
4. Turnstile resolution: Domain-aware outcomes (ALLOW / HOLD / ISOLATE / HONEYPOT).
5. Permission partition: Low suspicion = full enablement; medium = reduced allowlist; high = zero permissions.

This is a structural advantage over VS Code, Cursor, and Windsurf, none of which have extension governance.

Post-Quantum Crypto for Secrets Vault

The SCBE IDE’s secrets vault uses:

• ML-KEM-768 (NIST FIPS 203): Key encapsulation for secret exchange
• ML-DSA-65 (NIST FIPS 204): Digital signatures for manifest integrity
• AES-256-GCM: Symmetric encryption for sealed envelopes
• HKDF-SHA256: Key derivation for per-secret keys
• Bloom filter replay guard: Prevents nonce reuse

No other IDE provides post-quantum protection for developer secrets.

---

5. Weighted Decision Matrix

Criteria Weights

#	Criterion	Weight	Rationale
1	Dev velocity (time to ship v0)	5	Must ship a usable IDE quickly to validate the concept
2	Performance (memory, startup, responsiveness)	4	IDE must feel fast; competes with native apps
3	Security (sandboxing, isolation, secret protection)	5	Core differentiator; SCBE governance must be enforceable
4	Extensibility (plugin/extension model)	4	Must support third-party extensions with governance
5	SCBE integration ease (TS/Python interop)	5	The IDE exists to surface SCBE governance
6	Cross-platform (Win/Mac/Linux)	3	Windows 11 primary; others secondary
7	Community and ecosystem	3	Matters for hiring, troubleshooting, libraries
8	Long-term maintainability	4	Must be sustainable beyond v0

Total possible weight points: 33

Option Combinations

We evaluate four realistic combinations:

• Option A: Tauri v2 + CodeMirror 6 + Rust backend
• Option B: Tauri v2 + Monaco + Rust backend
• Option C: Electron + Monaco + Node.js backend
• Option D: Electron + CodeMirror 6 + Node.js backend

Scoring Matrix (1-10 per criterion)

#	Criterion	Wt	A: Tauri+CM6+Rust	B: Tauri+Monaco+Rust	C: Electron+Monaco+Node	D: Electron+CM6+Node
1	Dev velocity	5	5	5	9	8
2	Performance	4	10	8	5	6
3	Security	5	10	10	5	5
4	Extensibility	4	7	7	9	8
5	SCBE integration	5	6	6	9	9
6	Cross-platform	3	7	7	9	9
7	Community	3	5	6	10	8
8	Maintainability	4	8	7	7	7

Score Justifications

Option A (Tauri + CM6 + Rust):

• Dev velocity (5): Rust learning curve slows initial development. CM6 requires building features that Monaco provides out-of-box. Two unfamiliar technologies compound the slowdown.
• Performance (10): Best possible combination. Rust backend + CM6’s lightweight architecture = minimal memory, fastest startup, smoothest large-file handling.
• Security (10): Tauri’s deny-by-default capabilities + Rust memory safety + CM6’s minimal attack surface = strongest security posture. Maps perfectly to SCBE governance model.
• Extensibility (7): Tauri plugin API is capable but less proven. CM6’s facet system is excellent for composition. No marketplace precedent.
• SCBE integration (6): SCBE is TypeScript/Python. Rust backend requires IPC to reach SCBE pipeline. Adds serialization overhead and architectural complexity.
• Cross-platform (7): Excellent on Windows 11 (WebView2) and macOS (WebKit). Linux WebKitGTK can have quirks.
• Community (5): Smallest combined community of the four options.
• Maintainability (8): Rust’s type system and memory safety prevent entire classes of bugs. CM6’s clean architecture ages well.

Option B (Tauri + Monaco + Rust):

• Dev velocity (5): Same Rust overhead as Option A. Monaco provides more features out-of-box than CM6, but its larger bundle in a Tauri WebView creates optimization work.
• Performance (8): Rust backend is fast, but Monaco’s 5+ MB bundle and higher memory usage partially offset Tauri’s lightweight shell.
• Security (10): Same Tauri + Rust security benefits as Option A.
• Extensibility (7): Monaco’s provider API is well-known. Same Tauri plugin limitations.
• SCBE integration (6): Same IPC overhead as Option A.
• Cross-platform (7): Same as Option A.
• Community (6): Monaco’s larger community slightly helps.
• Maintainability (7): Monaco’s monolithic architecture is harder to maintain long-term than CM6’s modular design.

Option C (Electron + Monaco + Node):

• Dev velocity (9): Fastest path to v0. TypeScript everywhere. Monaco provides VS Code-grade editing out-of-box. Electron is familiar territory. SCBE pipeline imports directly.
• Performance (5): Highest memory usage. Slowest startup. Electron + Monaco is the VS Code stack – proven but heavy.
• Security (5): Electron’s security model requires careful configuration. Node.js backend has broader attack surface. Must build custom sandboxing for extensions.
• Extensibility (9): VS Code extension model is the gold standard. Can potentially load VS Code extensions with compatibility layer.
• SCBE integration (9): Direct TypeScript imports. Same runtime. Zero IPC overhead for governance calls.
• Cross-platform (9): Proven on all platforms.
• Community (10): Largest combined community. Most documentation, examples, and prior art.
• Maintainability (7): Electron apps accumulate technical debt around Chromium version management and security patches.

Option D (Electron + CM6 + Node):

• Dev velocity (8): Node.js familiarity + CM6 requires building some features that Monaco provides. Slightly slower than Option C.
• Performance (6): Electron’s overhead remains, but CM6’s lighter footprint helps compared to Monaco.
• Security (5): Same Electron security limitations as Option C.
• Extensibility (8): CM6’s facet system + Node.js = flexible. Less VS Code ecosystem compatibility.
• SCBE integration (9): Same direct TypeScript integration as Option C.
• Cross-platform (9): Same as Option C.
• Community (8): Electron’s large community + CM6’s smaller but high-quality community.
• Maintainability (7): Same Electron maintenance concerns. CM6’s modular architecture helps.

Weighted Totals

#	Criterion	Wt	A: Tauri+CM6+Rust	B: Tauri+Monaco+Rust	C: Electron+Monaco+Node	D: Electron+CM6+Node
1	Dev velocity	5	25	25	45	40
2	Performance	4	40	32	20	24
3	Security	5	50	50	25	25
4	Extensibility	4	28	28	36	32
5	SCBE integration	5	30	30	45	45
6	Cross-platform	3	21	21	27	27
7	Community	3	15	18	30	24
8	Maintainability	4	32	28	28	28
	TOTAL	33	241	232	256	245
	Normalized (%)		73.0%	70.3%	77.6%	74.2%

Summary Ranking

Rank	Option	Score	Normalized
1	C: Electron + Monaco + Node	256	77.6%
2	D: Electron + CM6 + Node	245	74.2%
3	A: Tauri + CM6 + Rust	241	73.0%
4	B: Tauri + Monaco + Rust	232	70.3%

---

6. Recommendation

Primary Recommendation: Option C (Electron + Monaco + Node) for v0, with Tauri Migration Path for v2

Ship v0 with Electron + Monaco + Node.js. Migrate to Tauri + CodeMirror 6 for v2 once the product-market fit is validated.

Rationale

Why Electron + Monaco + Node for v0:

1. Dev velocity is the highest priority. The SCBE IDE must ship quickly to validate the governance-first IDE hypothesis. Electron + Monaco + Node.js is the fastest path because the SCBE team already works in TypeScript, the SCBE pipeline imports directly with zero IPC overhead, and Monaco provides VS Code-grade editing without building features from scratch.

2. SCBE integration is seamless. The 14-layer pipeline (src/harmonic/pipeline14.ts), governance API (src/api/govern.ts), connector system (src/api/main.py), and extension gate (agents/extension_gate.py) all run natively in a Node.js environment. No serialization layer, no subprocess management, no FFI bridges.

3. The ecosystem accelerates development. Monaco’s built-in diff view, IntelliSense, and multi-cursor editing are table-stakes features that would take months to build on CodeMirror 6. The VS Code extension compatibility potential (via the VS Code Extension API subset) provides a massive head start on language support.

4. The security gap is addressable. Electron’s weaker security model is a real concern, but SCBE’s Safe Extension Gate, sealed envelopes, and governance pipeline can be layered on top. Electron’s contextIsolation, sandbox: true, and custom webContents permission handlers provide the foundation. The SCBE governance layer adds what Electron lacks: operation-level ALLOW/DENY gates.

Why plan for Tauri + CM6 migration in v2:

1. Security ceiling. Tauri’s Rust backend isolation and deny-by-default capability system are architecturally superior for a security-focused product. Once the IDE is validated, the security story should be maximized.

2. Performance ceiling. As the IDE grows (more extensions, larger workspaces, more concurrent operations), Tauri + CM6’s lighter footprint will matter. An IDE that uses 200 MB instead of 600 MB wins on developer machines running Docker, language servers, and databases simultaneously.

3. Differentiation. Every competitor (Cursor, Windsurf, VS Code) is built on Electron. A Tauri-based IDE is a meaningful technical differentiator that signals engineering seriousness to enterprise buyers.

4. Bundle size for distribution. A 5 MB IDE installer vs. a 100 MB installer matters for auto-updates, enterprise deployment, and first-impression perception.

Migration Strategy

The architecture should be designed from day one to make the Electron-to-Tauri migration feasible:

1. Abstract the shell layer. Define an IdeShell interface that abstracts window management, native menus, system tray, file dialogs, and notifications. Implement ElectronShell for v0 and TauriShell for v2.

2. Abstract the editor layer. Define an IEditor interface that abstracts document management, decorations, diagnostics, and completions. Implement MonacoEditor for v0 and CodeMirrorEditor for v2.

3. Isolate the SCBE governance layer. The governance pipeline should run as an independent service (HTTP on localhost or WebSocket) rather than being tightly coupled to the Electron main process. This makes it runtime-agnostic.

4. Use Web APIs where possible. Prefer fetch, WebSocket, IndexedDB, and Web Crypto over Node-specific APIs in the renderer. This code will work unchanged in Tauri’s WebView.

5. Design the extension API as an IPC protocol. Extensions communicate via a defined message protocol (JSON-RPC or similar), not via direct API access. This protocol works identically over Electron IPC or Tauri commands.

Architecture Sketch (v0)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                        SCBE IDE (Electron)                           |
|                                                                       |
|  +---------------------------+   +--------------------------------+  |
|  |    Renderer (Chromium)    |   |     Main Process (Node.js)     |  |
|  |                           |   |                                |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |  |   Monaco Editor     | |   |  | SCBE Governance Engine    | |  |
|  |  |   (code editing)    | |   |  | (pipeline14.ts, govern.ts)| |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |                           |   |                                |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |  |   Task Panel        | |   |  | Connector Engine          | |  |
|  |  |   (goals, connectors)| |   |  | (n8n, Zapier, Shopify...) | |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |                           |   |                                |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |  |   Extension Host    | |   |  | File System / Indexer     | |  |
|  |  |   (sandboxed)       | |   |  | (chokidar, flexsearch)   | |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |                           |   |                                |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  |  |   Terminal           | |   |  | Secrets Vault             | |  |
|  |  |   (xterm.js)        | |   |  | (ML-KEM-768, AES-256-GCM) | |  |
|  |  +---------------------+ |   |  +---------------------------+ |  |
|  +---------------------------+   +--------------------------------+  |
|                                                                       |
|  +------------------------------------------------------------------+|
|  |                  Extension Gate (L13 Turnstile)                   ||
|  |  Threat Scan -> Manifest Score -> Suspicion -> ALLOW/ISOLATE     ||
|  +------------------------------------------------------------------+|
|                                                                       |
|  +------------------------------------------------------------------+|
|  |                  SCBE 14-Layer Pipeline                           ||
|  |  L1-4: Context Embedding | L5-7: Hyperbolic Distance            ||
|  |  L8: Realms | L9-10: Spectral | L11: Temporal                   ||
|  |  L12: Harmonic Wall | L13: Decision Gate | L14: Telemetry       ||
|  +------------------------------------------------------------------+|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
         |                    |                    |
         v                    v                    v
  +------------+      +-------------+      +-------------+
  | LSP Servers |      | Python SCBE |      | Connectors  |
  | (TS, Py,   |      | (FastAPI    |      | (n8n, Zapier|
  |  Rust, Go) |      |  sidecar)   |      |  Shopify)   |
  +------------+      +-------------+      +-------------+

Key Milestones

Phase	Duration	Deliverable
v0.1 (Prototype)	6-8 weeks	Electron + Monaco shell with SCBE governance gate on file operations
v0.5 (Alpha)	12-16 weeks	Full editor with LSP, terminal, connector panel, extension loading
v1.0 (Beta)	24-30 weeks	Production-ready with secrets vault, signed extensions, 5+ connectors
v2.0 (Migration)	36-48 weeks	Tauri + CM6 rewrite with full feature parity

Final Verdict

Electron + Monaco + Node.js wins on weighted score (256 vs 241) primarily because of dev velocity (+20 points) and SCBE integration ease (+15 points) – the two criteria with the highest weight (5 each). The security gap (-25 points vs Tauri) is real but addressable through SCBE’s own governance layer, which is the entire point of building this IDE.

Build the product first. Harden the foundation second. The SCBE governance pipeline is the differentiator, not the shell technology – and that pipeline ships fastest on the stack the team already knows.

---

This document should be revisited when Tauri v2 ecosystem matures further (target: Q4 2026 reassessment). Track Tauri IDE-class reference implementations (especially any LSP-integrated editors) as leading indicators for migration readiness.