docs: research Windows and Linux feasibility

[Saber5656]

Closes #21

Summary

• compare Windows, Wayland, and X11 APIs for activation, overlays, accessible text/caret geometry, clipboard, permissions, and packaging
• define the reusable core boundary versus platform-owned adapters
• recommend a Windows native spike first, a Wayland-first Linux design spike second, and X11 only as a later compatibility adapter
• keep cross-platform implementation, shared-core refactoring, framework selection, and release work explicitly out of scope

Validation

• independent review: approved with no unresolved P0-P3 findings
• tracked and new-document whitespace checks: pass
• 45 unique external links and 7 fragments: verified
• local README/ADR links: verified
• runtime tests: not applicable (documentation-only change)

Security and product gates

• fail-closed treatment for secure/password/elevated content is documented
• Windows clipboard history/cloud retention remains an explicit product/privacy decision
• Wayland activation and overlay changes require maintainer approval and platform spikes

No Windows/Linux implementation, dependency, packaging, release, or default-branch mutation is included.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added research documenting Windows and Linux feasibility for the GridSelect workflow.
  • Covered platform capabilities, accessibility, clipboard behavior, security constraints, packaging considerations, risks, and validation criteria.
  • Documented a recommended rollout sequence: Windows first, followed by Wayland-first Linux and optional X11 support.
  • Added the research document to the README documentation links.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@Saber5656, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 36 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 0cdc8fc4-c7c7-484e-bc48-7bd87c9b2a4a

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ae73eee and 08d2b61.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

Adds a comprehensive Windows and Linux feasibility research note covering platform APIs, constraints, shared architecture boundaries, validation gates, delivery sequencing, and Issue #21 acceptance criteria. The README now links to the document.

Changes

Cross-platform feasibility research

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Research scope and macOS baseline docs/cross-platform-feasibility.md	Defines the evidence boundary, platform verdicts, recommended platform order, macOS MVP capabilities, and comparison scope.
Platform capability evaluation docs/cross-platform-feasibility.md	Evaluates activation, overlays, focus, coordinates, accessible text, caret geometry, clipboard behavior, permissions, security, and packaging across Windows, Wayland, and X11.
Reuse boundaries and delivery plan docs/cross-platform-feasibility.md, README.md	Describes shared and adapter-local responsibilities, validation gates, staged delivery, explicit non-decisions, acceptance-criteria mapping, and the new documentation link.

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Suggested labels: type:architecture, area:overlay, area:accessibility, area:clipboard, area:text-extraction

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly matches the PR’s main change: documentation research on Windows and Linux feasibility.
Description check	✅ Passed	The description covers summary, scope, validation, and security/product gates, with only minor template differences.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The research note satisfies #21 by covering APIs, macOS comparisons, shared abstractions, risks, recommendations, and security constraints.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	The changes stay within documentation scope and do not introduce implementation, framework, or release work.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/issue-21-cross-platform-feasibility

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[Saber5656]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 005a29ec06

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".