diff --git a/docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md b/docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c506407
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# ADR 0001: Own public contracts through facades
+
+## Status
+
+Accepted. Implementation pending.
+
+## Date
+
+2026-10-05
+
+## Context
+
+ReleaseKit is being designed as an opinionated Go library with a release
+executable. Its responsibilities include publication, cross-builds, version
+injection, and artifact delivery. Consuming applications also need lightweight
+access to the version embedded in their binaries.
+
+ConfigKit and PromptKit demonstrate a facade approach in which public packages
+own consumer contracts and delegate to internal implementation. This gives
+maintainers room to change internal structure while preserving supported type
+identity, method sets, and behavior. ReleaseKit needs that boundary from its
+first implementation.
+
+## Decision
+
+The root `releasekit` package is the public facade for release orchestration. A
+separate public `buildinfo` package is the facade for runtime version information.
+Each package exposes a cohesive set of operations and values justified by
+consumer needs.
+
+Each facade defines its public named types and owns their documented behavior.
+Exported signatures, fields, callbacks, and method sets use facade-owned types
+and deliberately selected public dependencies. Handles retain implementation
+state in private fields and expose explicitly selected methods. Forwarding and
+conversion code translates between public contracts and internal representations.
+
+Implementation packages live under Go's `internal/` boundary. Dependency
+direction runs from public facades into internal implementation. Contracts shared
+between implementation packages belong inside that boundary. Git operations, Go
+toolchain execution, Gitea integration, and orchestration bookkeeping remain
+implementation responsibilities, with package layout chosen for cohesion.
+
+The `buildinfo` facade has a lightweight dependency graph suitable for application
+runtime imports. Its version accessor is a supported public contract. ReleaseKit's
+builder and runtime implementation own the linker symbol and injection mechanism
+together, allowing applications to obtain their version through the accessor.
+
+The release executable invokes the supported orchestration facade and owns
+command parsing, output, and exit codes. The library returns consumer-facing
+errors and outcomes that describe publication state, including partial progress
+and uncertainty.
+
+Go declarations and GoDoc own exact public API contracts. Additional public
+packages and extension interfaces require a deliberate decision grounded in a
+durable consumer need. Compiled-export and dependency checks protect facade
+ownership; external-package behavioral tests protect consumer semantics.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+- Keep implementation in public packages: reduces forwarding work and makes
+  implementation declarations part of the surface contributors must maintain.
+- Use aliases or embedded implementation types: reduces conversion code while
+  coupling consumer type identity and method sets to implementation types.
+- Provide one facade for orchestration and runtime version access: offers one
+  import path and a shared dependency graph for both responsibilities.
+- Expose a public package for each implementation component: enables direct
+  component reuse and expands the compatibility surface across Git, build, and
+  delivery machinery.
+
+## Consequences
+
+Consumers depend on deliberate contracts in `releasekit` and `buildinfo`.
+Internal algorithms, collaborators, and package boundaries can evolve while
+those contracts remain stable. Both public packages participate in ReleaseKit's
+versioning and compatibility obligations.
+
+Explicit forwarding and conversions add maintenance work. They must preserve
+error identity, value ownership, callback lifetime, and observable outcomes.
+Boundary checks and representative consumer tests provide evidence for those
+properties as implementation proceeds.
+
+The separate `buildinfo` facade supports runtime use with a small dependency
+surface. Its integration with the builder requires tests that verify the selected
+release version is injected and reported correctly.
diff --git a/docs/roadmap/policy.md b/docs/roadmap/policy.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5faae9c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/roadmap/policy.md
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Adopt the policy framework
+
+Status: Proposed; adoption has not started.
+
+Date: 2026-10-05
+
+## Purpose and scope
+
+Adopt Standard Repository Policies into ReleaseKit as locally maintained rules
+for an opinionated Go library and its proposed release executable. The adoption
+should preserve the project's existing licensing choice, support deliberate
+standardization of release behavior, and keep documentation accurate about what
+has been implemented.
+
+This roadmap covers policy adoption, contributor navigation, documentation
+ownership, licensing notices, and the preparation of ReleaseKit's own release
+procedure. Product implementation and consumer migrations belong to the separate
+[ReleaseKit proposal](../../ideas.md).
+
+## Upstream baseline and references
+
+Use upstream commit `d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843`. The local
+`../policy` checkout and upstream `main` matched that revision during the review.
+PromptKit and ConfigKit adopted the same baseline.
+
+Follow the [adoption guide at the selected revision](https://gitea.maximumdirect.net/eric/policy/src/commit/d84a38ebab26f048cafbe59a2246700c35d29843/docs/adoption.md).
+Copy applicable policies locally and customize them. Retain each file's exact
+upstream provenance; later upstream changes become local rules through deliberate
+review and adoption. Git history is sufficient to record this process.
+
+Useful library adaptations include
+[ConfigKit's architecture policy](../../../ConfigKit/docs/policy/architecture.md),
+[PromptKit's architecture policy](../../../promptkit/docs/policy/architecture.md),
+and their documentation, testing, and attribution policies. Use these as examples
+of adaptation rather than copying their product-specific requirements.
+
+## Policy adaptations
+
+Adopt all seven policies under `docs/policy/`:
+
+| Policy | Base version | ReleaseKit adaptation |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `meta.md` | 1.0 | Retain local authority, per-document adoption provenance, and upstream update navigation. |
+| `agents.md` | 1.3 | Retain proportionate implementation and local commit practices. Add the libraries' clarification that implementation, tests, and agent-authored plans do not independently establish new contracts. |
+| `architecture.md` | 1.3 | Define the library, proposed executable, consumer responsibilities, external effects, and dependency boundaries. |
+| `testing.md` | 1.3 | Retain behavioral, deterministic, offline testing. Prioritize publication integrity, ambiguous outcomes, partial delivery, cross-builds, and version injection as those features are implemented. |
+| `documentation.md` | 1.11 | Assign exact exported Go contracts to declarations and GoDoc, workflows to consumer guides, and proposals to roadmap documents. Add CLI and integration owners when those interfaces exist. |
+| `oss.md` | 1.8 | Preserve the library licensing choice, apply the attribution format, and identify separately licensed copied policy material. |
+| `release.md` | 1.4 | Govern releases of ReleaseKit itself, with explicit deliverables and justified checks. Distinguish its maintainer procedure from the release standard offered to consumers. |
+
+## Proposed architectural constraints
+
+The public facade decision is accepted in
+[ADR 0001](../adr/0001-public-facade.md). Policy adoption will incorporate that
+decision alongside the remaining proposed constraints below.
+
+Evaluate ReleaseKit against both of ConfigKit's relevant success criteria:
+applications should delete substantial infrastructure, and consumers should adopt
+one consistent set of deliberately selected conventions.
+
+- ReleaseKit owns the selected publication, version injection, build, and delivery
+  conventions. Consumers supply product identity, main package, selected targets,
+  and application-specific checks.
+- Consumers use the root `releasekit` orchestration facade and the lightweight
+  `buildinfo` runtime facade. Both packages own their public contracts and
+  delegate through private state and explicit conversions to internal
+  implementation. ReleaseKit builds and tests independently
+  of the consuming repositories and does not depend on their private packages.
+- Git, filesystem, Go toolchain, and Gitea effects have proportionate boundaries
+  and occur through explicit operations. Package layout and abstractions should
+  serve those boundaries without requiring an application framework.
+- The library returns meaningful errors and publication outcomes. The executable
+  handles command parsing, output, and exit codes.
+- The `buildinfo` facade provides runtime version access through a lightweight
+  dependency graph. ReleaseKit's builder and runtime implementation own version
+  injection together.
+
+Architecture policy may govern future development. Concrete package inventory,
+API semantics, and implemented behavior must be documented when they exist.
+
+## Adoption stages
+
+### 1. Copy and tailor policies
+
+- [ ] Copy the seven policies from the selected baseline.
+- [ ] Preserve each `Base Policy Version`, set `Last Updated` to the actual
+  adoption date, and add an `Upstream Source` link to that file at the full commit.
+- [ ] Customize the policies for ReleaseKit and remove their `Base Policy
+  Template` sections.
+- [ ] Adapt upstream `agents/AGENTS.md` into root `AGENTS.md`, preserving the
+  existing knowledge-graph discovery instructions.
+- [ ] Create `docs/development.md` with contributor orientation and the selective
+  policy reading guide. Route tasks to applicable policies instead of requiring
+  the entire suite for every task.
+
+### 2. Establish documentation ownership
+
+- [ ] Move the substantive contents of `ideas.md` to
+  `docs/roadmap/releasekit.md`, preserving the proposal, and retain `ideas.md` as a
+  navigation pointer. Update this roadmap's proposal link in the same change.
+- [ ] Update README with accurate current status and navigation.
+- [ ] Define ownership for GoDoc, consumer guidance, architecture constraints,
+  internal implementation, release procedures, ADRs, and unfinished work.
+- [ ] Create consumer, CLI, configuration, integration, and internal documents
+  when substantive implemented responsibilities justify them. Avoid empty owners
+  and speculative command or API references.
+
+### 3. Complete notices and attribution
+
+- [ ] Add root `COPYRIGHT` using the upstream library example and verified project
+  details. The recommended grant is `LGPL-3.0-or-later`, consistent with the two
+  library examples; preserve any established author choice.
+- [ ] Verify the existing LGPLv3 and incorporated GPLv3 texts in `LICENSE` are
+  complete and faithful. Keep project-specific grant statements in `COPYRIGHT`.
+- [ ] Add `docs/oss/attribution.md` with the supplied policy attribution entry,
+  describing the actual adapted policies, agent orientation, and reading guide.
+- [ ] Copy the CC-BY-SA 4.0 text to `docs/oss/licenses/CC-BY-SA-4.0.txt` and identify
+  the copied material's separate licensing scope in `COPYRIGHT`.
+- [ ] Add README links to the project grant and attribution document. Keep source
+  and notice links pinned to the adopted commit and reference examples upstream.
+
+The library's selected license remains the project grant. A future executable
+does not automatically acquire a different license merely because the upstream
+policy has separate defaults for applications and libraries.
+
+### 4. Define ReleaseKit's own release path
+
+- [ ] Adopt the general versioning, compatibility, integrity, immutability, and
+  successful-tag-push completion rules.
+- [ ] Select ReleaseKit's own deliverables explicitly. Supporting downstream
+  cross-builds does not by itself require ReleaseKit to distribute binaries.
+- [ ] Add `docs/release.md` alongside the first working publication command,
+  documenting real prerequisites, authoritative remote, branch, validation,
+  publication, and failure recovery.
+- [ ] Account for the first-release bootstrap before a released ReleaseKit tool
+  is available for its own publication.
+- [ ] Add executable delivery declarations and target checks when corresponding
+  deliverables exist. Keep source completion and asynchronous delivery status
+  separate.
+
+## Validation and completion
+
+Review provenance, attribution scope, faithful license texts, template residue,
+local links, whitespace, and consistency with implemented repository behavior.
+Documentation-only adoption should use those checks; executable commands and
+examples added later require appropriate execution checks.
+
+Adoption is complete when the tailored policy set, contributor navigation,
+documentation ownership, and licensing notices are coherent and verified. The
+release-path stage may remain pending until publication is implemented; record
+that status without documenting an unavailable command as usable.
+
+Do not inherit PromptKit's or ConfigKit's extra release gates automatically.
+Select additional checks only for identified ReleaseKit risks, recording their
+justification in the adopted policy. Upstream synchronization, recurring license
+approval, and CI polling are not additional adoption or release gates.
diff --git a/ideas.md b/ideas.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d3f77b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ideas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+# ReleaseKit: shared release process
+
+This is a proposal based on a review of PromptKit, ConfigKit, Audita, Notarius,
+Narratio, and Scriptorium on 2026-09-29. Product capabilities remain proposed.
+The public facade architecture is accepted in
+[ADR 0001](docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md), with implementation pending.
+
+## Opportunity
+
+All six repositories follow the same base release policy. Their release scripts
+repeat stable-version parsing, candidate and release-note checks, local and
+remote tag checks, validation of one captured commit, explicit Git publication,
+and recovery guidance for uncertain pushes. They differ in publication approach,
+tag type, validation commands, and artifact delivery. The mechanics of embedding
+a release version and cross-building an application are further candidates for
+standardization.
+
+If the projects deliberately standardize publication approach and tag type,
+ReleaseKit can own most of the repeated release-process code. The current six
+repositories contain 942 lines of release shell scripts and 742 lines of
+dedicated release tests, or 1,684 lines total. A directional estimate is that
+roughly 1,000–1,250 lines could leave those repositories: about 450–500 lines
+of publication scripts, 150–250 lines of checks and builders, and 400–500 lines
+of repeated publication tests. ReleaseKit would gain its own implementation and
+tests, so this is a reduction in local code, not a net line-count saving.
+
+## Proposed publication standard
+
+1. Prepare and commit a version-matched note at `docs/releases/<version>.md`.
+2. Publish the candidate commit to authoritative `main` before invoking the
+   release command.
+3. Run one command that checks the candidate and unused stable version, runs
+   that repository's offline candidate validation once, and rechecks mutable
+   state.
+4. Create an annotated tag at the validated commit with a message derived from
+   the checked-in note. Push only that exact tag object to the authoritative
+   endpoint. A successful tag push completes the source release.
+5. Treat hosted release pages and binary assets as asynchronous delivery with
+   their own status. Do not poll CI or require artifact availability to declare
+   the source release complete.
+
+This would replace Audita's atomic branch-and-tag push, ConfigKit's and
+Notarius's branch push during the release command, and Audita's, Notarius's,
+and Narratio's lightweight tags. Those changes require updates to each
+repository's adopted release policy and procedure; they are not merely code
+cleanup.
+
+## Architecture
+
+[ADR 0001](docs/adr/0001-public-facade.md) owns the accepted facade decision.
+The root `releasekit` package will provide the public facade for publication,
+builds, and delivery. A separate public `buildinfo` package will provide the
+lightweight facade for runtime version information.
+
+Each facade owns its public named types and documented contracts. Public
+operations, inputs, outcomes, errors, and callbacks express deliberately
+selected consumer needs. Handles retain private implementation state; explicit
+forwarding and conversions connect the public contracts to internal
+representations.
+
+Git operations, Go toolchain execution, Gitea integration, and orchestration
+bookkeeping belong under Go's `internal/` boundary. Dependency direction runs
+from the facades into internal implementation, with internal collaborators using
+contracts defined inside that boundary. Implementation packages can evolve
+while the supported public contracts retain their compatibility obligations.
+
+The `buildinfo` facade keeps runtime version access lightweight. Applications
+read their embedded version through its supported accessor. ReleaseKit's builder
+and runtime implementation own the linker symbol and injection mechanism
+together.
+
+The `buildinfo` facade follows three constraints:
+
+- Its public API exposes only runtime information justified by consumer needs.
+- Its implementation uses the standard library and a small internal dependency
+  graph independent of release orchestration.
+- Dependency checks protect that boundary, and build-and-run integration tests
+  verify that the builder injects the selected version and the public accessor
+  reports it correctly.
+
+The release executable calls the orchestration facade and handles command
+parsing, output, and exit codes. Library errors and outcomes report meaningful
+publication state, including partial progress and uncertainty. Go declarations
+and GoDoc own exact public API contracts; additional public packages and
+extension interfaces require a deliberate decision grounded in durable consumer
+needs.
+
+Compiled-export and dependency checks will protect facade ownership.
+External-package behavioral tests will protect error identity, value ownership,
+callback lifetime, and observable outcomes across forwarding and conversions.
+
+## Shared tool boundary
+
+Provide a versioned ReleaseKit executable backed by a Go library. Existing
+shell entry points can become short invocations of that executable. A library
+alone would still require a caller in every shell-driven repository.
+
+ReleaseKit should own:
+
+- stable-version parsing and committed-note identity checks;
+- authoritative Git endpoint resolution, candidate capture, clean `main` and
+  remote-branch agreement checks, and unused local/remote tag checks;
+- one validation invocation bound to the captured candidate, followed by cheap
+  rechecks before publication;
+- annotated-tag creation and verification, explicit tag-object push, and one
+  bounded authoritative-ref check after a failed or ambiguous push;
+- a standard version accessor in the public `buildinfo` facade, backed by
+  release-build injection of the selected tag;
+- a cross-build API that accepts the application's main package and selected
+  targets, initially Linux amd64, Linux arm64, and macOS arm64 (Go's
+  `darwin/arm64`), including an empty set for source-only projects;
+- consistent release build flags and asset naming, plus a host-runnable build
+  that checks the executable's reported version; and
+- Git publication tests using temporary local remotes, including remote
+  advancement, rejected pushes, lost acknowledgments, and unavailable remotes.
+
+Each repository should retain its product name, compatibility decisions,
+candidate-specific checks, main package, selected build targets, delivery
+declaration, and a small test of its ReleaseKit wiring. For example, PromptKit
+exercises its consumer examples. Applications would adapt their existing
+version output to use the `buildinfo` accessor; one agreed version command
+or flag would let ReleaseKit smoke-test a host-runnable build the same way.
+Cross-built binaries would use the same injection mechanism, but compilation
+alone would not establish that they run correctly on another platform.
+ReleaseKit should run the selected checks and builds without silently adding
+binary gates to source-only projects.
+
+The build API should own the mechanics rather than require each application to
+provide a custom linker symbol or shell loop. The initial target list reflects
+the current projects, not a permanent limit on future platforms. It should
+support both candidate cross-build checks and artifact builds from the tagged
+source, using the same version and target selection.
+
+## Woodpecker and Gitea delivery
+
+A common tag-triggered Woodpecker workflow can run ReleaseKit against the
+tagged source. Repository-local YAML should declare the pinned tool image and
+credentials; each repository's ReleaseKit configuration should declare its
+main package and target set. ReleaseKit can own version injection, cross-builds,
+checksum generation, and delivery. The source-only repositories can declare
+zero binary assets.
+
+For projects that declare a hosted Gitea release, a shared delivery command
+could create or find the release for the tag, use the checked-in note, and add
+the declared assets and checksum manifest. A retry should inspect existing
+assets, verify matching content, add only missing items, and stop on a conflict.
+An existing checksum manifest must remain consistent with any later addition.
+The release and its attachments are separate remote operations, so partial
+delivery must be expected and reported clearly.
+
+Audita, Narratio, and Scriptorium currently use the Woodpecker release plugin
+with `file-exists: skip` and `overwrite: false`. Those settings avoid deliberate
+replacement by filename, but they do not prove that a rebuilt file has the
+same bytes as a previously published file. Content comparison would be a
+reason to implement a shared Gitea delivery client rather than rely solely on
+the plugin's skip behavior.
+
+Requiring a hosted Gitea release for PromptKit, ConfigKit, or Notarius would
+add a deliverable and credentials to their current source-only policies. That
+decision can be made separately from standardizing delivery for projects that
+already publish hosted assets.
+
+## Failure states
+
+ReleaseKit should report source publication and artifact delivery separately:
+
+| Event | Result |
+| --- | --- |
+| Candidate validation or a pre-push guard fails | No release was published; correct and validate the candidate again. |
+| Tag push reports success | Source release is complete; delivery may still be pending. |
+| Tag push fails or its acknowledgment is lost | Query the authoritative ref once. Confirm success only if the exact intended tag object is present on the intended commit; otherwise report failed or unknown status and retain the local tag. |
+| Woodpecker or Gitea delivery fails after tag publication | Keep the source release successful. Retry missing delivery from the immutable tag after checking existing content. |
+| Published source or content needs correction | Publish a new version; never replace content under the published version. |
+
+## First implementation slice
+
+Pilot the common publication path with PromptKit and Scriptorium, which already
+require `main` to equal the candidate and publish annotated tags. Develop the
+pilot through the root `releasekit` facade, with implementation behind its
+internal boundary and tests exercising the supported consumer contract. Their
+different validation and remote configuration will test the proposed boundary.
+Migrate the other projects after the shared Git contract is exercised against
+temporary remotes. Add common delivery only after publication behavior is
+settled, using one of the existing binary-publishing projects as the first
+delivery pilot.
+
+## Reviewed implementations
+
+- [PromptKit release script](../promptkit/scripts/release.sh),
+  [checker](../promptkit/scripts/release-check.sh)
+- [ConfigKit release script](../ConfigKit/scripts/release.sh),
+  [checker](../ConfigKit/scripts/release-check.sh)
+- [Audita release script](../audita/scripts/release.sh),
+  [Woodpecker job](../audita/.woodpecker/release.yml)
+- [Notarius release script](../notarius/scripts/release.sh),
+  [checker](../notarius/scripts/check-release-source.sh)
+- [Narratio release script](../narratio/scripts/release.sh),
+  [Woodpecker job](../narratio/.woodpecker/release.yml)
+- [Scriptorium release script](../scriptorium/scripts/release.sh),
+  [Woodpecker job](../scriptorium/.woodpecker/release.yml)