refactor: remove cli/ and daemon/ - migrated to separate repos

BREAKING CHANGE: CLI and daemon code removed from acp-spec

The CLI has been migrated to https://github.com/acp-protocol/acp-cli
The daemon has been migrated to https://github.com/acp-protocol/acp-daemon
The MCP server has been migrated to https://github.com/acp-protocol/acp-mcp

This repo now contains only:
- Specification (spec/)
- JSON Schemas (schemas/)
- RFCs (rfcs/)
- Documentation (docs/)

Changes:
- Remove cli/ directory (migrated to acp-cli)
- Remove Cargo.toml and Cargo.lock (no longer a Rust workspace)
- Update README.md installation instructions for Homebrew/acp-cli
- Update docs to reference external repositories
- Add daemon-architecture.md documentation

Author: ddunnock

.claude/commands/acp.daemon-document.md

@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+---
+description: Analyze an RFC for technical viability, completeness, and alignment with project goals. Determines accept/reject/clarify status through structured review.
+handoffs:
+  - label: Refine to Plan
+    agent: rfc.refine
+    prompt: Refine this accepted RFC into an actionable implementation plan
+    send: true
+  - label: Check Existing RFCs
+    agent: rfc.status
+    prompt: Show status of all RFCs in the project
+  - label: View RFC Template
+    agent: project.knowledge
+    prompt: Show me the RFC template structure
+---
+
+## User Input
+
+```text
+$ARGUMENTS
+```
+
+You **MUST** consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). The user input may specify:
+- Path to the RFC file to analyze
+- Specific concerns to evaluate
+- Priority areas (security, performance, compatibility)
+- `--quick` for abbreviated analysis
+- `--strict` for rigorous standards compliance check
+
+## Purpose
+
+RFC analysis evaluates proposed protocol changes through a structured review process:
+
+| Phase | Focus | Outcome |
+|-------|-------|---------|
+| Completeness | Required sections present | Pass/Fail |
+| Technical Viability | Can this be implemented? | Viable/Concerns/Blocked |
+| Alignment | Fits project goals and constitution | Aligned/Misaligned |
+| Risk Assessment | Breaking changes, security, scope | Low/Medium/High/Critical |
+| Decision | Overall recommendation | Accept/Reject/Clarify |
+
+**Goal**: Make informed decisions quickly while capturing concerns for resolution.
+
+## Outline
+
+1. **Locate RFC** from user input ($ARGUMENTS):
+   - If path provided: Load that file
+   - If RFC number provided: Search `rfcs/proposed/` and `rfcs/accepted/`
+   - If nothing provided: List available RFCs for selection
+
+2. **Run Analysis Script**:
+   ```bash
+   .claude/scripts/bash/rfc-analyze.sh --json <rfc-path>
+   ```
+   
+   Parse JSON response:
+   ```json
+   {
+     "rfc": {
+       "id": "RFC-XXXX",
+       "title": "RFC Title",
+       "path": "/path/to/rfc.md",
+       "status": "Draft|Proposed|FCP",
+       "author": "Author Name",
+       "created": "YYYY-MM-DD"
+     },
+     "completeness": {
+       "score": 85,
+       "missing_sections": ["Benchmarks"],
+       "incomplete_sections": ["Open Questions"],
+       "warnings": ["No changelog entries"]
+     },
+     "technical": {
+       "viable": true,
+       "concerns": ["Requires tree-sitter changes"],
+       "blockers": [],
+       "affected_components": ["CLI", "Schemas"],
+       "complexity": "Medium"
+     },
+     "alignment": {
+       "constitution_compliant": true,
+       "spec_chapters_affected": ["02", "03", "05"],
+       "schema_changes_required": ["cache.schema.json"],
+       "breaking_changes": false
+     },
+     "risk": {
+       "level": "Medium",
+       "factors": ["New annotation syntax", "Cache format changes"],
+       "mitigations": ["Feature flag rollout", "Migration script"]
+     },
+     "questions": [
+       "Should directive suffix be required or recommended?",
+       "What is the maximum directive length?"
+     ],
+     "recommendation": "CLARIFY",
+     "reasons": ["3 open questions need resolution", "Missing benchmark data"]
+   }
+   ```
+
+3. **Conduct Interactive Review** (unless `--quick`):
+   
+   For each concern or open question:
+   - Present the issue
+   - Ask clarifying questions if needed
+   - Record the resolution or flag for follow-up
+
+4. **Generate Analysis Report**:
+   
+   Create/update `.claude/memory/rfc-analysis-{RFC_ID}.md` using template:
+   `.claude/templates/rfc-analysis-template.md`
+   
+   Report includes:
+   - Executive summary with recommendation
+   - Completeness checklist
+   - Technical viability assessment
+   - Risk matrix
+   - Open questions with answers/status
+   - Decision record
+
+5. **Update RFC Status** based on analysis:
+   
+   | Recommendation | Action |
+   |----------------|--------|
+   | ACCEPT | Move to `rfcs/accepted/`, set status to "Accepted" |
+   | REJECT | Move to `rfcs/rejected/`, document reasons |
+   | CLARIFY | Keep in `rfcs/proposed/`, list required clarifications |
+
+## Analysis Criteria
+
+### Completeness Check
+
+| Section | Required | Weight |
+|---------|----------|--------|
+| Summary | Yes | High |
+| Motivation | Yes | High |
+| Detailed Design | Yes | Critical |
+| Schema Changes | If applicable | Medium |
+| Examples | Yes | Medium |
+| Drawbacks | Yes | Medium |
+| Alternatives | Recommended | Low |
+| Open Questions | If any | High |
+| Implementation Checklist | Yes | Medium |
+
+### Technical Viability Signals
+
+**Green Flags**:
+- Clear implementation path
+- Bounded scope
+- Existing patterns to follow
+- Author has implementation experience
+
+**Yellow Flags**:
+- Requires new dependencies
+- Affects multiple components
+- Novel approach (no prior art)
+- Performance implications unclear
+
+**Red Flags**:
+- Fundamental architecture changes
+- Unbounded scope
+- No clear rollback path
+- Security implications not addressed
+
+### Alignment Verification
+
+Check against:
+- Project constitution (if exists)
+- Existing specification chapters
+- Schema versioning policy
+- Backward compatibility requirements
+
+### Risk Assessment Matrix
+
+| Factor | Low | Medium | High | Critical |
+|--------|-----|--------|------|----------|
+| Breaking Changes | None | Deprecations | Migration needed | Fundamental change |
+| Scope | Single file | Single component | Multiple components | Architecture |
+| Security | N/A | Minor exposure | New attack surface | Critical path |
+| Reversibility | Easy rollback | Some effort | Difficult | Irreversible |
+
+## Interactive Questions
+
+When analyzing, gather answers to:
+
+1. **Scope Clarity**: "Is the scope well-defined? What's explicitly out of scope?"
+
+2. **Implementation Feasibility**: "Can this be implemented incrementally? What's the MVP?"
+
+3. **Compatibility**: "What breaks? What migration path exists?"
+
+4. **Testing Strategy**: "How will this be validated? What are the edge cases?"
+
+5. **Documentation Impact**: "What docs need updating? Any new concepts to explain?"
+
+## Decision Framework
+
+### Accept When:
+- [ ] All required sections complete
+- [ ] Technical approach is viable
+- [ ] Aligns with project direction
+- [ ] Risk level acceptable (Low-Medium)
+- [ ] No unresolved blockers
+- [ ] Open questions have paths to resolution
+
+### Reject When:
+- [ ] Fundamentally misaligned with project goals
+- [ ] Technical approach has fatal flaws
+- [ ] Risk outweighs benefit
+- [ ] Scope creep beyond reasonable bounds
+- [ ] Author unable/unwilling to address feedback
+
+### Clarify When:
+- [ ] Missing critical information
+- [ ] Open questions affect implementation
+- [ ] Alternatives not adequately explored
+- [ ] Stakeholder input needed
+- [ ] Risk assessment incomplete
+
+## Scripts Reference
+
+| Script | Purpose | When Used |
+|--------|---------|-----------|
+| `rfc-analyze.sh` | Parse RFC structure and metadata | Always |
+| `rfc-check-refs.sh` | Validate internal references | During analysis |
+| `rfc-move.sh` | Move RFC between directories | After decision |
+
+## Error Conditions
+
+| Error | Cause | Resolution |
+|-------|-------|------------|
+| "RFC not found" | Invalid path or ID | Check rfcs/ directory |
+| "Invalid RFC format" | Missing required sections | Compare against template |
+| "Cannot determine status" | No status field | Add status to RFC header |
+| "Circular reference" | RFC references itself | Fix reference chain |
+
+## Output Files
+
+| File | Purpose | Location |
+|------|---------|----------|
+| Analysis report | Full analysis results | `.claude/memory/rfc-analysis-{id}.md` |
+| Decision log | Accept/Reject/Clarify record | `.claude/memory/rfc-decisions.md` |
+| Question log | Q&A during analysis | Appended to analysis report |
+
+## Completion Criteria
+
+### Analysis Complete When:
+- [ ] All RFC sections reviewed
+- [ ] Technical viability assessed
+- [ ] Risk level determined
+- [ ] All questions documented (with answers or follow-up status)
+- [ ] Recommendation made with clear reasoning
+- [ ] Analysis report generated
+- [ ] RFC status updated (if decision is Accept/Reject)
+
+## Handoff Information
+
+When handing off to `/rfc.refine`:
+- Provide the RFC path
+- Include analysis report path
+- Note any specific concerns to address in planning
+- List stakeholder decisions that were made
+
+Example handoff:
+```
+RFC-001 has been analyzed and ACCEPTED.
+Analysis: .claude/memory/rfc-analysis-001.md
+Key decisions:
+- Directive suffix will be recommended, not required
+- Maximum directive length: 500 characters
+Ready for /rfc.refine to create implementation plan.
+```