---
title: Open Scaffold vs README-Driven Development
created: 2026-05-15
updated: 2026-05-15
type: comparison
tags: [open-scaffold, workflow, source-of-truth, evidence]
sources: [README.md, ROADMAP.md, docs/WORKFLOW.md]
confidence: high
contested: false
---

# Open Scaffold vs README-Driven Development

README-driven development uses the README as the primary product promise and adoption surface. Open Scaffold uses the whole repository as a work record.

The README still matters. It is the first-touch explanation. But it should not carry every plan, run, decision, evidence receipt, and reusable concept.

## Difference

| Surface | README-driven development | Open Scaffold |
|---|---|---|
| Main artifact | README as product contract. | Mission, roadmap, plans, runs, evidence, releases, wiki. |
| Strength | Fast first understanding. | Recoverable multi-session work. |
| Risk | README becomes overloaded. | Protocol can feel heavy if not tiered. |
| Best use | Simple products and public introduction. | Agent-assisted or long-running work needing traceability. |

## Relationship

Open Scaffold should make the README sharper by moving durable planning and evidence into the right project surfaces.

Related: [[scaffold-tiers]], [[source-of-truth-first-development]], [[what-is-open-scaffold-for]].