SurfClaw — Technical Overview (Diligence)

Public web vs. closing package

• What surfclaw.net shows: positioning, benchmark methodology, and high-level outcomes so acquirers can evaluate fit before legal close — not a runnable integration kit.
• What typically ships under NDA / data room / asset transfer: full source trees, revision history, deployment manifests, internal runbooks, tuning parameters, test suites, and buyer-specific embedding work — i.e. what you need to run this as your production middleware, not a marketing demo.
• Can someone “apply it tomorrow” from this page alone? No serious enterprise should treat a landing-site overview as sufficient for production roll-out. Operational embedding (gateway wiring, corpus policies, security review, SLAs) requires engineering engagement and contracted access to the actual asset. Legal protection is layered: copyright on code, trade-secret treatment where applicable, and contracts — not secrecy-by-obscurity on every paragraph.
• Public package indexes: this site does not present any public index as the source of truth for the proprietary acquisition bundle. Operational choices about legacy listings are separate from surfclaw.net.

This is business and engineering framing, not legal advice. Final disclosure scope is defined in your LOI, APA, license, or escrow terms.

What SurfClaw optimizes

Teams often send large slices of repositories or document dumps into LLMs. SurfClaw builds a queryable structure over a selected corpus, then for each question returns only relevant context instead of raw files — reducing query-side tokens. Independent benchmarks on public repos support an 8×–35× conservative range; strongest measured case 35.2× (see Benchmark report).

Enterprise deliverable shape

Under contract, buyers receive the complete middleware package (layout, modules, configuration templates, and tests) needed to run ingestion, graph construction, context extraction, and optional model routing in their environment. Exact file paths, class names, and internal pipeline boundaries are intentionally omitted from this public page so the web cannot serve as a mechanical blueprint.

Typical integration flow

1. Corpus selection — policies for which paths, extensions, and doc types enter the graph (often buyer-specific).
2. Build structure — ingest the selected corpus and materialize the internal graph representation (implementation supplied with the asset).
3. Serve context — for each query, return prompt-bound context derived from the graph within configured token and traversal limits.
4. Attach to gateway — sit behind your API gateway or internal LLM proxy; enforce auth, tenancy, and logging on the buyer side.
5. Optional full round-trip — forward to the buyer-configured model endpoint using buyer-supplied credentials (details in the delivered package).

Callable surface (non-public detail)

Import paths, class names, method signatures, and worked examples are provided only in the contracted delivery — not on surfclaw.net — so casual visitors cannot reconstruct integration code from this page alone.

Legacy hosted collateral

Older materials may describe a hosted-client flow. That flow is not represented on surfclaw.net as a way to obtain the proprietary acquisition asset.

Environment variables

Core routing reads buyer-supplied configuration — no embedded vendor API secrets in the asset package. Configuration keys, defaults, and endpoint wiring are documented in the delivered package. This public page does not enumerate environment variable names or sample values — that catalog is part of the contracted artifact only.

What acquirers still need beyond this page

• Full source access under contract (repo, tags, build reproducibility).
• Security & compliance review against buyer policies (PII, air-gap, logging).
• Operational runbooks: scaling, failure modes, monitoring, corpus update cadence.
• Integration sprint: gateway bindings, identity, rate limits, and regression tests on buyer repos.

Benchmark

Methodology, repos, and tables are published on the Benchmark page for reproducibility discussions with technical stakeholders.