docs: address second-round PR review on RFC 012 (alternatives, framing)

- Add an Alternatives section comparing Code Mode against the narrower
  result-elision/summarization route over native tool-calling (solves
  context-bloat but not composition/round-trips) and against parallel native
  dispatch (a core-loop change that still lacks composition); states why
  Code Mode is chosen and why the new code-execution surface is the price.
- Fix the Problem-section framing: it said the model "can run independent
  calls concurrently," which contradicted the serialize-by-default decision.
  Reworded to "express fan-out, initially serialized until concurrency-safety
  metadata exists" — early win is composition + fewer round-trips, not parallelism.

docs/rfc/012-optional-code-mode.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Today the agent loop advertises every registered tool to the model as a native J
 
 For multi-step tool work this is token-heavy and serial. The model cannot compose tools — loop over a result set, branch on an intermediate value, fan out, post-process — without a full model round-trip per call, and each of those round-trips drags the entire intermediate result back into context whether the model needs it or not.
 
-Cloudflare's [Code Mode](https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/) (shipped as the `@cloudflare/codemode` npm package) proposes an alternative grounded in a simple observation: LLMs are better at writing code than at emitting tool calls, because they have seen millions of lines of real code and comparatively few contrived tool-calling traces. Instead of one tool call per step, the model writes a TypeScript program against a generated SDK that wraps all the tools, and that program is executed. The model curates what comes back — only what it `console.log`s and/or returns — instead of every intermediate result. Because the SDK functions are async, the model can run independent calls concurrently.
+Cloudflare's [Code Mode](https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/) (shipped as the `@cloudflare/codemode` npm package) proposes an alternative grounded in a simple observation: LLMs are better at writing code than at emitting tool calls, because they have seen millions of lines of real code and comparatively few contrived tool-calling traces. Instead of one tool call per step, the model writes a TypeScript program against a generated SDK that wraps all the tools, and that program is executed. The model curates what comes back — only what it `console.log`s and/or returns — instead of every intermediate result. The SDK functions are async, so the model can *express* fan-out (`Promise.all`) naturally in code; this RFC initially **serializes** those dispatches (§ Concurrency) until the tool contract grows concurrency-safety metadata, so the early win is composition and fewer round-trips, not parallelism.
 
 This RFC proposes an **optional** Code Mode for the DeepSeek Harness, covering **all** tools uniformly — built-in and future MCP — with no per-tool work, implemented Cordis-style with **zero core-package changes**. It fully specifies the code-execution seam and the SDK-generation pipeline, but ships only a minimal `node:vm` reference stub for execution; the hardened, sandboxed execution substrate is **deferred to a follow-up RFC** (see Risks). This RFC does not change the agent loop, and it leaves native tool-calling exactly as it is — Code Mode is a plugin you load, not a replacement.
 
@@ -64,6 +64,14 @@ Per the "explicit > implicit at seams" convention, the request spells out every
 
 **Optionality / toggle.** Loading the `code-mode` plugin enables Code Mode for that context; not loading it leaves today's native tool-calling untouched. The two are mutually exclusive within one ctx, because Code Mode rewrites the wire tool list down to `[run_code]`. Per-agent selection via ctx forks, and the visibility tiers above, are future work; the MVP toggle is plugin presence.
 
+## Alternatives
+
+**Result elision / summarization over native tool-calling (the narrower route).** The Problem has two halves — context bloat (every intermediate `tool-result` re-enters context) and serial composition (one tool call per round-trip). The context-bloat half can be addressed *without* any code-execution runtime: keep provider tool-calling exactly as it is, and add a plugin on the `agent/request` waterfall (or a compaction pass akin to RFC 009's session work) that elides or summarizes older `tool-result` blocks before they re-enter the model's context — drop them past a window, replace large payloads with a digest, or keep only the blocks the model still references. This is strictly less invasive than Code Mode: no new runtime seam, no model-written programs, no new safety surface. It is the right tool if context growth is the only pain.
+
+It is insufficient for the **composition / round-trip** half, which is the decisive reason this RFC does not stop there. Elision still pays one model round-trip per tool call: a loop over N items is N turns, a branch on an intermediate value is a turn to fetch then a turn to act, and post-processing (filter, join, reduce) either happens in the model's head over full payloads or not at all. Code Mode collapses all of that into one program — the loop, the branch, the join run in the runtime, and only the curated result returns. Elision also cannot express fan-out or data-dependent control flow; it only shrinks what comes back. So the two are complementary, not competing: elision could even layer *under* Code Mode for the residual native-tool paths. The RFC chooses Code Mode because the round-trip/composition cost is the larger structural limit, and accepts the new code-execution surface as the price — which is exactly why the execution substrate is gated behind the enforceable safety guard (§2) and the hardened backend is a hard prerequisite for untrusted use.
+
+**Why not change the loop to dispatch native tool calls in parallel instead?** That is the other obvious answer to the round-trip cost, and it remains valid future work (it is the open `dsh-tools`/architecture.md TODO). But it is a core-loop change requiring the same concurrency-safety metadata Code Mode defers, and it still does not give the model *composition* (branch/loop/post-process between calls) — only parallelism of independent calls the model already decided to make in one step. Code Mode delivers composition with zero core change; parallel native dispatch and Code Mode can coexist later.
+
 ## Plan
 
 1. Scaffold the interface package `packages/code-runtime/` per [the cookbook](../cookbook/adding-a-package.md): abstract `CodeRuntime extends Service` (`super(ctx, 'codeRuntime')`) with a readonly `safe: boolean`, the `declare module 'cordis'` ctx key, the `CodeRunRequest`/`CodeRunResult`/`SdkBinding` vocabulary, method contracts documented in JSDoc (what `run` captures, abort semantics, that an error is a result field not a throw, what `safe` means). HMR-safety test (dispose the contributing fiber, assert `ctx.codeRuntime` is gone).