RFC Template

Summary

Brief explanation of the proposed change for UI-TARS-desktop.

Basic example

If the proposal involves API changes or new component interactions, provide a concise code/usage example. Omit if not applicable.

Motivation

Why is this change essential for UI-TARS-desktop? What specific problems does it address? What limitations or user pain points will it resolve? Focus on objective technical reasons rather than subjective preferences.

Detailed design

Technical specification of the proposal including:

• Architectural diagrams (if applicable)
• Modified/new APIs
• Data flow changes
• Lifecycle impacts
• Error handling strategies
• Compatibility with existing TARS patterns
• Platform considerations (Windows/macOS/Linux)

Provide sufficient detail for core maintainers to evaluate implementation feasibility.

Drawbacks

Critical considerations including:

• Increased binary size/performance impact
• Maintenance complexity
• Security implications
• Cross-platform consistency risks
• Developer experience impacts
• Migration challenges for existing integrations

Alternatives

What other approaches were considered? Include:

• Third-party solutions
• Partial implementations
• Alternative architectural patterns
• Status quo analysis

Adoption strategy

How will this change be rolled out? Address:

• Phased implementation plan
• Backward compatibility measures
• Deprecation timelines (if any)
• Documentation updates
• Testing requirements (unit tests, E2E scenarios)

How we teach this

Educational aspects covering:

• Updated API documentation strategy
• Sample project updates
• Tutorial integration points
• Workshop/onboarding implications
• Error message guidance
• Debugging patterns for new features

Unresolved questions

Open technical discussions needing resolution:

• Unvalidated performance assumptions
• Undecided implementation details
• Third-party dependency risks
• Platform-specific edge cases
• Long-term maintenance ownership