@HakanSeven12 @schoeller — following up with a concrete architecture proposal and an implementation ready for review.

### Proposal

I've drafted a **QGIS-style add-on model** on my fork:

- **Spec:** [docs/plugin-architecture.md](https://github.com/mf4633/OpenCADStudio/blob/feature/plugin-host/docs/plugin-architecture.md)
- **Scaffold:** [docs/plugin-template/](https://github.com/mf4633/OpenCADStudio/tree/feature/plugin-host/docs/plugin-template)
- **Framework PR:** #80 — **host only, no Storm Sewer in core**

**Three layers:** host core → add-on package (plugin.toml, ribbon, commands) → optional headless engine crate. Domain data lives on DWG entities (XDATA), not a proprietary project DB.

**Phase 1 (PR #80):** in-process plugins via inventory::submit!(PluginRegistration), HostSession API, per-document plugin state, command routing without editing commands.rs.

**Phase 2:** user install folder + dynamic .dll/.so with the same plugin.toml.

### Storm Sewer (separate)

Storm Sewer stays on a separate branch as the reference consumer — not in core: [feature/storm-sewer-module](https://github.com/mf4633/OpenCADStudio/tree/feature/storm-sewer-module).

### Re: script languages (@schoeller, #29)

Agree this shouldn't be either/or. Suggested sequencing:

1. Native Rust add-ons + stable HostSession / ocs_plugin_api
2. Python (or similar) as **bindings over that same API** — one extension surface, two authoring paths

Phase 1 defers embedded scripting until the native API is stable.

### Questions for maintainers

1. ocs_plugin_api as a workspace crate with semver — OK?
2. Should the main repo ship **zero** discipline modules, or optional built-ins for dev?
3. Priority: extract API crate (1b) vs dynamic loading (2)?

— Michael
