Initial TrueGrowth source import

openspec/changes/add-model-benchmark-workbench/design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+## Context
+- The toolbox already hosts component-based tools (batch image, video analyzer). Provider routing/runtime discovery supply resolved `modelRef`/`provider` context. Task history imposes retention limits; mixing benchmark data there pollutes user tasks.
+- Requirements: per-modality benchmark sessions, lightweight result store, settings shortcut, ranking modes, default low-cost prompts, manual rating/categorization.
+
+## Goals
+- Build a dedicated benchmark workbench tool that opens via toolbox or settings shortcut, orchestrates multiple supplier/model invocations per modality, and records the per-entry metrics needed for ranking.
+- Keep benchmark data isolated from the core task queue while reusing adapter execution and caching preview URLs only long enough for comparison (no auto-insertion).
+- Present default prompts optimized for fast, low-cost tests yet expose override points; allow sorting by speed/cost/composite and manual rating/heart to surface user favorites.
+
+## Non-Goals
+- Do not reuse the main task queue for benchmark execution.
+- Do not automatically insert benchmark outputs into the canvas or media history.
+- Do not implement full AI scoring in V1—manual ratings drive “效果最好”.
+
+## Decisions
+1. The workbench stores `BenchmarkSession` → `BenchmarkEntry` records in a new service backed by `KVStorage` (similar to prompt storage) keyed by `sessionId`.
+2. Execution will call `resolveAdapterForInvocation` with the chosen `modelRef`/`modelId`/`routeType` and run `generateImage/Video/Audio` or `sendChatMessage` (for text) via the existing adapters, capturing start/finish timestamps and HTTP duration.
+3. Settings dialog renders quick buttons per provider/model entry; click triggers `toolWindowService.openTool` with component props selecting the session mode (“same model other providers”, etc.).
+4. Sorting modes implemented as pure client filtering on `BenchmarkEntry` metadata; default ranking uses success rate + 90th percentile completion time to favor faster results, with cost as tiebreaker.
+5. Manual rating (`score` 0-5) and `favorite`/`reject` flags are stored per entry; these influence composite ranking but do not change metrics.