Hacktoberfest 2026: những issue maintainer đã đánh dấu cho tháng Mười, đang mở và phù hợp người mới. Xem issue Hacktoberfest

A coworker can arrive as an endpoint, but not as a file

Đang mở
  • Có gì không ổn?
#398 0 bình luận 0 reaction 0 người được giao Xem trên GitHub

Maintainer thường phản hồi trong vòng 1 ngày

Chưa có ai nhận issue này.

Đánh giá

Độ khó
5/5
Thời gian dự kiến
Hơn một tuần
Mức phù hợp với người mới
35/100
Loại issue
Tính năng
Độ rõ ràng
Khá rõ ràng
Mức độ hoạt động
Sôi nổi
Công nghệ
typescript
Lĩnh vực
backend-api-design, security

Hướng nghiên cứu

Bắt đầu bằng cách đọc tenant-package.ts quanh dòng 535 và 556, sau đó lần theo các luồng coworker, skills, grant và consent-screen hiện có. Xác định xem có thể phân tích tệp cấu hình bên ngoài mà không mở rộng biến môi trường hoặc sử dụng các trường đặc quyền, đồng thời không cần migration hay bảng mới hay không. Được xem là hoàn tất khi quyết định ingress và hành vi xem trước nguyên văn, không cần grant, của nó đã được định nghĩa.

Do mô hình lập chỉ mục viết ra từ nội dung của issue.

Mô tả

#299 was right to close and I am not reopening it. The scope argument holds: a catalogue that fetches
from pinned repositories presumes a population of deployments trading with each other, and a starting
point somebody clones once does not have one.

This is the narrower piece, and it is a different kind of thing.

The gap

The first hurdle after setup is "what now?" — see #397 for the half of that answer which is
just better examples in the box. This is the other half: somebody hands you a coworker.

The README already offers ingress for a coworker's runtime: "any AG-UI endpoint is a Bot, on a
framework or hand-written", validated with the same target checks as browser navigation. What a
deployment cannot do is take in a coworker's configuration. Somebody sends you a file describing a
coworker — its prose, its skills, what it wants to reach — and there is nothing to do with it but
read the YAML yourself and retype it into the dialog.

Editing examples/ and redeploying covers that for a repository you own. It does not cover a
deployment that is already running and that you would rather not restart, and it does not cover
somebody who is not the person with filesystem access.

Why this is not the catalogue

Distribution leaves the repository entirely. No pinned sources, no OPENBOT_TEMPLATE_SOURCES, no
server-side fetch, no allowlist, no URL to configure — and no code here that knows any list exists.
awesome-openbot-agents is a list a person
reads in a browser; getting a file out of it is a copy button.

That matters beyond scope. The product fetches nothing today and the posture is "runs on your
machine". A fetcher aimed at a URL somebody typed is the same class of problem checkAgentEndpoint
exists for, and adding one to justify a convenience is a bad trade. So: no fetch. You already have
the file.

What it costs

Against #299's 123 files and two migrations: no catalogue, no pinned sources, no gallery, no
categories, no shipped catalogue for a clone to inherit, and — the part I want to be held to — no
migration and no new table. Installing writes a coworker, its skills, and the one grant that pairs
them, into tables that already exist. On the order of fifteen files.

The safety argument, which you said was the reusable part

It is reusable precisely here, because the file arrives from outside. The format refuses what must
never travel — no endpoint, no credential, no grant, no component source, no policy rule — by not
having those fields, so a file carrying one fails to parse rather than being quietly stripped. The
consent screen renders every word the file would give a model, verbatim, before anything runs.

And it must not go through the tenant package loader. expandEnvironment runs over agents.yaml and
skills.yaml at load (tenant-package.ts:535,556), so a role description containing ${…} would be
interpolated out of the server's own environment. That is the concrete reason the package cannot be
the mechanism for a file you did not write — and the same reason a clone should be careful what it
points examples/ at.

Not #322

That asks for sharing configurations between deployments, and its acceptance criteria include
carrying grants across on import. This deliberately does not: what a coworker asks for arrives as an
ask and stays unanswered until somebody with the authority decides it. A file that can carry a grant
is a file that can grant.

Two questions, rather than a diff

  1. Is ingress the piece that belongs, or is even one import screen more than a template should carry
    once #397 has made the in-box examples good?
  2. If it belongs — is "grant nothing, and show what was asked" enough without a table to record the
    asks in? Dropping that record is what gets this to zero migrations. The cost is that the asks are
    on screen once and not afterwards.
Ngôn ngữ chính
TypeScript
Star
6.6k
Fork
914
Merge trung bình
22 giờ 44 phút
Pull request đã merge (30 ngày)
137

Chuẩn bị môi trường

  • Có Dockerfile hoặc tệp Docker Compose
  • Có mẫu pull request
  • Không có hướng dẫn đóng góp

Bắt đầu từ đâu

  1. Đọc hết issue, rồi đọc hướng dẫn đóng góp của dự án.
  2. Bình luận trên issue rằng bạn sẽ nhận — tránh hai người làm cùng một việc.
  3. Fork repository và làm thay đổi trên một nhánh.
  4. Mở pull request có tham chiếu số hiệu của issue.

Issue khác của CopilotKit/OpenBot

Tất cả issue của CopilotKit/OpenBot

Issue tương tự

Thêm issue về TypeScript

Nhận issue mới trong hộp thư của bạn

Bản tóm tắt ngắn những issue GitHub phù hợp với người mới.