Hacktoberfest 2026:维护者为十月标记出来的 issue,仍然开放、适合新手。 浏览 Hacktoberfest issue

[RFC] Agent Contacts: cross-owner A2A conversations + decision inbox

未关闭
#41 3 条评论 0 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

维护者通常 2 天内回复

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
35/100
Issue 类型
功能
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
活跃
技术栈
typescript

调研方向

The issue names no files or existing tests. Start by reviewing the existing human review cards, Spaces and revision-aware content, per-Dot permissions, persistent work state, and AG-UI surfaces. Define the local contact/revocation model, disclosure card, fixture peer, durable inbox/outbox states, and restart plus duplicate-submit tests before connecting a live A2A peer.

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

Problem

I’d like OpenDots to support a simple cross-owner workflow:

“Ask my friend’s agent for a shareable update, let the agents handle bounded clarification, and only interrupt us when a human decision is required.”

This is different from same-workspace multi-agent orchestration. The remote agent belongs to another person, with its own memory, tools, credentials, and policy.

Full downstream design: https://github.com/kvnloo/OpenDots/issues/13

Product shape: Agent Contacts

A contact would represent an owner-confirmed remote agent endpoint.

Initial flow:

  1. Pair — both owners manually confirm the endpoint over an existing trusted channel.
  2. Propose — from a Dot conversation, stage a request to that contact.
  3. Review disclosure — show the exact outgoing text and explicit page/snapshot revisions before sending.
  4. Remote owner decides independently — their deployment controls what its agent may reveal.
  5. Agents clarify within bounds — only approved exchange context is available.
  6. Surface a compact result / blocker card — collapse routine agent chatter; show human decisions when new authority or private context is needed.
  7. Revoke — immediately prevent future local dispatch/continuation.

Initial scope: one-to-one, text-only, read-only exchanges. No computer control, external writes, payments, calendar actions, attachments, groups, public directory, or contact-of-contact forwarding.

Important architecture boundary

OpenDots should implement this independently. It should not require Hermes as a backend.

The app would own its own:

  • contacts registry
  • owner-authenticated pairing/revocation
  • peer authentication/policy
  • durable inbox/outbox
  • disclosure decisions
  • restricted exchange runner
  • delivery/result UI

Hermes can be one compatible contact, not the control plane.

The companion Hermes implementation is separately proposed as a standalone plugin:
https://github.com/kvnloo/hermes-agent/issues/426

Reuse existing OpenDots / CopilotKit surfaces

OpenDots already has several pieces that fit this UX:

  • human review cards
  • Spaces / revision-aware content
  • persistent work state
  • per-Dot permissions
  • AG-UI rendering
  • explicit computer controls

CopilotKit/AG-UI also has A2A middleware support, so I’d evaluate that rather than inventing another agent transport. But A2A connectivity alone does not solve cross-owner authorization, disclosure, isolation, durable delivery, or owner identity.

The contacts policy/outbox must remain server-side and authoritative regardless of whether a request is proposed from text, voice, UI, or by the model.

Security invariants

OpenDots’ current security doc correctly describes the prototype as single-owner. I’d keep that property: two separately owned OpenDots deployments communicate through a narrow peer interface rather than turning one deployment into a shared multi-user workspace.

For the first implementation:

  • pairing grants communication, not Space/computer access
  • remote display names are not verified human identity
  • initial outgoing text is itself a disclosure requiring review
  • approvals bind to recipient + exact content/snapshot revision + expiry/policy epoch
  • the peer runner sees only approved snapshots + exchange transcript
  • no normal thread history, Automatic Learning, browser, shell, computer tools, arbitrary URL fetching, or further delegation
  • remote messages are untrusted data, never authority or UI actions
  • peer task/history operations are ownership-checked
  • delivery state, agent state, and owner-decision state remain distinct
  • revocation blocks future local work but does not claim to erase already delivered data

First mergeable slice

I would avoid starting with a full social/contact network.

The first vertical slice could be:

  • local contact + revocation model
  • owner-only control API
  • one disclosure decision card
  • deterministic fixture peer / no live model dependency
  • durable inbox/outbox state
  • narrow-screen + keyboard-accessible UI
  • clear states for queued / dispatched / peer accepted / reply received / unknown / expired / failed
  • restart + duplicate-submit tests

Then connect a real A2A peer once the policy and state machine are proven.

Interop contract

The Hermes and OpenDots tracks can share only a small versioned behavior contract / fixture set:

  • exchange request
  • approved shared-context snapshot
  • local decision record
  • delivery/result receipt

Each runtime keeps its own storage, policy, UI, and release cadence.

The useful test matrix is:

  • OpenDots ↔ OpenDots works with Hermes absent
  • Hermes ↔ Hermes works with OpenDots absent
  • OpenDots ↔ Hermes matches the same observable fixtures
  • generic A2A peers either get an explicitly approved manual exchange or a clear incompatibility; no silent downgrade to unrestricted behavior

Credit / provenance

This proposal is intended to compose with existing work, not overwrite it.

  • @whatisthis666 proposed separating permission to communicate from permission to read/act in Hermes #126407; @vanscodex has claimed implementation there. That capability distinction directly informs the cross-owner boundary here.
  • @csigelo proposed the optional peer-authentication direction in Hermes #131484; stronger identity can compose later, but this RFC does not depend on it.
  • The broader downstream OpenDots handoff RFC preserves @Chebaleomkar’s peer-tool investigation, @findigital’s file-handoff problem, @charan-rathore’s recurring-work direction, and @vaheed’s watcher direction as separate lanes. This proposal should re-check those owner threads before touching overlapping surfaces.
  • Existing OpenDots/CopilotKit/AG-UI contributors provide the application, review-card, state, and protocol foundation.

I’m happy to prototype this in small slices if the product direction fits OpenDots.

Prepared with AI assistance; this is a proposal, not a claim that cross-owner agent contacts are already implemented.

主要语言
TypeScript
星标
5.5k
派生
796
平均合并
2 天 5 小时
30 天内合并 PR
53

环境准备

  • 提供 Dockerfile 或 Docker Compose 文件
  • 没有 Pull Request 模板
  • 阅读贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

CopilotKit/OpenDots 的其他 Issue

查看 CopilotKit/OpenDots 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 TypeScript Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。