UNPKG

akm-cli

Version:

akm (Agent Knowledge Manager) — a portable, local-first capability library for AI agents. Discover, load, share, and improve reusable skills, scripts, workflows, and knowledge across any shell-capable coding agent, including Claude Code, OpenCode, and Cur

73 lines (56 loc) • 3.94 kB
# Review corpus — task/workflow format unification Reference record for [`../../task-workflow-format-unification.md`](../../task-workflow-format-unification.md). Every revision of that spec from v8 onward was shaped by these reviews; the spec's §11 cross-references findings by the ids used here. ## Round 0 — three independent adversarial reviews of spec v7 Three reviewers, identical briefs, no shared context — overlap between reports is therefore independent confirmation, and unanimous findings (3/3) were treated as settled facts. | File | Contents | |---|---| | [`opus-review-1.md`](./opus-review-1.md) | Reviewer 1 full report | | [`opus-review-2.md`](./opus-review-2.md) | Reviewer 2 full report | | [`opus-review-3.md`](./opus-review-3.md) | Reviewer 3 full report | | [`findings-consolidated.md`](./findings-consolidated.md) | Deduplicated findings (C1–C5, M1–M13, minors) with per-reviewer attribution — the ids the spec's §11 uses | Outcome: v7 → v8 full redesign (IR v4 invocation union, hashVersion 5, two output schemas, cascade built-not-exposed, `with:`, env provenance split, migration rebuilt). ## Round 1 — four-lens panel on spec v8 | File | Lens | |---|---| | [`panel-r1-coverage.md`](./panel-r1-coverage.md) | Findings-coverage audit: does §11 resolve each round-0 finding, or just name it | | [`panel-r1-architecture.md`](./panel-r1-architecture.md) | Module boundaries and seams against the codebase's own idioms | | [`panel-r1-adversarial.md`](./panel-r1-adversarial.md) | Fresh defect hunt on what v8 itself introduced | | [`panel-r1-security.md`](./panel-r1-security.md) | Script-execution policy, env/redaction contracts, migration mechanics | Outcome: v8 → v9. Headline: the per-bundle script-execution grant was withdrawn (contradicted `activation-policy.ts`'s no-new-trust-machinery decision) in favor of exact 07 P1-D ceiling inheritance; persona snapshot added to the hash preimage; `with:` merge defined; tombstone read-only carve-out and interruption-safe conversion ordering. ## Round 2 — verification on spec v9 | File | Lens | |---|---| | [`panel-r2-verification.md`](./panel-r2-verification.md) | Every round-1 critical/major re-checked against v9 and code — verdict: **all fixes hold** | | [`panel-r2-adversarial.md`](./panel-r2-adversarial.md) | Cold pass, no prior context — verdict: no design flaws; two evidence corrections (the real placeholder filler; indexer-classifier recognition), both applied | ## Library evaluations — buy-vs-build investigation Three independent investigations into replacing the hand-rolled engine with a third-party library, all verified against live artifacts rather than training knowledge. Decision record: [`../../workflow-engine-buy-vs-build.md`](../../workflow-engine-buy-vs-build.md). | File | Scope | |---|---| | [`library-eval-bunqueue.md`](./library-eval-bunqueue.md) | bunqueue — full rubric + source read | | [`library-eval-openworkflow.md`](./library-eval-openworkflow.md) | OpenWorkflow — full rubric, **executed** (SIGKILL durability probe, reproduced schema collision) | | [`library-eval-alternatives.md`](./library-eval-alternatives.md) | Landscape survey — 25+ candidates against the no-server / SQLite / Bun+Windows / license constraints | Outcome: **build**. ~6% of `exec`+`ir` is the generic durable-execution concern libraries sell; the best candidate deletes 8–12% while removing cancellation, concurrency caps, and transactional atomicity. ## Reading notes - Reports cite `file:line` against the branch state they reviewed (`claude/release-0-9-0-polish-d6sycl` @ `71bb686` + this spec's branch); lines drift as the base moves. - Not every claim in the raw reports survived verification — e.g. round 1's "the `tools:` ceiling doesn't exist" was disproven (`show.ts:433-445`). Where a report and the spec disagree, the spec's §11 records the adjudication and is authoritative.