Love the concept and agree it can become a thing. On the schema, not sure about skillflows, tools, knowledge, memory - those aren't much standardized today, but agree they help as additional primitives, and standardizing would help.
I built Agent Package Manager at Microsoft - wondering if it may supercharge GitAgents with dependency modules so that they can become composable, same as for classic software. Many common core ideas on the paradigm, curious on your take https://github.com/microsoft/apm
Similar idea (rooted on "agents as markdown") but on the outer loop is taking shape at GitHub with GitHub Agentic Workflows.
The version control angle is interesting. One thing worth thinking about — SOUL.md and SKILL.md are essentially prompt injections by design. They define what the agent does. If the ecosystem grows to where people fork and share agent repos, those files become an attack surface that doesn't get the same review scrutiny as code.
Does GitAgent validate check prompt definitions for suspicious patterns? Instructions to access filesystems, exfiltrate env vars, call external endpoints? Seems like a natural extension if you're already running validation in CI.
This seems very nice! Only downside is that the repo hadn't any updates in two weeks and they seem to have shifted development to 'Gitclaw' which is basically the same just with the shitty claw name - that gives one immediately security nightmare notions. For professional users not a good branding in my opinion.
You're right, the name 'Claw' creates a lot of hesitation among enterprises. But it's also the best way to convey what you're trying to build, especially if you're building a file system-powered agent. I think the surname 'claw' will work for some more time. :)
The bottleneck isn't "how do I define my agent." It's "how do agents find the right tool for their task."
I run a search service that 110+ agents use. They don't browse catalogs or read specs. They describe what they need ("MCP server for Postgres") and expect results back immediately. The definition format matters far less than whether the description is good and whether something can find it.
SKILL.md, AGENTS.md, SOUL.md, they're all converging on the same idea. That's fine. But the portability win only kicks in once there's a discovery layer that can index all of them. Without that, these files are just README.md with a new name.
Maintainer here. Quick clarification on what we're actually solving — GitAgent is about portability. Build your agent once, run it on Claude Code, LangChain, CrewAI, OpenAI — without rewriting it. The repo IS the agent.
You're raising a different problem: runtime discovery, agents finding the right tool mid-task. That's valid and it's a harder problem. We have registry.gitagent.sh for human-time discovery — browse, find, clone. But agent-time discovery is a layer we haven't fully cracked yet.
Where they connect: your search service needs consistent, structured descriptions to index well. That's exactly what SKILL.md is — a standard way for every agent to describe what it can do. Without that consistency you're parsing free-form text and hoping.
You're running 110+ agents on this — you probably have sharper opinions on what good discovery looks like than most. What would you build on top of a consistent spec like this?
> Agent tools that need API keys or credentials read from a local .env file — kept out of version control via .gitignore. Agent config is shareable, secrets stay local.
Amazing! Welcome to 2026, where the only thing standing between your plaintext secrets and the rest of the world is a .gitignore rule.
Fair criticism, and I want to address it directly rather than dodge it.
The `.env` pattern is intentionally scoped to local development — a developer running their own agent with their own keys on their own machine. For that use case, the threat model is 'don't accidentally commit secrets,' which `.gitignore` does solve.
_pdp_ is right that this breaks down the moment you're handling credentials that belong to someone else — OAuth tokens, multi-tenant keys, anything production-adjacent. That's a real gap in the current spec.
What we're planning: a `secrets:` block in `agent.yaml` supporting pluggable backends — OS keychain, 1Password CLI, Vault, AWS SSM — so the spec has a first-class path for production secret management instead of implicitly blessing `.env` for all contexts.
But I'd genuinely love more input from this thread — if you were designing secret management for a git-native agent spec, what would you want it to look like? What patterns have worked well in your setups? This is an open spec and the best ideas should win.
Check out https://varlock.dev for a modern take on .env that gets your secrets out of plaintext. Free and open source - works with tons of tools. Adds validation, type safety, lots of nice features.
But but but this is just a fig leaf. The agent will usually have file level access, and even if by some miracle you manage to feed the envvars into your program without LLMs looking over your shoulder, they can edit the files to add print statements.
If you want LLMs to work on your code, and be sure not to have them leak your secrets, you need a testing or staging environment to which they get credentials instead of prod. Now, if only that had been best practice before... Oh wait it was...
We do something similar at work, called metadev. It sits above all repos and git submodules othe repos in, and works with multiple changes with multiple sessions with worktrees, and stores long term knowledge in /learnings. Our trick has been to put domain specific prompts in the submodules, and developer process in metadev. Because of the way Claude hierarchically includes context, the top repo is not polluted with too much domain specifics.
The .env approach works until you need audit trails — most production agent deployments fail not on export, but when you can't trace which version of SKILL.md called which API key in staging vs prod. Consider that framework exporters (Claude→CrewAI translation) have to solve the tool schema impedance problem each time; a spec helps, but the real win is whether you're baking in observability hooks so agent decisions stay debuggable across runtimes. That's where most standards flatten out.
Protocols for agent interop are important, but beyond message passing you also need state coordination.
Two agents agreeing on a protocol doesn't prevent them from corrupting shared state through concurrent writes. You need an additional coordination layer — atomic propose/validate/commit — on top of whatever protocol you use.
I have attempted to read the documentation for this page and the post and I have no idea what this does. I use agents every day in my work and I don't know what this contributes other than adding a lot of noise to my repo.
Hey check registry.gitagent.sh that would give you an idea. In simple words the idea is to make a defined agent portable to any agent. Like you can share agent personality, skills and other stuff with a single cmd.
The three-file split is a clean design — separating personality from capabilities from config mirrors how most frameworks model agents internally, which probably makes the export layer more natural. Curious how you handle the capability gap when exporting though: if I define a SKILL.md that relies on tool-use patterns CrewAI supports but Claude Code doesn't (or vice versa), does the export silently drop it, or does `gitagent validate` catch that mismatch? That's where I've found portability across frameworks gets genuinely hard — the abstractions don't line up 1:1. I've been working on related problems from the dependency-management angle (github.com/microsoft/apm), more about making agent configuration reproducible across a team than portable across frameworks, and the framework divergence keeps being the hardest part.
8 frameworks except the only decent looking one (opencode) seems a very weird choice, especially as the claw naming is mentioned too much on this page to my liking (Which would be zero times). Also the choice of naming an agent prompt SOUL.md for any harness level stuff is just cringe, not sure if people understand that a SOUL.md is not just injected in context but used in post-training or similar more involved steps and part of the model at a much more fundamental level and this looks like trying to cosplay being serious AI tech when its just some cli.
Treating an agent as a versioned repo artifact is a neat idea, especially being able to diff prompt/behavior changes like normal code.
One thing I’m wondering,how opinionated is the spec about runtime execution? If the repo defines config + skills, does the adapter layer basically translate that into frameworks like LangChain or CrewAI at run time?
Feels similar to how container specs standardized deployment across runtimes. Curious how far you think the portability can realistically go given how quickly agent frameworks change.
Interesting approach! I’m currently exploring the intersection of AI agents and server security. Seeing more 'active' agents that can interact with the environment rather than just suggesting code snippets is definitely where the industry is heading. Great job on this
The idea is to ensure that all filesystem agents follow this format. As long as they respect it, I don’t see any problem—unless the env itself doesn’t allow customization.
The main problem I see with this is that it's too much data for the agent to hold on to.
I experimented with a similar git storage approach, but instead each piece of data is weighted based on importance and gets promoted or demoted in a queue.
The most important data gets surfaced every single time the agent replies, so it never leaves the context window.
very cool. I think I use many of those patterns in my repos. But I think having more standardized way is interesting.I will see if I can fit it in at my project https://sublimated.com/ that also have some opinions how to make git even more agents friendly.
I built Agent Package Manager at Microsoft - wondering if it may supercharge GitAgents with dependency modules so that they can become composable, same as for classic software. Many common core ideas on the paradigm, curious on your take https://github.com/microsoft/apm
Similar idea (rooted on "agents as markdown") but on the outer loop is taking shape at GitHub with GitHub Agentic Workflows.
Does GitAgent validate check prompt definitions for suspicious patterns? Instructions to access filesystems, exfiltrate env vars, call external endpoints? Seems like a natural extension if you're already running validation in CI.
I run a search service that 110+ agents use. They don't browse catalogs or read specs. They describe what they need ("MCP server for Postgres") and expect results back immediately. The definition format matters far less than whether the description is good and whether something can find it.
SKILL.md, AGENTS.md, SOUL.md, they're all converging on the same idea. That's fine. But the portability win only kicks in once there's a discovery layer that can index all of them. Without that, these files are just README.md with a new name.
> Agent tools that need API keys or credentials read from a local .env file — kept out of version control via .gitignore. Agent config is shareable, secrets stay local.
Amazing! Welcome to 2026, where the only thing standing between your plaintext secrets and the rest of the world is a .gitignore rule.
This is hope-based security.
Fair criticism, and I want to address it directly rather than dodge it.
The `.env` pattern is intentionally scoped to local development — a developer running their own agent with their own keys on their own machine. For that use case, the threat model is 'don't accidentally commit secrets,' which `.gitignore` does solve.
_pdp_ is right that this breaks down the moment you're handling credentials that belong to someone else — OAuth tokens, multi-tenant keys, anything production-adjacent. That's a real gap in the current spec.
What we're planning: a `secrets:` block in `agent.yaml` supporting pluggable backends — OS keychain, 1Password CLI, Vault, AWS SSM — so the spec has a first-class path for production secret management instead of implicitly blessing `.env` for all contexts.
But I'd genuinely love more input from this thread — if you were designing secret management for a git-native agent spec, what would you want it to look like? What patterns have worked well in your setups? This is an open spec and the best ideas should win.
If you want LLMs to work on your code, and be sure not to have them leak your secrets, you need a testing or staging environment to which they get credentials instead of prod. Now, if only that had been best practice before... Oh wait it was...
Two agents agreeing on a protocol doesn't prevent them from corrupting shared state through concurrent writes. You need an additional coordination layer — atomic propose/validate/commit — on top of whatever protocol you use.
We built this as a framework-agnostic layer supporting 14 frameworks including MCP and A2A: https://github.com/Jovancoding/Network-AI
One thing I’m wondering,how opinionated is the spec about runtime execution? If the repo defines config + skills, does the adapter layer basically translate that into frameworks like LangChain or CrewAI at run time?
Feels similar to how container specs standardized deployment across runtimes. Curious how far you think the portability can realistically go given how quickly agent frameworks change.
Do you see this spec eventually supporting environments like Codex or VS Code–style agent integrations such as Antigravity as well?
I experimented with a similar git storage approach, but instead each piece of data is weighted based on importance and gets promoted or demoted in a queue.
The most important data gets surfaced every single time the agent replies, so it never leaves the context window.
Love to discuss and see how we can make this more standard