okay. what if… • there were a way to add, alongside a microagent, a list of svg icons, associated with the state of that agent • the micro agent system evaluation state was visualized via these icons within the conversation UI. • microagents could be actively, forcefully enabled manually:

I don’t care what you smell! Get in there!

• microagents could be manually disabled by the user ( this state being user sez no. go way!! )This is my party and I said go home! • microagents could be unauthorized

ACCESS DENIED

hard no. upstream declared.

[ organizationally disabled, token noworky, budget overrun ]

• microagents could be superseded by a more-specific scope version of itself

version 2.2 found. I’m version 1.0 . talk to the new me. Imma nap nao

default openhands version 1.0 of github: (

core/internal/micropaws/pawvidors/github/openhands_github_microagent.md

) superceded by ORG scoped version 1.0 of github: (

/openpaws/mounts/OrgRepos.Orgname.Get.Mounted.Or.Cloned.Here.For.Abstracting.The.How.From.The.What/micropaws/pawvidors/github/openhands_github_microagent.md

) • microagents could both supersede and be superseded : ORG scoped version 1.0 superceded by newer version: github10.1.7 (

/openpaws/mounts/Org.Id.Or.Some.shit/microagents/micropaws/pawvidors/github/openhands_github_microagent_wei_moar_better.md

) ORGscope github v10.1.7 superceded by REPO scoped microagent github v107.10.4 declared in

/openpaws/mounts/repos/username.reponame.openpaws/repo/micropaws/no_octo_for_you.md

(etc) • microagents could be non-functional ( for an unknown reason, this things broke. dunno. sorry. ) (upstream 500) • microagents could be performing well (optimal efficiency.. preferred …) being able to express that these states… somehow in an intuitive fashion …within the interface where someone is trying to do a thing … allows for a consistent disambiguation. the HOW the thing got into that state, isn’t relevant and it doesn’t have to be super complicated I doubt many of these things would be necessary for many … but i was trying to illustrate that it couldn’t just be red/green ya know? and regardless of the HOW the thing got into the state it’s in, I do think there is merit to the ability of unobtrusively representing the state of a microagent … should the user wish to look … and this could be a segue into health and testing … but that’s a whole different hero’s journey of complication :)

Good thoughts, not sure about all though • microagents were versioned, but we no longer use that as it didn’t prove useful; idk, I guess people just modify • I think seeing which is loaded, and which exists but it’s not loaded, would be nice • pretty sure we have precedence/superseding, not sure exactly which order though 😅

totes…. my angle on this was also thinking around debugging… and a path towards testing IE: ‘simulate an interaction with $tool from the perspective of $agent’ and being able to easily identify the inclusion/exclusion of dif pieces. ideally, • microagents would be able to be constrained to a scope (microagent_name: github context: scm, ci, cd, dev constraint: code host / endpoint / code actions matcher: [ github.com, github.io ] )( microagent: container_registry_github context: container_management constraint: fqdn matcher: [ghcr.io ] )( microagent: environmental_credentials_broker context: secrets_broker constraint: [ code_maturity, pawvidor, application, compliance_tier ] matchers: code maturity: dev, local, prod pawvidor: local, lappy, lab application: [ thunderSkwirrel, buriedToyPinDropper, sniffWag, scritch ] compliance_tier: [ local, dev ] ) with the ability to expressly and clearly • overload another microagent with different attributes entirely • enrich an existing microagent • exclude microagents that match a label in a defined context • microagent tiering coalescence tooling should be separated and invisible to microagent selection process ( how i get the list of what microagent content I have to pick from ) is separate from (what microagents do i pick from for this work) • what microagent content selections were made should be easily discovered by the user in context, with an easy way to manually adjust as necessary • this also gives you a path to a mechanism to scrub logs for sensitive string matches • ideally this would be validated in CI by looking for scope-string in logemissionfromtest so that accidental changes that break this logic will get caught via simulated action before going to prod and needing to be discovered by the rather expensive to do (boldly drink straight from the log firehouse)TM tool I figured that thinking about how the developer would want to validate things were working would want the ability to easily flip various config_keys or attributes on or off in a chat context which would obviously result in a context re-init/fork to scrub past conversation of sensitive or conflicting g info if necessary before proceeding and then be able to somehow fire calls to various microagents, tools/ mcp’s etc from that context and validate that the expected variables or data are presented to the agent in question and realized that the ui facet of this aught be a lil more prominent because it’s easy to get this wrong, and given the context of ‘new chat ui redesign work ongoing’ just being discussed i figured it would be a good idea to at least mention this such that there was the opportunity to design such visibility with intention rather than trying to bolt a jet engine into the back of a gocart