External review: where should the Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile fit? #3
Replies: 6 comments
-
|
Update: I added an ecosystem alignment brief to make the review question more concrete. New artifact:
The brief explains the intended fit:
I am still looking for technical feedback on whether this is useful and where it should align first. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Update: I added a small adoption path so external maintainers can try the profile without adopting the whole framework. New artifacts:
The guide recommends starting with only three files:
This should make it easier for maintainers to test whether the profile is useful without committing to a formal standard or foundation proposal. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Published
The intent is to make future adoption safer for external repositories: clear versioning rules, non-breaking-change expectations, evidence-based adopter listing, and explicit anti-claims around AAIF/Linux Foundation endorsement. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Published New review artifacts:
The self-audit explicitly says this is not ready for formal AAIF project or working-group submission yet. The current ask is narrower: technical feedback on whether the profile should align with AGENTS.md examples, MCP/server readiness, agent gateway governance use cases, or remain an independent repository-readiness profile. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Published New artifact:
The ledger is intentionally conservative: open PRs/issues are shown as work in review, not accepted contribution. It tracks current upstream work, maintainer feedback already absorbed, and the remaining recognition gates such as maintainer review, human CLA acceptance, and merge attribution. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Update - v0.5.18 public review packetThe profile now has a single public review packet for maintainers, AAIF/LF-adjacent reviewers, and enterprise OSS practitioners who want to inspect the work without reading the full repository first. Current review surface:
The review packet summarizes eight repo-local boundary examples across coding, workflow, support, access governance, voice operations, meeting intelligence, commerce, and finance. It also includes copy-ready forum text, reviewer lanes, and explicit anti-claims. The useful feedback I am looking for is still narrow:
Boundary: this is independent OSS work, not an AAIF or Linux Foundation project, not certification, and not an endorsement claim. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I am looking for technical feedback on where this profile would be most useful in the open agentic AI ecosystem.
Repository: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile
Current release: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/releases/tag/v0.5.48
Docs portal: https://kmishra1204.github.io/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/
AGENTS.md enterprise evidence checklist: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/AGENTS_MD_ENTERPRISE_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.md
MCP tool boundary evidence checklist: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/MCP_TOOL_BOUNDARY_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.md
Pinned first-review issue: #7
Route-signal template: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/route_signal.md
The problem statement is simple: many agentic AI repositories can demo a workflow, but enterprise reviewers often need clearer evidence before they can trust, extend, or operate it:
The profile currently includes:
PROFILE.mdfor levels 0-4schema/agentic-readiness.schema.jsontemplates/AGENTIC_BOUNDARY_MODEL.mddocs/AGENTS_MD_ENTERPRISE_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.mddocs/MCP_TOOL_BOUNDARY_EVIDENCE_CHECKLIST.mddocs/PUBLIC_REVIEW_PACKET.mddocs/AAIF_AMBASSADOR_CONTRIBUTION_PLAN.mddocs/REVIEWER_QUICKSTART_16_TESTBED.mddocs/REVIEW_SIGNAL_MATRIX.mddocs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_RESPONSE_PROTOCOL.mddocs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_LEDGER.mddocs/REVIEWER_ACKNOWLEDGEMENT_POLICY.mdThe routing question I would value feedback on:
The smallest useful response is one route signal on one artifact:
Useful feedback would be:
Boundary: I am not asking for endorsement and I am not calling this an AAIF or Linux Foundation project. This is technical feedback only, not adoption, certification, project status, employer approval, AGENTS.md maintainer approval, or proposal acceptance.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions