Skip to content

DISCUSSION_PROMPTS.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
204 lines (129 loc) · 10.9 KB

DISCUSSION_PROMPTS.md

File metadata and controls

204 lines (129 loc) · 10.9 KB

Discussion prompts — drafts for first GitHub Discussions

Status: DRAFT. Not posted. Each prompt below requires explicit Vince approval before it is posted to GitHub Discussions. No automation should post these.

Audience: developers landing on the repo from clone traffic, search, or referral. Tone is honest, factual, no hype, no claims of an active community we don't have yet.

Why these five: they cover the entry points a developer is most likely to want — a place to say hello, share what they built, propose an integration, request a security look, and react to v4.1 candidate work without thinking v4.1 is GA.

How to use this file

  1. Vince picks a prompt below.
  2. Vince (or an approved maintainer) creates the matching Discussion category in GitHub Settings → Discussions if it does not exist yet (suggested mapping is in each section).
  3. The prompt is pasted in verbatim or edited first, then posted as the seed post for that category.
  4. The category is pinned only if Vince says so.

Posting cadence suggestion: post one prompt first (Welcome), let it sit for 48h, then add Show & tell + Integration ideas. Hold Security review request and v4.1 feedback until at least one real reply exists in the first three — otherwise the page looks empty and self-talking.

1. Welcome — what .klickd is, what it isn't, what's useful here

Category suggestion: Announcements (maintainer-only post) or General.

Title: Welcome — what .klickd is, what it isn't, what you can do here

Body:

Hi — thanks for finding this repo.

`.klickd` is one file. It carries AI user-context (preferences, level, goals, gates) in a portable encrypted JSON format. No server, no account, no SDK lock-in. AES-256-GCM + Argon2id, client-side. The format is CC0.

What this repo is:

- The open spec (`SPEC.md`) and strict JSON Schemas (Draft 2020-12).
- Two reference SDKs at v4.0.0 — Python (`klickd`) and TypeScript (`@klickd/core`).
- A v3.x → v4 non-destructive migrator.
- Cross-implementation strict test vectors.
- A growing set of starter `.klickd` skills (`examples/v4/starter-skills/`).

What this repo is **not**:

- Not a hosted memory service. There is no server. We do not store your `.klickd` files.
- Not a replacement for long-context models — it is a complementary state layer (see README §"Long context vs portable state").
- Not v4.1 GA. The `docs/chimera/` and `examples/v4.1/` material is **candidate / non-normative**, no release tag, no `latest` on npm or PyPI.

What is useful here for you as a developer:

- A 5-minute try path: [`docs/community/TRY_IT.md`](../community/TRY_IT.md).
- Integration guides for OpenAI, Anthropic, Groq, OpenRouter, xAI, LangChain, LlamaIndex, Copilot, and a generic pattern: [`docs/integrations/`](../integrations/).
- Security model and threat surface: [`SECURITY.md`](../../SECURITY.md).
- A feedback form for what works / what does not: [`docs/community/FEEDBACK.md`](../community/FEEDBACK.md).

Things I'd like to hear from you:

1. Which model or runtime did you try it with first?
2. Did the 5-minute path actually take ~5 minutes, or did something break?
3. What integration do you wish existed?

— Vince

Notes for Vince before posting:

  • Replace "Vince" with whichever signature you prefer.
  • If GitHub Discussions is not yet enabled, enable it in repo Settings → Features → Discussions first.
  • Consider pinning this post only after one real reply exists.

2. Show & tell — what did you carry in a .klickd?

Category suggestion: Show and tell.

Title: Show & tell — what did you put in your first .klickd?

Body:

This thread is for sharing what you built or carried in a `.klickd` file. It does **not** need to be a finished project — a screenshot of one prompt working across two models is enough.

Useful things to include in a reply:

- **What runtime / model** you loaded it into (e.g. GPT-4o via OpenAI SDK, Claude Sonnet via Anthropic SDK, Llama via Groq, local Ollama, OpenRouter, LangChain).
- **Which starter skill** you started from, if any (`user.klickd`, `student.klickd`, `research.klickd`, `coding.klickd`) — or that you wrote your own.
- **One concrete thing the model picked up** that it would not have picked up from a cold prompt (level, preference, constraint, gate).
- **One thing that did not work** as you expected.

Please **do not paste real user data**. Strip names, emails, account ids, and anything that would identify a learner. The format is CC0 but the data you put in it is yours — treat what you post here as public.

If you are unsure whether your example is safe to share, post a redacted JSON snippet instead of the full file.

Notes for Vince before posting:

  • This is the lowest-friction first response. Keep the bar deliberately low.
  • If a reply contains PII, ask the poster to redact and re-post.

3. Integration ideas — which provider / framework should be next?

Category suggestion: Ideas.

Title: Integration ideas — which provider, framework, or runtime should be documented next?

Body:

The repo already has integration guides for:

- OpenAI, Anthropic, Groq, OpenRouter, xAI Grok
- LangChain, LlamaIndex
- GitHub Copilot / M365 Copilot (hybrid pattern)
- A generic pattern for any provider

What I would like to hear from you:

1. **Which runtime or framework do you wish had a `.klickd` integration guide?** (Examples: Ollama, vLLM, LM Studio, llama.cpp, MLX, AutoGen, CrewAI, Semantic Kernel, Bedrock, Vertex, Azure OpenAI, Together, Fireworks, Hugging Face Inference, Pydantic-AI, …)
2. **What is the smallest version of that integration** that would be useful to you? (System-prompt-only? Tool/function injection? Full agent loop?)
3. **Is there a non-LLM target** worth documenting — game engine, robotics middleware, IDE extension, browser extension, mobile shell?

A reply of the form *"Ollama, system-prompt-only, because I run everything offline"* is exactly what is helpful. You do not have to propose the implementation — naming the target is the contribution.

If you actually want to **write** an integration guide, see [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](../../CONTRIBUTING.md) and open a PR against `docs/integrations/`.

Notes for Vince before posting:

  • Keep this open-ended; the goal is signal, not a roadmap commitment.
  • If an idea attracts ≥3 distinct +1 replies, it is worth turning into an issue.

4. Security review request — please poke holes in the model

Category suggestion: Q&A (or a dedicated Security category if you create one — note that vulnerabilities still belong in private disclosure, not here).

Title: Security review request — please poke holes in the .klickd threat model

Body:

> **Read this first:** if you believe you have found a **vulnerability**, do **not** post it here. Use the private disclosure process in [`SECURITY.md`](../../SECURITY.md). This thread is for **design-level** review of the documented threat model.

`.klickd` makes a small set of security claims. The relevant docs are:

- [`SECURITY.md`](../../SECURITY.md) — threat model, crypto choices, what is in scope and what is not.
- [`SPEC.md`](../../SPEC.md) — normative behaviour, JSON Injection Guard, AAD, Argon2id floors, GCM tag handling.

What I would like reviewers to push on (public, design-level only):

1. **Crypto choices.** Are AES-256-GCM + Argon2id with the documented floors the right defaults in 2026? Is the AAD construction sufficient?
2. **JSON injection.** Is the JSON Injection Guard described in `SPEC.md` actually sufficient against the attack classes you would expect, or are there obvious bypasses on the reader side?
3. **Migration surface.** The v3.x → v4 migrator is non-destructive. Does the documented preservation rule (unknown-field preservation) create any practical attack surface for a malicious upstream payload?
4. **Out-of-scope claims.** `.klickd` explicitly does **not** replace provider security, model alignment, or app-level access control. Is anything in `README.md` or `SPEC.md` accidentally over-claiming?
5. **Documentation gaps.** Is there something a security reviewer would expect to be documented that currently is not?

Replies that point at a specific line in `SPEC.md` / `SECURITY.md` are most useful. "Section 4.2 says X but does not address Y" is the ideal shape.

If your finding crosses from "design comment" into "exploit", **stop and use private disclosure**.

Notes for Vince before posting:

  • Hold this prompt until at least one of #1 / #2 / #3 has real replies — otherwise it reads as bait.
  • Reiterate the private-disclosure-for-vulns line in the first comment too if anyone gets close to the line.

5. v4.1 Chimera candidate feedback — non-GA, no release

Category suggestion: Ideas or a dedicated v4.1 candidates category.

Title: v4.1 Chimera — candidate feedback (non-normative, no release)

Body:

> **Status:** v4.1 Chimera material in this repo is **candidate / non-normative**. There is **no v4.1 tag**, no `latest` bump on npm or PyPI, no DOI, no IANA action, no schema change. v4.0.0 remains the GA. Nothing in this thread should be read as a v4.1 release announcement.

The planning index for v4.1 candidate work is here:

- [`docs/chimera/README_V4_1.md`](../chimera/README_V4_1.md) — what `docs/chimera/` is and is not.
- [`docs/chimera/V4_1_SKILL_CANDIDATE_MAPPING.md`](../chimera/V4_1_SKILL_CANDIDATE_MAPPING.md) — the candidate list with mapping status (`needs_mapping` / `candidate_mapped` / `ship_ready`).
- [`docs/rfcs/RFC-009-chimera-v4.1.md`](../rfcs/RFC-009-chimera-v4.1.md) — authoritative RFC.
- [`examples/v4.1/x-klickd-skills/`](../../examples/v4.1/x-klickd-skills/) — concrete `candidate_mapped` artefacts (lite/ and pro/ tiers).

What would help most at this stage:

1. **Mapping critique.** For any candidate currently marked `candidate_mapped`, do the listed framework anchors (ESCO / DigComp / EQF / CEFR / SFIA / NICE / ENISA / CIS / LifeComp) actually match what a practitioner would expect? Where would you map differently?
2. **`needs_mapping` candidates.** For candidates not yet mapped, is there an authoritative framework you would propose, with a citable IRI?
3. **Pack composition.** Are there candidates that should **not** be their own pack and should compose with an existing one instead?
4. **What is missing entirely.** Is there a skill area you would expect to see as a candidate that is not on the list?

Please do **not** treat replies here as a commitment to ship. Promotion past `candidate_mapped` happens via RFC-009 amendments, not via this thread. This thread exists so the RFC track gets external signal earlier rather than later.

Notes for Vince before posting:

  • This one is the highest risk for being misread as a release announcement. The framing paragraph at the top is load-bearing — do not delete it.
  • If anyone in replies starts treating v4.1 as released, correct in-thread immediately and link to README_V4_1.md.