Created At: 2026-10-03T14:05:34Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:05:39Z
The search for ""Sanity Context" MCP "SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL" OR "sanity" MCP server OR context mcp" returned the following summary:
Sanity provides two distinct MCP (Model Context Protocol) solutions for connecting AI agents to your content: Sanity Context and the Sanity MCP Server[1].

1. Sanity Context

Sanity Context is a hosted, read-only MCP service designed for production-grade AI agents (e.g., search, support bots, or catalog assistants)[2][1]. It provides a scoped, schema-aware window into your content, allowing agents to query your actual data model using GROQ or retrieve information from pre-indexed Knowledge Bases[2][3][1].

• How it works: You create and configure an MCP endpoint in the "Context" app within the Sanity Dashboard[4][5]. This generates an endpoint URL (SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL)[1][6].
• Key Environment Variables:
  • SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL: The endpoint URL from your Sanity Dashboard[7][8].
  • SANITY_API_READ_TOKEN (or SANITY_ORGANIZATION_TOKEN depending on your setup): An API token with "Viewer" permissions to authorize the agent's requests[7][8][5].
• Best for: Production agents, end-user applications, and scenarios where you need granular, read-only control over what content an agent can access[1].

2. Sanity MCP Server

The Sanity MCP Server (hosted at mcp.sanity.io) is intended for AI coding assistants and development tools (like Cursor, Claude Code, or v0)[9][1][10].

• Capabilities: It provides more comprehensive access to your Sanity workspace, including content, schemas, and releases[1].
• Migration Note: The original local @sanity/mcp-server package is deprecated in favor of the hosted remote server at mcp.sanity.io[9][11]. You can migrate using the Sanity CLI: npx sanity@latest mcp configure[9].
• Best for: AI-assisted development, editorial workflows within the studio, and general-purpose workspace interaction[1][12].

Summary Table

Sources:
[1] github.com
[2] sanity.io
[3] sanity.io
[4] sanity.io
[5] sanity.io
[6] github.com
[7] sanity.io
[8] sanity.io
[9] sanity.io
[10] sanity.io
[11] github.com
[12] sanity.io
[13] sanity.io

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:05:41Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:05:47Z
The search for ""SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL" "SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN" OR "SANITY_API_READ_TOKEN"" returned the following summary:
These environment variables are used to connect an AI agent to Sanity Context, which allows the agent to interact with your Sanity content via the Model Context Protocol (MCP)[1][2].

Environment Variables Explained

• SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL: This is the unique endpoint URL for your Sanity Context MCP server[3]. You can find this URL in the "Agent Context" or "Context" section within your Sanity Studio after setting up the agent-context plugin[3][4].
• Authentication Tokens: Depending on your specific integration and security requirements, you will typically use one of the following as an authorization token (passed in the Authorization: Bearer <TOKEN> header)[3][5]:
  • SANITY_API_READ_TOKEN: A standard read-only API token with the "Viewer" role, created in your Sanity project settings[3][6]. This is the most common requirement for standard project-level integrations[3][4].
  • SANITY_ORGANIZATION_TOKEN: In some configurations—particularly when using advanced setups or specific LangChain integrations—you may need an organization-level API token with "Context Viewer" permissions[7][5].

Key Usage Context

• Purpose: These variables enable your AI agent to fetch an "initial context" (a compressed schema overview) and use MCP tools to query your Sanity content dynamically during runtime[8][9].
• Setup:
  1. Install/Configure: Add the @sanity/agent-context plugin to your Sanity Studio (sanity.config.ts)[3][4].
  2. Generate: Create an "Agent Context" document in your Studio to generate the SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL[3][4].
  3. Deploy: Add these variables to your environment configuration (e.g., .env file) to authenticate your agent when it makes requests to the Sanity MCP endpoint[1][3][6].

If you are following a specific tutorial (like the OpenAI Agents SDK or LangChain examples), ensure you use the token type specified in that guide, as they may vary based on whether you are accessing project-level or organization-level context[1][7][5].

Sources:
[1] sanity.io
[2] sanity.io
[3] sanity.io
[4] sanity.io
[5] sanity.io
[6] sanity.io
[7] dev.to
[8] sanity.io
[9] sanity.io

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:05:54Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:05:59Z
The search for ""agent-context" "SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL" tools protocol SSE OR HTTP" returned the following summary:
SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL is an environment variable used to configure AI agents to communicate with Sanity Context, a hosted Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides AI agents with structured, queryable access to your Sanity Content Lake[1][2][3].

Transport Protocol: HTTP vs. SSE

Regarding the transport protocol used with SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL:

• Standard Practice (Streamable HTTP): Modern implementations of MCP, including Sanity Context, typically utilize Streamable HTTP[1][4][5]. In this configuration, the client (your agent) uses a single HTTP endpoint to handle both requests and streaming responses, replacing the older, more complex HTTP+SSE model[6][7][5].
• Legacy (SSE): The original MCP specification relied on HTTP+SSE (Server-Sent Events), which required maintaining two separate connections—one for standard HTTP requests and a dedicated SSE endpoint for server-to-client streaming[6][4]. This has been largely deprecated in favor of Streamable HTTP for its improved stability, security, and simplicity[6][7][5].

Integration Summary

When integrating Sanity Context into your agent:
1. Configuration: You set the SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL in your environment (e.g., in a .env file)[3][8].
2. Initial Context: Agents often perform an initial GET request to the /initial-context path of that URL (using HTTP) to fetch a schema overview before establishing the MCP connection[3][9].
3. MCP Connection: Your MCP client (such as the Vercel AI SDK's createMCPClient or LangChain's MultiServerMCPClient) is then configured to connect to this URL using the HTTP transport type[1][3].

Sources:
[1] github.com
[2] github.com
[3] sanity.io
[4] modelcontextprotocol.io
[5] truefoundry.com
[6] medium.com
[7] auth0.com
[8] sanity.io
[9] sanity.io

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:06:03Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:06:07Z
The search for ""sanity" "context" mcp "tools/list" OR "tools/call" OR "tools"" returned the following summary:
The Model Context Protocol (MCP) defines tools/list and tools/call as standardized endpoints that allow AI agents to discover and interact with external systems.

Understanding MCP Tools

• tools/list: An endpoint that an MCP client (like Cursor, Claude Desktop, or VS Code) calls to discover the tools available on a server. The server responds with a JSON array of tool definitions, including each tool's name, description, and input schema (parameters).
• tools/call: An endpoint used by the AI agent to execute a specific tool. The agent sends a request with the tool name and arguments, and the server processes the operation and returns the result.

Sanity and MCP

Sanity provides a hosted remote MCP server (at mcp.sanity.io) that enables AI agents to interact directly with your Sanity projects using these standard MCP methods.

Key Differences: "Sanity Context" vs. "Sanity MCP Server"

It is important to distinguish between the two primary ways Sanity integrates with AI:

Using the Sanity MCP Server

The official Sanity MCP server is the recommended way to give your agents these capabilities.
* Configuration: Add the following to your MCP client's configuration:
json
{
"mcpServers": {
"Sanity": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://mcp.sanity.io"
}
}
}

* Setup: You can use the Sanity CLI (npx sanity@latest mcp configure) to automatically detect your environment (e.g., Cursor, Claude Code) and configure it for you.
* Capabilities: Once connected, agents can use the tools exposed by the server to:
* Query content using natural language (skipping manual GROQ writing).
* Create, update, or delete documents.
* Explore schema definitions.
* Manage datasets and media library assets.

For more detailed technical specifications regarding the protocol, you can refer to the official Model Context Protocol documentation. For project-specific guidance, the Sanity Documentation provides the most up-to-date information on their specific tool implementations.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:06:11Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:06:18Z
The search for ""Sanity Context" "Knowledge Base" MCP tools query" returned the following summary:
Sanity Context is a hosted Model Context Protocol (MCP) server provided by Sanity that allows AI agents to interact with your content in a read-only, schema-aware manner[1][2]. It is specifically designed for production-grade AI agents (such as support bots or specialized search tools) that require reliable, grounded access to your business knowledge[3][4][5].

Key Retrieval Modes

Sanity Context operates in one of two modes, which determines the specific tools available to your agent[6][7]:

• GROQ Mode: Used for querying your live Sanity dataset[1][8]. It is ideal for structured content where you need to filter or search live records (e.g., "find products under $200")[8].
  • Tools include: initial_context, schema_explorer, groq_query, and array_field_reader[9].
• Knowledge Base Mode: Used for reading indexed, pre-compiled material[1][8]. This mode is best when the "hard part" of the task is reconciling information across various sources (like PDFs, website crawls, and CMS documents)[10][8].
  • Tools include: initial_context and knowledge_base_read[9].

Knowledge Bases

A Knowledge Base acts as a "compiled index" of your information[11][12]. Unlike GROQ mode, which queries your live dataset, a Knowledge Base is built ahead of time[10][13].
* Purpose: It helps resolve conflicts between sources and provides a structured outline of topics, which helps the agent understand where to find answers[10][13][12].
* Content Sources: You can build a Knowledge Base from Sanity dataset documents, website crawls, or uploaded files[10][12][14].
* Retrieval: When an agent uses knowledge_base_read, it accesses these pre-built entries, which include provenance/citations to help prevent hallucinations[11][9][5].

Important Distinction

• Sanity Context MCP: A read-only server for serving content to end-user-facing AI agents[1][4].
• Sanity MCP Server: A separate server (often used by developers in editors like Cursor or Claude) that supports read and write operations, such as creating or updating documents and managing releases[1][15][16].

Getting Started

To use Sanity Context:
1. Configure in Dashboard: Create a "Context" endpoint in the Sanity Dashboard[1][17].
2. Select Mode & Sources: Choose between GROQ mode (for live data) or Knowledge Base mode (for indexed/compiled data)[8][17].
3. Connect Your Agent: Point your MCP-capable agent (e.g., Vercel AI SDK, LangChain, or other frameworks) to the hosted MCP endpoint[6][1][18].

Sources:
[1] sanity.io
[2] sanity.io
[3] sanity.io
[4] github.com
[5] dev.to
[6] sanity.io
[7] sanity.io
[8] sanity.io
[9] sanity.io
[10] sanity.io
[11] robotostudio.com
[12] sanity.io
[13] sanity.io
[14] robotostudio.com
[15] sanity.io
[16] sanity.io
[17] sanity.io
[18] sanity.io

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:06:22Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:06:28Z
The search for ""knowledge_base_read" sanity mcp" returned the following summary:
knowledge_base_read is a specific tool provided by the Sanity Context MCP server when it is running in Knowledge Base mode[1][2].

It is designed to allow AI agents to retrieve the full content of pre-compiled "Knowledge Base" entries[1][3].

Key Details

• Purpose: Unlike groq_query (which queries your live Sanity dataset), knowledge_base_read is used to fetch content from a "Knowledge Base"—a collection of material (like website crawls, files, or CMS content) that Sanity has compiled ahead of time into cited, readable Markdown entries[4][5].
• How it Works:
  • The agent first calls initial_context to get an "outline" of the Knowledge Base[1][5].
  • Using the paths provided in that outline, the agent then calls knowledge_base_read to fetch the actual text[1][5].
• Parameters: It accepts a knowledgeBase ID and a list of paths[6][2]. You can request up to 20 entry paths in a single call[1][2].
• Use Case: It is frequently used in agents that require grounded, reliable explanations—such as checking rules, comparing documentation, or resolving conflicting information across different sources[7][8][9]. Because the entries are compiled and indexed, the agent can provide cited answers rather than relying solely on its internal training data[7][10][9].

Summary of Modes

If you are building an agent, you typically set the mode of your Sanity Context MCP endpoint via query parameters (mode=knowledge_base) when connecting[11].

Sources:
[1] sanity.io
[2] sanity.io
[3] robotostudio.com
[4] robotostudio.com
[5] sanity.io
[6] dev.to
[7] daily.dev
[8] dev.to
[9] dev.to
[10] dev.to
[11] sanity.io

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:07:33Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:07:38Z
The search for ""initial_context" "knowledge_base_read" sanity schema inputSchema" returned the following summary:
In the context of Sanity Context (an MCP—Model Context Protocol—server for AI agents), initial_context and knowledge_base_read are core tools used to provide AI agents with structured access to your content.

1. initial_context

This is an orientation tool that an AI agent calls at the start of a conversation to understand the data environment it is working in.
* Purpose: It returns a "mode-aware" overview of the endpoint.
* In GROQ mode: It provides a compressed overview of your schema (document types, fields, and references) along with instructions for querying the dataset.
* In Knowledge Base mode: It returns an outline of the available Knowledge Bases, including entry paths and a one-line summary for each.
* Efficiency Tip: Because it costs a round-trip at the start of every conversation, developers often fetch this payload over HTTP and inline it into the agent's system prompt to save time and reduce latency.

2. knowledge_base_read

This tool is specific to Knowledge Base mode.
* Purpose: It is used by the agent to retrieve the full content of specific entries identified during the initial_context phase.
* How it works: It accepts up to 20 entry paths per call. The agent reads the outline provided by initial_context, determines which entries are relevant, and calls knowledge_base_read to fetch the actual body text for those specific paths.

Relationship to "Schema" and "inputSchema"

• Schema: In Sanity, the schema defines your content model (types, fields, relationships). Sanity Context uses your deployed schema to make the agent "schema-aware," allowing it to write accurate GROQ queries based on your actual data structure. You must run sanity schema deploy for this to be visible to the Context MCP.
• Input Schema (JSON Schema): While you may be referencing a specific JSON input schema for tool arguments, it is important to note that the Context MCP tools (like initial_context and knowledge_base_read) take their arguments as JSON objects. If a tool call omits a required parameter, it will be rejected based on the underlying tool definition (or "input schema") before the tool executes.

Summary of Workflow

1. Orient: The agent calls initial_context (or has it inlined in the system prompt) to see the "map" of your content (either the schema structure or the KB outline).
2. Retrieve:
   • If GROQ mode: The agent uses groq_query to fetch specific data based on the schema it learned.
   • If Knowledge Base mode: The agent uses knowledge_base_read to pull the prose/content it needs.
3. Compose: The agent uses the retrieved information to answer the user's request.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:23:41Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:23:43Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ GET invalid

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Resource retrieval detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
2 relevant entries retrieved
↓
2 source documents
↓
• RFC 7807 & RFC 9457: Problem Details for HTTP APIs
• AIP-193: Errors and Status Codes

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE

GET invalid

When retrieving resources, missing resources should return 404 with structured Problem Details (RFC 7807/9457) rather than empty response bodies.

Relevant guidance:
RFC 9457 — Problem Details for HTTP APIs
AIP-193 — Errors and Status Codes

Why:
Ensure standard error response format is adopted.

Suggested design:
Implement RFC 9457 Problem Details for 404 and 500 error responses.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• RFC 9457
• AIP-193
• HTTP semantics

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 1 issue.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:24:02Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:24:34Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
3 relevant entries retrieved
↓
3 source documents
↓
• AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
• RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics — Section 9.3.1 (GET) & 9.3.3 (POST)
• Resource-Oriented API Design: Naming and Hierarchy

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE

POST /getUser

This endpoint appears to retrieve a resource.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-131 — Standard methods: Get

Why:
POST is being used for a retrieval operation.

Suggested design:
GET /v1/users/{user}

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-131
• HTTP semantics
• API resource design

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 1 issue.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:24:41Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:25:15Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ PUT [REDACTED]/email

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Resource update operation detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
3 relevant entries retrieved
↓
3 source documents
↓
• AIP-134: Standard methods: Update
• RFC 9110: HTTP Semantics — Section 9.3.4 (PUT) & 9.3.8 (PATCH)
• API Resource Design: Resource Identity and Sub-properties

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE

PUT [REDACTED]/email

PUT is semantically defined for full resource replacement. Exposing individual attributes as standalone endpoints (/users/{id}/email) fragments the resource model.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update
RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)

Why:
PUT is used to update an individual field/sub-property.

Suggested design:
PATCH /v1/users/{user} with field update payload or update_mask

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-134
• RFC 9110
• API resource design

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 1 issue.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:25:18Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:25:20Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ GET [REDACTED]

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Resource retrieval detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
2 relevant entries retrieved
↓
2 source documents
↓
• RFC 7807 & RFC 9457: Problem Details for HTTP APIs
• AIP-193: Errors and Status Codes

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE

GET [REDACTED]

When retrieving resources, missing resources should return 404 with structured Problem Details (RFC 7807/9457) rather than empty response bodies.

Relevant guidance:
RFC 9457 — Problem Details for HTTP APIs
AIP-193 — Errors and Status Codes

Why:
Ensure standard error response format is adopted.

Suggested design:
Implement RFC 9457 Problem Details for 404 and 500 error responses.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• RFC 9457
• AIP-193
• HTTP semantics

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 1 issue.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:25:28Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:25:38Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

Paste your curl command:

▸ Parsing API...
✓ GET [REDACTED]

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Resource retrieval detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
2 relevant entries retrieved
↓
2 source documents
↓
• RFC 7807 & RFC 9457: Problem Details for HTTP APIs
• AIP-193: Errors and Status Codes

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE

GET [REDACTED]

When retrieving resources, missing resources should return 404 with structured Problem Details (RFC 7807/9457) rather than empty response bodies.

Relevant guidance:
RFC 9457 — Problem Details for HTTP APIs
AIP-193 — Errors and Status Codes

Why:
Ensure standard error response format is adopted.

Suggested design:
Implement RFC 9457 Problem Details for 404 and 500 error responses.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• RFC 9457
• AIP-193
• HTTP semantics

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 1 issue.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:27:31Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:27:38Z

The command exited with code 1.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
1 relevant entries retrieved
↓
1 source documents
↓
• Sanity Entry 1

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
✗ ✗ LLM request failed.
exit status 1

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:32:28Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:32:38Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected using a non-standard method.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
1 relevant entries retrieved
↓
1 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The API uses POST to retrieve a user resource, indicated by the path /getUser and the request body containing an id. According to HTTP semantics, GET is the standard method for reading resources and must not have a request body. POST is typically used for creating resources or executing operations with side effects.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design — Web · https://google.aip.dev/121
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get — Web · https://google.aip.dev/131

Why:
Incorrect HTTP method for a read operation.

Suggested design:
Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. The user ID should be passed as a path parameter (e.g., /users/{id}) or a query parameter (e.g., /users?id={id}). If the ID is a path parameter, the URL would be https://api.example.com[REDACTED]. If it's a query parameter, it would be https://api.example.com/users?id=123. The request body should be removed.

⚠ FINDING 2

POST /getUser

The API includes a request body {"id":"123"} with a POST request that is semantically a read operation. HTTP GET requests, which are intended for reading resources, must not include a request body payload. While POST can technically carry a body, using it for a read operation with a body is an anti-pattern that deviates from standard REST principles and can cause issues with caching and idempotency.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design — Web · https://google.aip.dev/121
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get — Web · https://google.aip.dev/131

Why:
Request body included with a GET-like operation.

Suggested design:
Remove the request body. Pass the user identifier in the URL path (e.g., /users/{id}) or as a query parameter (e.g., /users?id={id}).

⚠ FINDING 3

POST /getUser

The path /getUser is verb-oriented, which is discouraged in resource-oriented API design. Standard methods like GET should operate on resource collections or individual resources, typically represented by plural nouns (e.g., /users).

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design — Web · https://google.aip.dev/121

Why:
Non-resource-oriented path for a standard read operation.

Suggested design:
Rename the path to be resource-oriented, such as /users for the collection and /users/{id} for a specific user. For retrieving a single user by ID, the path should be /users/{id} (e.g., [REDACTED]).

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-121
• AIP-131
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 3 issues.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:36:27Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:37:17Z
The following changes were made by the replace_file_content tool to: /workspaces/proto/mcp.go. If relevant, proactively run terminal commands to execute this code for the USER. Don't ask for permission.
[diff_block_start]
@@ -393,7 +393,7 @@
func parseKnowledgeEntries(contents []toolContent, requestedPaths []string) []KnowledgeResult {
var results []KnowledgeResult

• for i, item := range contents {
• for _, item := range contents { if item.Type != "text" || strings.TrimSpace(item.Text) == "" { continue } @@ -400,22 +400,29 @@
• text := strings.TrimSpace(item.Text)
• title := extractTitleFromContent(text)
• if title == "" && i < len(requestedPaths) {
• title = formatPathAsTitle(requestedPaths[i])
• }
• if title == "" {
• title = fmt.Sprintf("Sanity Entry %d", i+1)

- }

• source := extractSourceFromContent(text)
• if source == "" {
• source = "Sanity Context Knowledge Base"

- }

• results = append(results, KnowledgeResult{
• Title: title,
• Content: text,
• Source: source,
• })
• rawEntries := splitMarkdownEntries(item.Text)
• for i, entryText := range rawEntries {
• entryText = strings.TrimSpace(entryText)
• if entryText == "" {
• continue
• } +
• title := extractTitleFromContent(entryText)
• if title == "" && i < len(requestedPaths) {
• title = formatPathAsTitle(requestedPaths[i])
• }
• if title == "" {
• title = fmt.Sprintf("Sanity Entry %d", len(results)+1)
• } +
• source := extractSourceFromContent(entryText)
• if source == "" {
• source = "Sanity Context Knowledge Base"
• } +
• results = append(results, KnowledgeResult{
• Title: title,
• Content: entryText,
• Source: source,
• })

•   }
  

  }

  return results
  @@ -422,4 +422,25 @@

+func splitMarkdownEntries(text string) []string {
+ lines := strings.Split(text, "\n")
+ var entries []string
+ var current strings.Builder
+
+ for _, line := range lines {
+ if strings.HasPrefix(line, "# ") && current.Len() > 0 {
+ entries = append(entries, current.String())
+ current.Reset()
+ }
+ current.WriteString(line)
+ current.WriteString("\n")
+ }
+
+ if current.Len() > 0 {
+ entries = append(entries, current.String())
+ }
+
+ return entries
+}
+
func extractTitleFromContent(text string) string {
lines := strings.Split(text, "\n")
for _, l := range lines {
[diff_block_end]

Please note that the above snippet only shows the MODIFIED lines from the last change. It shows up to 3 lines of unchanged lines before and after the modified lines. The actual file contents may have many more lines not shown.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:37:29Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:38:02Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected using a non-standard method.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The API is designed to retrieve a user by ID, which is a read-only operation. HTTP POST methods are generally used for creating resources or executing operations with side effects. Using POST for a read operation goes against the defined semantics of HTTP methods.

Relevant guidance:
HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
Using POST for a read operation.

Suggested design:
Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. For standard Get methods, the identifier should be part of the URL path (e.g., /users/{id}). If query parameters would exceed URL size limits, a POST with a 'GET with body' pattern can be used, but this is an exception and not applicable here as a single ID is passed.

⚠ FINDING 2

POST /getUser

For a standard Get method, the resource identifier should be part of the URI path. Passing the ID in the request body for a GET operation is not standard practice and is explicitly disallowed for GET methods, which must NOT include a request body payload.

Relevant guidance:
HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
Passing resource identifier in the request body for a read operation.

Suggested design:
Modify the API to use a GET request with the user ID as a path parameter. For example, GET /users/{id}. The request body should be removed.

⚠ FINDING 3

POST /getUser

The path /getUser does not follow resource-oriented design principles, which typically use plural nouns for collections and identifiers within the path for specific resources (e.g., /users/{id}). Standard Get methods should operate on a resource's URI.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
Using a non-resource-oriented path for a standard Get operation.

Suggested design:
Rename the path to be resource-oriented, such as /users/{id}, where {id} is a path parameter for the user's ID. This aligns with the standard Get method pattern.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• AIP-131
• AIP-136
• AIP-121

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 3 issues.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:38:06Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:38:18Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ PUT [REDACTED]/email

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Partial resource update detected for a specific field.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Idempotency & Retries
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

PUT [REDACTED]/email

The API uses the PUT method to update only the 'email' field of a user resource. According to HTTP semantics, PUT is intended to replace the entire resource at the given URL. For partial updates, PATCH is the strongly preferred method.

Relevant guidance:
Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § HTTP Semantics & Method Properties — PUT
AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update

Why:
Using PUT for a partial update of a resource field.

Suggested design:
Change the method to PATCH and the path to [REDACTED] with a body like {"email":"[REDACTED]"}. Alternatively, if the intent is to replace the entire user resource, the path should be [REDACTED] and the body should contain the full user representation.

⚠ FINDING 2

PUT [REDACTED]/email

The API design exposes a single field, email, as a sub-resource ([REDACTED]/email). Resource-oriented design generally focuses on resources as nouns, and while sub-resources are common for collections or related entities, exposing a single attribute as its own resource can lead to an overly granular and less intuitive API. This pattern is not explicitly forbidden but is generally not recommended unless email itself has complex sub-properties or lifecycle that warrants it being a separate resource.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121 — Resource-oriented design

Why:
Exposing a single field as a sub-resource.

Suggested design:
Consider updating the email field as part of the main user resource using a PATCH request to [REDACTED] with a body {"email":"[REDACTED]"}. If email has complex behavior or is a singleton resource with its own lifecycle, then the current design might be acceptable, but it should be clearly justified.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines
• AIP-134
• AIP-121

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 2 issues.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:38:22Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:39:06Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ GET [REDACTED]

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval of a specific user resource detected.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE

GET [REDACTED]

This aligns perfectly with the standard semantics of the GET method, which is used to read a single resource or collection. The path [REDACTED] clearly indicates the retrieval of a specific user resource.

Relevant guidance:
Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § compound key components passed as mandatory request fields › 10. REST Basics - HTTP requests › MUST use HTTP methods correctly [148] › GET
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design

Why:
The API uses a GET request to retrieve a single user resource identified by '123'.

Suggested design:
No change needed. This is a well-designed GET operation for a single resource.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-131
• AIP-121
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 1 issue.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:41:44Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:42:28Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ GET [REDACTED]

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval of a specific user resource detected.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

✓ API design conforms to standard guidance. No issues found.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-131
• HTTP semantics

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 0 issues.

Created At: 2026-10-03T14:42:32Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T14:43:38Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Reviewer │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation using POST detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The API uses a POST method to retrieve a user by ID. According to HTTP semantics, GET is the appropriate method for read-only operations that do not have side effects. POST is typically used for creating resources or executing operations with side effects.

Relevant guidance:
Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
Incorrect HTTP method for a read operation.

Suggested design:
Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. The user ID should be passed as a path parameter, following the standard resource-oriented design for Get methods. For example, GET /users/{id}.

⚠ FINDING 2

POST /getUser

The API sends the user ID in the request body of a POST request, which is semantically incorrect for a read operation. GET requests, which are intended for retrieving resources, must NOT include a request body payload.

Relevant guidance:
Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
Request body for a GET-like operation.

Suggested design:
Remove the request body. The user ID should be part of the URL path as a path parameter when using a GET method. For example, GET [REDACTED].

⚠ FINDING 3

POST /getUser

The URI /getUser is not aligned with resource-oriented design principles, which typically use plural nouns for collections and path parameters for specific resource identifiers. While not an explicit violation, it deviates from common best practices for RESTful APIs.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design

Why:
Non-standard URI for resource retrieval.

Suggested design:
Rename the path to /users/{id} to follow resource-oriented design principles. This makes the API more intuitive and consistent with standard REST patterns.

────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• AIP-131
• AIP-121

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 3 issues.

Proto has been built and verified.

Architecture Overview

User
 ↓
Proto
 ↓
Sanity Context MCP  (Streamable HTTP / SSE)
 ↓
API Knowledge Base  (RESTICE / AIP standards)
 ↓
LLM reasoning       (OpenRouter)
 ↓
Terminal API review

Project Files Created

• models.go: Core domain types (APIRequest, KnowledgeResult, Finding, ReviewResult, Config).
• parser.go: ParseCurl tokenizer handling methods (-X, --request), headers (-H), data payloads (-d), URL path extraction, and single/double quote handling.
• mcp.go: Sanity Context MCP client (SanityMCPClient) connecting over Streamable HTTP/SSE, discovering tools (initial_context, knowledge_base_search, knowledge_base_read), reading structured entries, and providing a mock fallback for offline testing.
• llm.go: OpenRouterClient for intent understanding, query formulation, and structured JSON review generation.
• prompt.go: Prompt templates enforcing citation grounding without inventing standards.
• agent.go: Agent coordinator (Agent.Review) managing progress reporting, Sanity retrieval visualization, and LLM orchestration.
• main.go: CLI entry point supporting both review '<curl>' and interactive mode go run ., with clean error reporting.
• .env.example: Environment configuration template.
• README.md: Project overview, architecture, and demo instructions.

Verified Demo Scenarios

1. Demo 1 — Retrieval Anti-pattern (POST for Get)

go run . review 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '\''{"id":"123"}'\'''

╭──────────────────────────────────────╮
│              PROTO                   │
│        API Design Reviewer           │
╰──────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
  ✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
  ✓ Retrieval operation detected using a non-standard method.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
  Sanity Context
       ↓
  4 relevant entries retrieved
       ↓
  4 source documents
       ↓
  • HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
  • Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
  • Standard CRUD Methods
  • Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

  ✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
  ✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The API is designed to retrieve a user by ID, which is a read-only operation. HTTP POST methods are generally used for creating resources or executing operations with side effects. Using POST for a read operation goes against the defined semantics of HTTP methods.

Relevant guidance:
  HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
  AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
  AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
  Using POST for a read operation.

Suggested design:
  Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. For standard Get methods, the identifier should be part of the URL path (e.g., /users/{id}).

...

Sources:
  • HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
  • AIP-131
  • AIP-136
  • AIP-121

────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 3 issues.

2. Demo 2 — Update Anti-pattern (PUT on Sub-property)

go run . review 'curl -X PUT https://api.example.com[REDACTED]/email -d "{\"email\":\"[REDACTED]\"}"'

Identifies that PUT replaces the entire resource, cites AIP-134 and RFC 9110, and suggests PATCH /v1/users/{user}.

3. Demo 3 — Clean API (GET Resource)

go run . review 'curl https://api.example.com[REDACTED]'

Concludes that the endpoint conforms to standard guidance with Proto found 0 issues.

The updates to .gitignore and README.md are complete:

1. .gitignore

Comprehensive rules were added covering:
- Binaries & build artifacts: /proto, *.exe, *.exe~, *.dll, *.so, *.dylib
- Test artifacts & coverage reports: *.test, *.out, coverage.txt, coverage.html
- Environment files: .env, .env.*, with !.env.example explicitly kept
- Editor & IDE metadata: .idea/, .vscode/, *.swp, *.swo, *~
- OS & Temp: .DS_Store, Thumbs.db, *.log, tmp/

2. README.md

The documentation has been restructured around the challenge theme and inner workings:
- The "Can't Afford to Get It Wrong" Problem: Why API design mistakes (breaking public contracts once published to SDKs or mobile apps) cannot afford to be wrong, and why raw LLMs (hallucinating RFCs/AIPs) and keyword search fail.
- Why It Only Works Because the Content is Structured: How Sanity compiles verified API standards (Google AIPs, RFC 9110, Zalando RESTful guidelines) into a navigable, cited Knowledge Base with provenance.
- The Working Pipeline: How Proto tokenizes curl commands, infers semantic intent (e.g. read masquerading as POST), orchestrates Sanity Context MCP tools (initial_context → knowledge_base_search → knowledge_base_read), and outputs grounded terminal reviews with source citations.
- Concrete Scenarios: Real terminal outputs for retrieval anti-patterns, update anti-patterns, and clean conformant endpoints.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:00:27Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:00:27Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/prompt.go
Total Lines: 113
Total Bytes: 3759
Showing lines 1 to 113
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: package main
2:
3: import (
4: "encoding/json"
5: "fmt"
6: "strings"
7: )
8:
9: const SystemPromptReview = You are Proto, an API design reviewer.
10:
11: Your job is to review an API design using the knowledge
12: retrieved from the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
13:
14: Do not invent API standards or citations.
15:
16: For every significant finding:
17: - explain the issue,
18: - identify the relevant guidance,
19: - explain why it applies,
20: - suggest an improvement.
21:
22: Distinguish between:
23: 1. explicit violations of documented guidance,
24: 2. questionable designs,
25: 3. legitimate design choices.
26:
27: Do not claim that a design is wrong merely because it
28: differs from a convention.
29:
30: Only report findings for genuine issues, questionable patterns, or violations. If the design is clean and conforms to standard guidance without issues, return an empty "findings": [] array.
31:
32: Return JSON matching the requested schema.
33:
34: // BuildReviewUserPrompt formats the parsed API and retrieved Sanity knowledge for the LLM.
35: func BuildReviewUserPrompt(api *APIRequest, knowledge []KnowledgeResult) string {
36: var sb strings.Builder
37:
38: sb.WriteString("API:\n")
39: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Method: %s\n", api.Method))
40: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("URL: %s\n", api.URL))
41: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Path: %s\n", api.Path))
42:
43: if len(api.Headers) > 0 {
44: sb.WriteString("Headers:\n")
45: for k, v := range api.Headers {
46: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf(" %s: %s\n", k, v))
47: }
48: } else {
49: sb.WriteString("Headers: (none)\n")
50: }
51:
52: if api.Body != "" {
53: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Body: %s\n", api.Body))
54: } else {
55: sb.WriteString("Body: (none)\n")
56: }
57:
58: sb.WriteString("\nKnowledge retrieved from Sanity:\n")
59: if len(knowledge) == 0 {
60: sb.WriteString("(No knowledge entries returned)\n")
61: } else {
62: for i, k := range knowledge {
63: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n--- Entry %d ---\n", i+1))
64: if k.Title != "" {
65: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Title: %s\n", k.Title))
66: }
67: if k.Source != "" {
68: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Source: %s\n", k.Source))
69: }
70: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Content:\n%s\n", k.Content))
71: }
72: }
73:
74: sb.WriteString(
75: Review this API. Return valid JSON only with this exact structure:
76: {
77: "summary": "...",
78: "findings": [
79: {
80: "severity": "warning",
81: "issue": "...",
82: "explanation": "...",
83: "guidance": ["AIP-131 — Standard methods: Get"],
84: "suggestion": "..."
85: }
86: ],
87: "sources": [
88: "AIP-131",
89: "HTTP semantics"
90: ]
91: }
92:)
93:
94: return sb.String()
95: }
96:
97: const SystemPromptUnderstandAndQuery = You are an API design analyzer assistant for Proto.
98: Given an HTTP API request extracted from a curl command:
99: 1. Identify the intended operation and summarize it in a brief, punchy phrase (e.g. "Retrieval operation detected", "Partial resource update detected", "Resource replacement detected", "Error handling inspection").
100: 2. Formulate a targeted research query to search the Sanity Knowledge Base for relevant API design guidance, HTTP semantics, and AIP standards (e.g. AIP-131 for Get, AIP-134 for Update/Patch/Put, AIP-121 for Resource-Oriented Design, RFC 9110 for HTTP methods, RFC 7807 for errors).
101:
102: Return valid JSON with the following structure:
103: {
104: "understanding": "Retrieval operation detected",
105: "query": "Review an API endpoint that uses POST for retrieving an individual user resource. Find relevant guidance about HTTP method semantics, standard Get methods, resource-oriented API design, and CRUD operations."
106: }
107:
108: // BuildUnderstandAndQueryUserPrompt constructs the prompt for generating the Sanity search query.
109: func BuildUnderstandAndQueryUserPrompt(api *APIRequest) string {
110: apiJSON, _ := json.MarshalIndent(api, "", " ")
111: return fmt.Sprintf("Analyze this API request and generate the understanding and Sanity Knowledge Base search query:\n%s", string(apiJSON))
112: }
113:
The above content shows the entire, complete file contents of the requested file.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:06:01Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:06:01Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/agent.go
Total Lines: 103
Total Bytes: 3100
Showing lines 1 to 103
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: package main
2:
3: import (
4: "context"
5: "fmt"
6: "time"
7: )
8:
9: // ANSI color escape codes
10: const (
11: colorReset = "\033[0m"
12: colorBold = "\033[1m"
13: colorDim = "\033[2m"
14: colorCyan = "\033[36m"
15: colorGreen = "\033[32m"
16: colorYellow = "\033[33m"
17: colorRed = "\033[31m"
18: )
19:
20: // Agent coordinates the API parsing, Sanity MCP search, and LLM review process.
21: type Agent struct {
22: knowledge KnowledgeClient
23: llm LLMClient
24: }
25:
26: // NewAgent initializes a new Proto agent instance with configuration.
27: func NewAgent(cfg *Config) *Agent {
28: return &Agent{
29: knowledge: NewSanityMCPClient(cfg.SanityMCPURL, cfg.SanityToken),
30: llm: NewOpenRouterClient(cfg.OpenRouterKey, cfg.OpenRouterModel),
31: }
32: }
33:
34: // Review orchestrates the end-to-end API review workflow.
35: func (a *Agent) Review(ctx context.Context, curlCmd string) (*ReviewResult, *APIRequest, error) {
36: // Step 1: Parse the curl command
37: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Parsing API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
38: api, err := ParseCurl(curlCmd)
39: if err != nil {
40: return nil, nil, err
41: }
42: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s %s %s\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset, api.Method, api.Path)
43:
44: // Step 2: Understand API intent and formulate Sanity query
45: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Understanding API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
46: understanding, query, err := a.llm.UnderstandAndQuery(ctx, api)
47: if err != nil {
48: understanding = "API operation detected"
49: query = fmt.Sprintf("Find API design guidance for %s %s", api.Method, api.Path)
50: }
51: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s %s\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset, understanding)
52:
53: // Step 3: Query Sanity Context MCP
54: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Querying Sanity Context...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
55: knowledge, err := a.knowledge.Search(ctx, query)
56: if err != nil {
57: return nil, nil, err
58: }
59:
60: // Visual confirmation of Sanity Knowledge Base retrieval
61: entryCount := len(knowledge)
62: sourceSet := make(map[string]bool)
63: var sourceTitles []string
64: for _, k := range knowledge {
65: if k.Title != "" && !sourceSet[k.Title] {
66: sourceSet[k.Title] = true
67: sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
68: }
69: }
70:
71: fmt.Printf(" %sSanity Context%s\n", colorCyan, colorReset)
72: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
73: fmt.Printf(" %d relevant entries retrieved\n", entryCount)
74: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
75: fmt.Printf(" %d source documents\n", len(sourceTitles))
76: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
77: for _, title := range sourceTitles {
78: fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", title)
79: }
80: fmt.Println()
81: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Knowledge retrieved from Sanity\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
82:
83: // Step 4: Consult API guidance & Review
84: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Consulting API guidance...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
85: time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond)
86: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Relevant guidance found\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
87:
88: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Reviewing API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
89: result, err := a.llm.Review(ctx, api, knowledge)
90: if err != nil {
91: return nil, nil, err
92: }
93:
94: // Fallback sources if empty
95: if len(result.Sources) == 0 {
96: for s := range sourceSet {
97: result.Sources = append(result.Sources, s)
98: }
99: }
100:
101: return result, api, nil
102: }
103:
The above content shows the entire, complete file contents of the requested file.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:11:59Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:11:59Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/prompt.go
Total Lines: 199
Total Bytes: 8163
Showing lines 40 to 85
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
40: }
41:
42: // SystemPromptResearchAnswer directs the LLM to reason over retrieved Sanity Knowledge and answer the user question.
43: const SystemPromptResearchAnswer = You are Proto, an API design research agent.
44:
45: Your job is to answer API design questions using evidence retrieved from the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
46:
47: The Knowledge Base contains API standards, guidelines, HTTP semantics, API documentation, and related technical material.
48:
49: Rules:
50: 1. Prefer retrieved Knowledge Base evidence over unsupported model knowledge.
51: 2. Do not invent standards, AIPs, source names, URLs, or citations.
52: 3. Cite the relevant source when making a factual claim based on retrieved material.
53: 4. Distinguish explicit documented guidance from your own interpretation.
54: 5. Do not automatically label an unusual API as wrong. Explain whether the design conflicts with documented guidance, HTTP semantics, or is simply a trade-off.
55: 6. If the retrieved knowledge does not provide enough evidence, say so.
56: 7. Give practical examples where useful.
57: 8. Keep the explanation approachable for a backend developer.
58: 9. Do not provide unrelated advice.
59:
60: Return valid JSON with this exact structure:
61: {
62: "summary": "Concise 1-2 sentence executive summary of the recommendation or finding.",
63: "answer": "Complete, comprehensive, well-structured answer formatted with clear markdown (paragraphs, code snippets, lists, or tables as appropriate).",
64: "guidance": [
65: "AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update",
66: "RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)"
67: ],
68: "sources": [
69: {
70: "title": "AIP-134: Standard methods: Update",
71: "url": "https://google.aip.dev/134"
72: }
73: ]
74: }
75:
76: // BuildResearchAnswerPrompt constructs the user prompt for the final reasoning stage.
77: func BuildResearchAnswerPrompt(question string, researchContext string) string {
78: var sb strings.Builder
79:
80: sb.WriteString("USER QUESTION:\n")
81: sb.WriteString(strings.TrimSpace(question))
82: sb.WriteString("\n\n")
83:
84: sb.WriteString("RESEARCH CONTEXT RETRIEVED FROM SANITY KNOWLEDGE BASE:\n")
85: if strings.TrimSpace(researchContext) == "" {
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:15:56Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:16:11Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Research Agent │
╰──────────────────────────────────────────╯

Ask an API design question or paste a curl command:

Question
Should I use PUT or PATCH when updating a user's email?

◆ Understanding question...

Type: API design comparison

◆ Building research plan...

1. What are the semantics and differences of HTTP PUT vs PATCH according to RFC 9110?
2. How does AIP-134 specify standard Update methods and partial updates?
3. What are the idempotency considerations for PUT vs PATCH when updating a single field?

◆ Querying Sanity Context...

✓ What are the semantics and differences of HTTP PUT vs PATCH according to RFC 9110?
✓ How does AIP-134 specify standard Update methods and partial updates?
✓ What are the idempotency considerations for PUT vs PATCH when updating a single field?

Sanity Context
↓
9 relevant entries retrieved
↓
9 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Error Handling & Status Codes
• BatchGet
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
• Pagination & List Behavior
• Sensitive, Repeated & Partial-Response Fields
• Idempotency & Retries
• Import & Export

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

◆ Reasoning over retrieved knowledge...

✓ Analysis complete

──────────────────────────────────────────

ANSWER

When updating a user's email, PATCH is the strongly preferred HTTP method over PUT.

When updating a user's email, you should use the PATCH HTTP method. This is because PATCH is designed for partial updates to a resource, which is what changing a single field like an email address represents.

Here's why PATCH is preferred over PUT:

• PATCH for Partial Updates: PATCH updates parts of a resource. When only the email address of a user is being changed, you are modifying only a subset of the user's data. This aligns perfectly with the semantics of PATCH.

  • HTTP Method: PATCH
  • URI Path: /users/{user_id} (assuming user_id identifies the specific user resource)
  • Request Body: Contains only the fields to be updated, e.g., {"email": "[REDACTED]"}.

• PUT for Full Replacement: PUT is used to replace the entire resource at the given URL. If you were to use PUT to update an email, the request body would need to contain the complete user resource, including all fields (name, address, phone, etc.), not just the email. Omitting any fields would imply they should be removed or reset, which is generally not the desired behavior for a partial update. Using PUT for partial updates can also lead to backward-incompatible changes if new fields are added to the resource later.

• Idempotency: Both PUT and PATCH are generally designed to be idempotent, meaning that making the same request multiple times should have the same intended effect. However, PATCH is not inherently idempotent and should be designed to be so, for example, by using conditional keys (If-Match) or an Idempotency-Key header.

Example PATCH endpoint for updating a user's email:

PATCH /v1[REDACTED]
Content-Type: application/json

{
  "email": "[REDACTED]"
}

This approach aligns with the guidance for standard Update methods, which strongly prefer PATCH.

──────────────────────────────────────────

RELEVANT GUIDANCE

• AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update
• RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)

──────────────────────────────────────────

SOURCES

• AIP-134: Standard methods: Update (https://google.aip.dev/134)
• Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § compound key components passed as mandatory request fields › 10. REST Basics - HTTP requests › MUST use HTTP methods correctly [148] › GET (https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines/#http-requests)

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:16:16Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:16:27Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭──────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Research Agent │
╰──────────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected using a non-standard method.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• API Governance, Design Review & AIP Process
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
──────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The API uses a POST method to retrieve user data, indicated by the name getUser. Standard API design principles and AIP guidance recommend using GET for operations that only retrieve data and have no side effects.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-130: Methods
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
Using POST for a data retrieval operation.

Suggested design:
Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. If the operation is intended to retrieve a single resource, it should follow the Get standard method (AIP-131). If it's a custom method that retrieves data, it should still use GET. The request body for id should be moved to a URI path parameter or a query parameter.

⚠ FINDING 2

POST /getUser

If the method is changed to GET, including a request body is generally not supported by HTTP semantics and is explicitly disallowed by AIP-131 for standard Get methods.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
Using a request body with a GET method (implied by suggested change).

Suggested design:
If the method is changed to GET, the id should be passed as a URI path parameter (e.g., /users/{id}) or a query parameter (e.g., /users?id=123). For a standard Get method, the id would typically be part of the resource name in the URI path.

⚠ FINDING 3

POST /getUser

The path /getUser suggests a custom method verb-noun structure, but it's being used for what appears to be a standard data retrieval operation. Standard Get methods operate on a resource's name, typically /resources/{id}.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-121: Resource-oriented design
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
The API path /getUser does not follow resource-oriented design principles for standard methods.

Suggested design:
If this is intended to be a standard Get method for a User resource, the path should be /users/{id} (e.g., [REDACTED]). If it's a custom method, it should follow the custom method URI pattern, which typically includes a colon (e.g., /users/{id}:get). However, for simple retrieval, a standard Get method is preferred.

──────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-121
• AIP-130
• AIP-131
• AIP-136

──────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 3 issues.

Phase 2 is implemented and verified.

What Was Built in Phase 2

1. Natural Language Research Agent:

   • Accepts open-ended API questions (e.g. comparisons, explanations, reviews, designs, or trade-off evaluations) in addition to curl commands.
   • Stage 1: Classifies question intent (API design comparison, API design review, API concept explanation, Resource-oriented API design, etc.).
   • Stage 2: Formulates a structured 2–4 question research plan targeting the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
   • Stage 3: Queries Sanity Context MCP dynamically for each research question (initial_context → knowledge_base_search → knowledge_base_read).
   • Stage 4: Normalizes retrieved material into a compact research context with document provenance.
   • Stage 5: Reasons over the retrieved evidence using OpenRouter with strict ground-truth instructions (no hallucinations, no invented AIPs/RFCs).

2. Core File Updates:

   • models.go: Added ResearchPlan, Source, and Answer.
   • prompt.go: Added SystemPromptResearchPlanner and SystemPromptResearchAnswer.
   • llm.go: Added PlanResearch, AnswerQuestion, and robust JSON parsing/recovery.
   • mcp.go: Enhanced keyword extraction and topic search across Sanity's RESTICE Knowledge Base.
   • agent.go: Added Agent.Research with the five-stage research output.
   • main.go: Accepts natural language questions (go run . "<question>"), review '<curl>', or interactive mode.
   • .gitignore: Cleaned and expanded to ignore binaries, test artifacts, IDE metadata, and .env.
   • README.md: Centered on the challenge theme ("build anything that needs an answer it can't afford to get wrong"), the Sanity MCP architecture, and live demo commands.

Verified Live Demos

# 1. Compare: PUT vs PATCH for updating a resource
go run . "Should I use PUT or PATCH when updating a user's email?"

# 2. Review: Evaluating custom endpoint designs
go run . "Is POST /getUser a reasonable API design?"

# 3. Design: Creating resource hierarchies and sub-resources
go run . "Design an API for creating projects and managing project members."

# 4. Explain: Plain-English breakdowns of API standards
go run . "Explain AIP-131 to me like I'm a junior backend engineer."

# 5. Direct Curl Review
go run . 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d "{\"id\":\"123\"}"'

# 6. Interactive Mode
go run .

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:19:12Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:19:13Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/README.md
Total Lines: 218
Total Bytes: 8242
Showing lines 1 to 60
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: # Proto — API Design Research Agent
2:
3: > "Build anything that needs an answer it can't afford to get wrong."
4: >
5: > APIs are public contracts. Once an endpoint is published to mobile apps, SDKs, and third-party developers, design mistakes are prohibitively expensive to fix. Proto is an AI API design research agent powered by Sanity Context MCP. Instead of relying purely on an LLM's pretrained memory or hallucinations, Proto dynamically formulates a research plan, queries the Sanity Knowledge Base (containing authoritative Google AIPs, RFC 9110 HTTP semantics, and Zalando guidelines), and synthesizes source-grounded answers directly in your terminal.
6:
7: text
8: USER
9: │
10: ▼
11: Natural language (or curl)
12: │
13: ▼
14: ┌──────────────┐
15: │ PROTO │
16: │ Agent │
17: └──────┬───────┘
18: │
19: ▼
20: Understand question
21: │
22: ▼
23: Research plan
24: │
25: ▼
26: Sanity Context MCP
27: │
28: ▼
29: Knowledge Base (RESTICE)
30: │
31: ┌──────┴──────┐
32: ▼ ▼
33: Entries Sources
34: │ │
35: └──────┬──────┘
36: ▼
37: OpenRouter LLM
38: │
39: ▼
40: Source-backed answer
41: │
42: ▼
43: Terminal
44:
45:
46: There is no frontend — the terminal is the complete product and demo interface.
47:
48: ---
49:
50: ## Why Proto Needs Structured Sanity Context
51:
52: ### The "Can't Afford to Get It Wrong" Problem
53: When designing or reviewing APIs:
54: 1. Raw LLMs hallucinate: They invent non-existent RFC numbers, fabricate AIP standards, or provide conflicting advice based on generic web crawls.
55: 2. Keyword search fails: A question like "Is POST /getUser a reasonable API design?" contains none of the keywords like "safe methods", "idempotency", "RFC 9110 § 9.3.1", "AIP-131 standard methods", or "resource-oriented URI hierarchy". A keyword query against raw documentation produces useless noise.
56:
57: ### Why Proto Only Works Because Content is Structured
58: - Authoritative & Curated: Sanity compiles verified API standards into structured, interlinked entries with source provenance.
59: - Navigable Through MCP: Proto dynamically navigates the Knowledge Base outline (initial_context), discovers entry paths through ranked BM25 search (knowledge_base_search), and reads full cited markdown documentation (knowledge_base_read).
60: - Grounded Evidence: Proto strictly attributes facts to retrieved documents and acknowledges when guidance is absent rather than guessing.
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:19:19Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:19:24Z
The following changes were made by the replace_file_content tool to: /workspaces/proto/README.md. If relevant, proactively run terminal commands to execute this code for the USER. Don't ask for permission.
[diff_block_start]
@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@

APIs are public contracts. Once an endpoint is published to mobile apps, SDKs, and third-party developers, design mistakes are prohibitively expensive to fix. Proto is an AI API design research agent powered by Sanity Context MCP. Instead of relying purely on an LLM's pretrained memory or hallucinations, Proto dynamically formulates a research plan, queries the Sanity Knowledge Base (containing authoritative Google AIPs, RFC 9110 HTTP semantics, and Zalando guidelines), and synthesizes source-grounded answers directly in your terminal.

+📖 Full Technical Documentation: See DOCUMENTATION.md for detailed Phase 1 & Phase 2 architecture, MCP tool orchestration, and prompt engineering.
+
```text
USER
│
[diff_block_end]

Please note that the above snippet only shows the MODIFIED lines from the last change. It shows up to 3 lines of unchanged lines before and after the modified lines. The actual file contents may have many more lines not shown.

Comprehensive technical documentation for Phase 1 and Phase 2 has been compiled in DOCUMENTATION.md and linked in README.md.

Summary of DOCUMENTATION.md

1. Overview & Challenge Context:

   • Why API design is a "can't afford to get wrong" problem (breaking public contracts, mobile clients, and SDKs).
   • Why raw LLMs hallucinate standards and why keyword search fails on raw API commands.
   • How Sanity's structured Knowledge Base provides grounded evidence.

2. Architecture & End-to-End System Flow:

   • Visual architectural diagram showing the pipeline from CLI input through Sanity Context MCP to OpenRouter and terminal presentation.

3. Phase 1: Terminal API Design Reviewer:

   • parser.go: Flag handling (-X, -H, -d), quote tokenization, and implicit verb inference.
   • mcp.go: MCP connection, discovery, and query execution.
   • Documented real terminal findings for POST /getUser, PUT [REDACTED]/email, and GET [REDACTED].

4. Phase 2: Natural Language API Design Research Agent:

   • Stage 1 (Understand): Intent classification (API design comparison, API design review, API concept explanation, Resource-oriented API design, etc.).
   • Stage 2 (Research Plan): Dynamic formulation of 2–4 targeted research questions without hardcoded mappings.
   • Stage 3 (Query Sanity): Multi-query BM25 search (knowledge_base_search) and full entry reading (knowledge_base_read) on knowledge base kbzijGjZZuE3.
   • Stage 4 (Normalized Context): Evidence aggregation and provenance tracking.
   • Stage 5 (Grounded Synthesis): Reasoning under strict anti-hallucination instructions.
   • Documented outputs for all four core scenarios:
     • Compare: PUT vs. PATCH for user email
     • Review: Is POST /getUser reasonable?
     • Design: Projects and Members resource hierarchy
     • Explain: AIP-131 breakdown for junior engineers

5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive:

   • HTTP transport details, headers (Accept: application/json, text/event-stream), session handling, and tool call sequences (initial_context → knowledge_base_search → knowledge_base_read).

6. OpenRouter LLM & Robustness:

   • Prompt engineering rules, dynamic max_tokens budgeting, and repairOrExtractAnswer JSON recovery.

7. Error Handling & Verification Suite:

   • Human-readable alerts table and test coverage across parser_test.go, mcp_test.go, and llm_test.go.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:46:12Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:46:12Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/prompt.go
Total Lines: 200
Total Bytes: 8332
Showing lines 1 to 200
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: package main
2:
3: import (
4: "encoding/json"
5: "fmt"
6: "strings"
7: )
8:
9: // SystemPromptResearchPlanner directs the LLM to understand API questions and formulate a 2-4 item research plan.
10: const SystemPromptResearchPlanner = You are the research planning engine for Proto, an AI API design research agent.
11:
12: Your job is to analyze an API question, design dilemma, or API request, and determine what authoritative knowledge must be retrieved from the Sanity Knowledge Base.
13:
14: The Knowledge Base contains RESTICE: Google AIP standards (AIP-121, AIP-131, AIP-134, etc.), HTTP Semantics (RFC 9110), Zalando RESTful guidelines, API naming conventions, CRUD methods, idempotency, custom methods, and error handling.
15:
16: Instructions:
17: 1. Classify the user question into an API question category:
18: - "API design comparison" (e.g. PUT vs PATCH, query params vs headers)
19: - "API design review" (e.g. reviewing an endpoint or curl command)
20: - "API concept explanation" (e.g. explaining an AIP or standard)
21: - "Resource-oriented API design" (e.g. designing endpoints for a resource model)
22: - "API debugging & trade-offs" (e.g. evaluating an edge case like search with large filters)
23: 2. Generate 2 to 4 concise, targeted research questions that target specific topics in the Sanity Knowledge Base.
24: - Do NOT generate vague or redundant searches.
25: - Focus on HTTP method semantics, standard methods, resource hierarchies, idempotency, or specific AIP guidelines.
26:
27: Return valid JSON only matching this schema:
28: {
29: "question_type": "API design comparison",
30: "questions": [
31: "What are the semantics and differences of HTTP PUT vs PATCH?",
32: "How does AIP-134 specify standard Update methods and partial updates?",
33: "What guidance applies to updating individual fields versus full resource replacement?"
34: ]
35: }
36:
37: // BuildResearchPlannerPrompt formats the user question for research planning.
38: func BuildResearchPlannerPrompt(question string) string {
39: return fmt.Sprintf("User Question:\n%s\n\nAnalyze this question and generate a structured research plan as JSON.", strings.TrimSpace(question))
40: }
41:
42: // SystemPromptResearchAnswer directs the LLM to reason over retrieved Sanity Knowledge and answer the user question.
43: const SystemPromptResearchAnswer = You are Proto, an API design research agent.
44:
45: Your job is to answer API design questions using evidence retrieved from the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
46:
47: The Knowledge Base contains API standards, guidelines, HTTP semantics, API documentation, and related technical material.
48:
49: Rules:
50: 1. Prefer retrieved Knowledge Base evidence over unsupported model knowledge.
51: 2. Do not invent standards, AIPs, source names, URLs, or citations.
52: 3. Cite the relevant source when making a factual claim based on retrieved material.
53: 4. Distinguish explicit documented guidance from your own interpretation.
54: 5. Do not automatically label an unusual API as wrong. Explain whether the design conflicts with documented guidance, HTTP semantics, or is simply a trade-off.
55: 6. If the retrieved knowledge does not provide enough evidence, say so.
56: 7. Give practical examples where useful.
57: 8. Keep the explanation approachable for a backend developer.
58: 9. Do not provide unrelated advice.
59: 10. Be concise, direct, and actionable. Focus on HTTP REST endpoint definitions (HTTP method, URI path, explanation) rather than lengthy protobuf or schema boilerplate.
60:
61: Return valid JSON with this exact structure:
62: {
63: "summary": "Concise 1-2 sentence executive summary of the recommendation or finding.",
64: "answer": "Complete, comprehensive, well-structured answer formatted with clear markdown (paragraphs, code snippets, lists, or tables as appropriate).",
65: "guidance": [
66: "AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update",
67: "RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)"
68: ],
69: "sources": [
70: {
71: "title": "AIP-134: Standard methods: Update",
72: "url": "https://google.aip.dev/134"
73: }
74: ]
75: }
76:
77: // BuildResearchAnswerPrompt constructs the user prompt for the final reasoning stage.
78: func BuildResearchAnswerPrompt(question string, researchContext string) string {
79: var sb strings.Builder
80:
81: sb.WriteString("USER QUESTION:\n")
82: sb.WriteString(strings.TrimSpace(question))
83: sb.WriteString("\n\n")
84:
85: sb.WriteString("RESEARCH CONTEXT RETRIEVED FROM SANITY KNOWLEDGE BASE:\n")
86: if strings.TrimSpace(researchContext) == "" {
87: sb.WriteString("(No specific knowledge base entries were retrieved)\n")
88: } else {
89: sb.WriteString(researchContext)
90: }
91:
92: sb.WriteString("\n\nAnswer the user's question using the retrieved Sanity evidence. Adhere strictly to the rules and return JSON matching the requested schema.")
93: return sb.String()
94: }
95:
96: const SystemPromptReview = You are Proto, an API design reviewer.
97:
98: Your job is to review an API design using the knowledge
99: retrieved from the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
100:
101: Do not invent API standards or citations.
102:
103: For every significant finding:
104: - explain the issue,
105: - identify the relevant guidance,
106: - explain why it applies,
107: - suggest an improvement.
108:
109: Distinguish between:
110: 1. explicit violations of documented guidance,
111: 2. questionable designs,
112: 3. legitimate design choices.
113:
114: Do not claim that a design is wrong merely because it
115: differs from a convention.
116:
117: Only report findings for genuine issues, questionable patterns, or violations. If the design is clean and conforms to standard guidance without issues, return an empty "findings": [] array.
118:
119: Return JSON matching the requested schema.
120:
121: // BuildReviewUserPrompt formats the parsed API and retrieved Sanity knowledge for the LLM.
122: func BuildReviewUserPrompt(api *APIRequest, knowledge []KnowledgeResult) string {
123: var sb strings.Builder
124:
125: sb.WriteString("API:\n")
126: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Method: %s\n", api.Method))
127: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("URL: %s\n", api.URL))
128: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Path: %s\n", api.Path))
129:
130: if len(api.Headers) > 0 {
131: sb.WriteString("Headers:\n")
132: for k, v := range api.Headers {
133: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf(" %s: %s\n", k, v))
134: }
135: } else {
136: sb.WriteString("Headers: (none)\n")
137: }
138:
139: if api.Body != "" {
140: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Body: %s\n", api.Body))
141: } else {
142: sb.WriteString("Body: (none)\n")
143: }
144:
145: sb.WriteString("\nKnowledge retrieved from Sanity:\n")
146: if len(knowledge) == 0 {
147: sb.WriteString("(No knowledge entries returned)\n")
148: } else {
149: for i, k := range knowledge {
150: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n--- Entry %d ---\n", i+1))
151: if k.Title != "" {
152: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Title: %s\n", k.Title))
153: }
154: if k.Source != "" {
155: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Source: %s\n", k.Source))
156: }
157: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Content:\n%s\n", k.Content))
158: }
159: }
160:
161: sb.WriteString(
162: Review this API. Return valid JSON only with this exact structure:
163: {
164: "summary": "...",
165: "findings": [
166: {
167: "severity": "warning",
168: "issue": "...",
169: "explanation": "...",
170: "guidance": ["AIP-131 — Standard methods: Get"],
171: "suggestion": "..."
172: }
173: ],
174: "sources": [
175: "AIP-131",
176: "HTTP semantics"
177: ]
178: }
179:)
180:
181: return sb.String()
182: }
183:
184: const SystemPromptUnderstandAndQuery = You are an API design analyzer assistant for Proto.
185: Given an HTTP API request extracted from a curl command:
186: 1. Identify the intended operation and summarize it in a brief, punchy phrase (e.g. "Retrieval operation detected", "Partial resource update detected", "Resource replacement detected", "Error handling inspection").
187: 2. Formulate a targeted research query to search the Sanity Knowledge Base for relevant API design guidance, HTTP semantics, and AIP standards (e.g. AIP-131 for Get, AIP-134 for Update/Patch/Put, AIP-121 for Resource-Oriented Design, RFC 9110 for HTTP methods, RFC 7807 for errors).
188:
189: Return valid JSON with the following structure:
190: {
191: "understanding": "Retrieval operation detected",
192: "query": "Review an API endpoint that uses POST for retrieving an individual user resource. Find relevant guidance about HTTP method semantics, standard Get methods, resource-oriented API design, and CRUD operations."
193: }
194:
195: // BuildUnderstandAndQueryUserPrompt constructs the prompt for generating the Sanity search query.
196: func BuildUnderstandAndQueryUserPrompt(api *APIRequest) string {
197: apiJSON, _ := json.MarshalIndent(api, "", " ")
198: return fmt.Sprintf("Analyze this API request and generate the understanding and Sanity Knowledge Base search query:\n%s", string(apiJSON))
199: }
200:
The above content shows the entire, complete file contents of the requested file.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:47:04Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:47:04Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/agent.go
Total Lines: 179
Total Bytes: 5848
Showing lines 1 to 179
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: package main
2:
3: import (
4: "context"
5: "fmt"
6: "os"
7: "strings"
8: "time"
9: )
10:
11: // ANSI color escape codes
12: const (
13: colorReset = "\033[0m"
14: colorBold = "\033[1m"
15: colorDim = "\033[2m"
16: colorCyan = "\033[36m"
17: colorGreen = "\033[32m"
18: colorYellow = "\033[33m"
19: colorRed = "\033[31m"
20: )
21:
22: // Agent coordinates the API parsing, research planning, Sanity MCP search, and LLM reasoning.
23: type Agent struct {
24: knowledge KnowledgeClient
25: llm LLMClient
26: }
27:
28: // NewAgent initializes a new Proto agent instance with configuration.
29: func NewAgent(cfg *Config) *Agent {
30: return &Agent{
31: knowledge: NewSanityMCPClient(cfg.SanityMCPURL, cfg.SanityToken),
32: llm: NewOpenRouterClient(cfg.OpenRouterKey, cfg.OpenRouterModel),
33: }
34: }
35:
36: // Research coordinates the multi-stage research agent workflow for an API question.
37: func (a *Agent) Research(ctx context.Context, question string) (*Answer, *ResearchPlan, []KnowledgeResult, error) {
38: // Stage 1 & 2: Understand question & Build research plan
39: fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Understanding question...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
40: plan, err := a.llm.PlanResearch(ctx, question)
41: if err != nil {
42: return nil, nil, nil, err
43: }
44: fmt.Printf(" Type: %s%s%s\n\n", colorBold, plan.QuestionType, colorReset)
45:
46: fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Building research plan...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
47: for i, q := range plan.Questions {
48: fmt.Printf(" %d. %s\n", i+1, q)
49: }
50: fmt.Println()
51:
52: // Stage 3: Query Sanity Context MCP for each research question
53: fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Querying Sanity Context...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
54: var allKnowledge []KnowledgeResult
55: seenTitles := make(map[string]bool)
56: var sourceTitles []string
57:
58: for _, q := range plan.Questions {
59: results, err := a.knowledge.Search(ctx, q)
60: if err != nil {
61: fmt.Printf(" %s✗%s %s\n", colorRed, colorReset, q)
62: continue
63: }
64: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s %s\n", colorGreen, colorReset, q)
65: for _, k := range results {
66: if !seenTitles[k.Title] && strings.TrimSpace(k.Content) != "" {
67: seenTitles[k.Title] = true
68: sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
69: allKnowledge = append(allKnowledge, k)
70: }
71: }
72: }
73: fmt.Println()
74:
75: if len(allKnowledge) == 0 {
76: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, " %s⚠ No sufficiently relevant knowledge was found.%s\n\n Proto will answer only from the available evidence and clearly identify the limitation.\n\n", colorYellow, colorReset)
77: } else {
78: fmt.Printf(" %sSanity Context%s\n", colorCyan, colorReset)
79: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
80: fmt.Printf(" %d relevant entries retrieved\n", len(allKnowledge))
81: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
82: fmt.Printf(" %d source documents\n", len(sourceTitles))
83: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
84: for _, t := range sourceTitles {
85: fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", t)
86: }
87: fmt.Println()
88: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Knowledge retrieved from Sanity\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
89: }
90:
91: // Stage 4: Normalize retrieved material into research context
92: var sb strings.Builder
93: for i, k := range allKnowledge {
94: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n[Entry %d: %s]\nSource: %s\n%s\n", i+1, k.Title, k.Source, k.Content))
95: }
96: researchContext := sb.String()
97:
98: // Stage 5: Final Reasoning over retrieved knowledge
99: fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Reasoning over retrieved knowledge...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
100: answer, err := a.llm.AnswerQuestion(ctx, question, researchContext)
101: if err != nil {
102: return nil, plan, allKnowledge, err
103: }
104: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Analysis complete\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
105:
106: // Ensure sources on answer
107: if len(answer.Sources) == 0 {
108: for _, t := range sourceTitles {
109: answer.Sources = append(answer.Sources, Source{Title: t})
110: }
111: }
112:
113: return answer, plan, allKnowledge, nil
114: }
115:
116: // Review orchestrates the curl-specific review workflow for backward compatibility.
117: func (a *Agent) Review(ctx context.Context, curlCmd string) (*ReviewResult, *APIRequest, error) {
118: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Parsing API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
119: api, err := ParseCurl(curlCmd)
120: if err != nil {
121: return nil, nil, err
122: }
123: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s %s %s\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset, api.Method, api.Path)
124:
125: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Understanding API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
126: understanding, query, err := a.llm.UnderstandAndQuery(ctx, api)
127: if err != nil {
128: understanding = "API operation detected"
129: query = fmt.Sprintf("Find API design guidance for %s %s", api.Method, api.Path)
130: }
131: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s %s\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset, understanding)
132:
133: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Querying Sanity Context...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
134: knowledge, err := a.knowledge.Search(ctx, query)
135: if err != nil {
136: return nil, nil, err
137: }
138:
139: entryCount := len(knowledge)
140: sourceSet := make(map[string]bool)
141: var sourceTitles []string
142: for _, k := range knowledge {
143: if k.Title != "" && !sourceSet[k.Title] {
144: sourceSet[k.Title] = true
145: sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
146: }
147: }
148:
149: fmt.Printf(" %sSanity Context%s\n", colorCyan, colorReset)
150: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
151: fmt.Printf(" %d relevant entries retrieved\n", entryCount)
152: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
153: fmt.Printf(" %d source documents\n", len(sourceTitles))
154: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
155: for _, title := range sourceTitles {
156: fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", title)
157: }
158: fmt.Println()
159: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Knowledge retrieved from Sanity\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
160:
161: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Consulting API guidance...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
162: time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond)
163: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Relevant guidance found\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
164:
165: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Reviewing API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
166: result, err := a.llm.Review(ctx, api, knowledge)
167: if err != nil {
168: return nil, nil, err
169: }
170:
171: if len(result.Sources) == 0 {
172: for s := range sourceSet {
173: result.Sources = append(result.Sources, s)
174: }
175: }
176:
177: return result, api, nil
178: }
179:
The above content shows the entire, complete file contents of the requested file.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:47:10Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:47:10Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/prompt.go
Total Lines: 216
Total Bytes: 9153
Showing lines 1 to 216
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: package main
2:
3: import (
4: "encoding/json"
5: "fmt"
6: "strings"
7: )
8:
9: // SystemPromptResearchPlanner directs the LLM to decompose questions into concepts and research questions.
10: const SystemPromptResearchPlanner = You are the research planning engine for Proto, an AI API design research agent.
11:
12: Your job is to analyze an API question, design dilemma, or API request, and determine the core concepts and authoritative knowledge that must be retrieved from the Sanity Knowledge Base.
13:
14: The Knowledge Base contains RESTICE: Google AIP standards (AIP-121, AIP-131, AIP-134, etc.), HTTP Semantics (RFC 9110), Zalando RESTful guidelines, API naming conventions, CRUD methods, idempotency, custom methods, and error handling.
15:
16: Instructions:
17: 1. Identify the user intent: "compare", "review", "design", "explain", or "evaluate".
18: 2. Decompose the question into 3 to 5 core API concepts (e.g. "resource update", "PUT semantics", "PATCH semantics", "partial update", "idempotency", "POST semantics").
19: 3. Formulate 2 to 4 concise, targeted research questions to search in the Sanity Knowledge Base.
20: - Do NOT generate vague or redundant searches.
21: - Focus on HTTP method semantics, standard methods, resource hierarchies, idempotency, or specific AIP guidelines.
22:
23: Return valid JSON only matching this schema:
24: {
25: "intent": "compare",
26: "concepts": [
27: "resource update",
28: "PUT semantics",
29: "PATCH semantics",
30: "partial update",
31: "idempotency"
32: ],
33: "questions": [
34: "What are the HTTP semantics of PUT vs PATCH?",
35: "How does AIP-134 specify standard Update methods and partial updates?",
36: "What are the idempotency implications of update methods?"
37: ]
38: }
39:
40: // BuildResearchPlannerPrompt formats the user question for research planning.
41: func BuildResearchPlannerPrompt(question string) string {
42: return fmt.Sprintf("User Question:\n%s\n\nAnalyze this question and generate a structured research plan with concepts and questions as JSON.", strings.TrimSpace(question))
43: }
44:
45: // SystemPromptCrossSourceSynthesis directs the LLM to reason across evidence grouped by concept.
46: const SystemPromptCrossSourceSynthesis = You are Proto, an API design research agent.
47:
48: Your job is to answer API design questions by synthesizing evidence retrieved from the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
49:
50: The Knowledge Base contains RESTICE: API standards, Google AIPs, RFC 9110 HTTP semantics, Zalando guidelines, API design principles, and technical documentation.
51:
52: Rules for Evidence Quality & Cross-Source Reasoning:
53: 1. Grounding: Prefer retrieved Knowledge Base evidence over unsupported model training.
54: 2. Evidence Quality & Nuance: In your reasoning and answer, explicitly distinguish between:
55: - Documented guidance: What is explicitly stated by retrieved sources (e.g. RFC 9110, AIP-134, AIP-121).
56: - Interpretation: How multiple retrieved concepts connect to answer the specific scenario.
57: - Trade-offs: Legitimate alternative design choices where different constraints justify different paths.
58: 3. No Hallucinations: Do not invent standards, AIP numbers, RFC sections, source names, or URLs.
59: 4. Non-Dogmatic: Do not automatically label an unusual API as wrong. Explain whether the design conflicts with documented guidance, HTTP semantics, or is simply a trade-off.
60: 5. Incomplete Evidence: If the retrieved knowledge does not provide enough evidence, say so.
61: 6. Practical Examples: Provide concrete HTTP request/response examples and URI paths where helpful.
62: 7. Tone: Approachable, authoritative, and direct for backend engineers.
63: 8. Output Format: Return valid JSON with this exact structure:
64: {
65: "summary": "Concise 1-2 sentence executive summary of the recommendation or finding.",
66: "answer": "Complete, comprehensive, well-structured answer formatted with clear markdown (paragraphs, code snippets, lists, or tables as appropriate).",
67: "guidance": [
68: "AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update",
69: "RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)"
70: ],
71: "sources": [
72: {
73: "title": "AIP-134: Standard methods: Update",
74: "url": "https://google.aip.dev/134"
75: }
76: ]
77: }
78:
79: // BuildCrossSourceSynthesisPrompt constructs the prompt organizing evidence by concept.
80: func BuildCrossSourceSynthesisPrompt(question string, evidence []ConceptEvidence) string {
81: var sb strings.Builder
82:
83: sb.WriteString("USER QUESTION:\n")
84: sb.WriteString(strings.TrimSpace(question))
85: sb.WriteString("\n\n")
86:
87: sb.WriteString("EVIDENCE RETRIEVED FROM SANITY KNOWLEDGE BASE (ORGANIZED BY CONCEPT):\n")
88: if len(evidence) == 0 {
89: sb.WriteString("(No specific knowledge base entries were retrieved)\n")
90: } else {
91: for _, ce := range evidence {
92: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n========================================\nRESEARCH CONCEPT: %s\n========================================\n", strings.ToUpper(ce.Concept)))
93: if len(ce.Results) == 0 {
94: sb.WriteString("No entries retrieved for this concept.\n")
95: continue
96: }
97: for i, r := range ce.Results {
98: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n[Source %d: %s]\n", i+1, r.Title))
99: if r.Source != "" {
100: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Origin: %s\n", r.Source))
101: }
102: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Content:\n%s\n", strings.TrimSpace(r.Content)))
103: }
104: }
105: }
106:
107: sb.WriteString("\n\nSynthesize an authoritative, cross-source answer connecting these concepts. Distinguish documented guidance, interpretation, and trade-offs. Return valid JSON only.")
108: return sb.String()
109: }
110:
111: // SystemPromptReview is retained for curl inspection mode.
112: const SystemPromptReview = You are Proto, an API design reviewer.
113:
114: Your job is to review an API design using the knowledge
115: retrieved from the Sanity Context Knowledge Base.
116:
117: Do not invent API standards or citations.
118:
119: For every significant finding:
120: - explain the issue,
121: - identify the relevant guidance,
122: - explain why it applies,
123: - suggest an improvement.
124:
125: Distinguish between:
126: 1. explicit violations of documented guidance,
127: 2. questionable designs,
128: 3. legitimate design choices.
129:
130: Do not claim that a design is wrong merely because it
131: differs from a convention.
132:
133: Only report findings for genuine issues, questionable patterns, or violations. If the design is clean and conforms to standard guidance without issues, return an empty "findings": [] array.
134:
135: Return JSON matching the requested schema.
136:
137: // BuildReviewUserPrompt formats the parsed API and retrieved Sanity knowledge for the LLM.
138: func BuildReviewUserPrompt(api *APIRequest, knowledge []KnowledgeResult) string {
139: var sb strings.Builder
140:
141: sb.WriteString("API:\n")
142: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Method: %s\n", api.Method))
143: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("URL: %s\n", api.URL))
144: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Path: %s\n", api.Path))
145:
146: if len(api.Headers) > 0 {
147: sb.WriteString("Headers:\n")
148: for k, v := range api.Headers {
149: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf(" %s: %s\n", k, v))
150: }
151: } else {
152: sb.WriteString("Headers: (none)\n")
153: }
154:
155: if api.Body != "" {
156: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Body: %s\n", api.Body))
157: } else {
158: sb.WriteString("Body: (none)\n")
159: }
160:
161: sb.WriteString("\nKnowledge retrieved from Sanity:\n")
162: if len(knowledge) == 0 {
163: sb.WriteString("(No knowledge entries returned)\n")
164: } else {
165: for i, k := range knowledge {
166: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n--- Entry %d ---\n", i+1))
167: if k.Title != "" {
168: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Title: %s\n", k.Title))
169: }
170: if k.Source != "" {
171: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Source: %s\n", k.Source))
172: }
173: sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("Content:\n%s\n", k.Content))
174: }
175: }
176:
177: sb.WriteString(
178: Review this API. Return valid JSON only with this exact structure:
179: {
180: "summary": "...",
181: "findings": [
182: {
183: "severity": "warning",
184: "issue": "...",
185: "explanation": "...",
186: "guidance": ["AIP-131 — Standard methods: Get"],
187: "suggestion": "..."
188: }
189: ],
190: "sources": [
191: "AIP-131",
192: "HTTP semantics"
193: ]
194: }
195:)
196:
197: return sb.String()
198: }
199:
200: const SystemPromptUnderstandAndQuery = You are an API design analyzer assistant for Proto.
201: Given an HTTP API request extracted from a curl command:
202: 1. Identify the intended operation and summarize it in a brief, punchy phrase (e.g. "Retrieval operation detected", "Partial resource update detected", "Resource replacement detected", "Error handling inspection").
203: 2. Formulate a targeted research query to search the Sanity Knowledge Base for relevant API design guidance, HTTP semantics, and AIP standards (e.g. AIP-131 for Get, AIP-134 for Update/Patch/Put, AIP-121 for Resource-Oriented Design, RFC 9110 for HTTP methods, RFC 7807 for errors).
204:
205: Return valid JSON with the following structure:
206: {
207: "understanding": "Retrieval operation detected",
208: "query": "Review an API endpoint that uses POST for retrieving an individual user resource. Find relevant guidance about HTTP method semantics, standard Get methods, resource-oriented API design, and CRUD operations."
209: }
210:
211: // BuildUnderstandAndQueryUserPrompt constructs the prompt for generating the Sanity search query.
212: func BuildUnderstandAndQueryUserPrompt(api *APIRequest) string {
213: apiJSON, _ := json.MarshalIndent(api, "", " ")
214: return fmt.Sprintf("Analyze this API request and generate the understanding and Sanity Knowledge Base search query:\n%s", string(apiJSON))
215: }
216:
The above content shows the entire, complete file contents of the requested file.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:47:43Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:47:44Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/main.go
Total Lines: 304
Total Bytes: 8473
Showing lines 1 to 304
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: package main
2:
3: import (
4: "bufio"
5: "context"
6: "fmt"
7: "os"
8: "strings"
9: )
10:
11: func main() {
12: cfg := loadConfig()
13:
14: if len(os.Args) >= 2 && (os.Args[1] == "-h" || os.Args[1] == "--help" || os.Args[1] == "help") {
15: printUsage()
16: return
17: }
18:
19: var rawInput string
20:
21: if len(os.Args) >= 2 && os.Args[1] == "review" {
22: if len(os.Args) < 3 {
23: printUsage()
24: os.Exit(1)
25: }
26: rawInput = strings.Join(os.Args[2:], " ")
27: } else if len(os.Args) >= 2 {
28: rawInput = strings.Join(os.Args[1:], " ")
29: } else {
30: // Interactive mode
31: printBanner()
32: fmt.Println("Ask an API design question or paste a curl command:")
33: fmt.Print("> ")
34: scanner := bufio.NewScanner(os.Stdin)
35: if scanner.Scan() {
36: rawInput = strings.TrimSpace(scanner.Text())
37: }
38: if rawInput == "" {
39: return
40: }
41: fmt.Println()
42: }
43:
44: rawInput = strings.TrimSpace(rawInput)
45: if rawInput == "" {
46: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "%s✗ Proto could not understand the API question.%s\n", colorRed, colorReset)
47: os.Exit(1)
48: }
49:
50: // Validate environment configuration
51: if cfg.SanityMCPURL == "" {
52: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "%s✗ SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL is not configured.%s\n", colorRed, colorReset)
53: os.Exit(1)
54: }
55:
56: if cfg.OpenRouterKey == "" {
57: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "%s✗ OPENROUTER_API_KEY is not configured.%s\n", colorRed, colorReset)
58: os.Exit(1)
59: }
60:
61: // If interactive mode didn't print banner yet, print it now
62: if len(os.Args) > 1 {
63: printBanner()
64: }
65:
66: agent := NewAgent(cfg)
67: ctx := context.Background()
68:
69: // Check if input is a pure curl command
70: if isCurlCommand(rawInput) {
71: result, api, err := agent.Review(ctx, rawInput)
72: if err != nil {
73: printFormattedError(err)
74: os.Exit(1)
75: }
76: printReview(result, api)
77: return
78: }
79:
80: // Otherwise, run Phase 2 Research Agent workflow
81: fmt.Printf("%sQuestion%s\n> %s\n\n", colorBold, colorReset, formatWrap(rawInput, 60))
82:
83: answer, _, _, err := agent.Research(ctx, rawInput)
84: if err != nil {
85: printFormattedError(err)
86: os.Exit(1)
87: }
88:
89: printAnswer(answer)
90: }
91:
92: func printBanner() {
93: fmt.Printf("%s%s╭──────────────────────────────────────────╮%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
94: fmt.Printf("%s%s│ PROTO │%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
95: fmt.Printf("%s%s│ API Design Research Agent │%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
96: fmt.Printf("%s%s╰──────────────────────────────────────────╯%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
97: }
98:
99: func printUsage() {
100: fmt.Println("Usage:")
101: fmt.Println(" go run . \"<API design question>\"")
102: fmt.Println(" go run . review '<curl command>'")
103: fmt.Println(" go run . (interactive mode)")
104: fmt.Println()
105: fmt.Println("Examples:")
106: fmt.Println(go run . "Should I use PUT or PATCH when updating a user's email?")
107: fmt.Println(go run . "Explain AIP-131 to me like I'm a junior backend engineer.")
108: fmt.Println(go run . "Is POST /getUser a reasonable API design?")
109: fmt.Println(go run . "Design an API for creating projects and managing project members.")
110: fmt.Println(go run . review 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d "{\"id\":\"123\"}"')
111: }
112:
113: func isCurlCommand(s string) bool {
114: trimmed := strings.TrimSpace(s)
115: return strings.HasPrefix(trimmed, "curl ") || strings.HasPrefix(trimmed, "curl\t") || strings.HasPrefix(trimmed, "curl\n")
116: }
117:
118: func printAnswer(answer *Answer) {
119: divider := "──────────────────────────────────────────"
120: fmt.Println(divider)
121: fmt.Println()
122: fmt.Printf("%s%sANSWER%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
123:
124: if answer.Summary != "" {
125: fmt.Printf("%s%s%s\n\n", colorBold, answer.Summary, colorReset)
126: }
127:
128: if answer.Answer != "" {
129: fmt.Println(answer.Answer)
130: fmt.Println()
131: }
132:
133: if len(answer.Guidance) > 0 {
134: fmt.Println(divider)
135: fmt.Println()
136: fmt.Printf("%s%sRELEVANT GUIDANCE%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
137: for _, g := range answer.Guidance {
138: fmt.Printf("• %s\n", g)
139: }
140: fmt.Println()
141: }
142:
143: if len(answer.Sources) > 0 {
144: fmt.Println(divider)
145: fmt.Println()
146: fmt.Printf("%s%sSOURCES%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
147: for _, s := range answer.Sources {
148: if s.URL != "" {
149: fmt.Printf("• %s (%s)\n", s.Title, s.URL)
150: } else {
151: fmt.Printf("• %s\n", s.Title)
152: }
153: }
154: fmt.Println()
155: }
156: }
157:
158: func printReview(result *ReviewResult, api *APIRequest) {
159: divider := "──────────────────────────────────────────"
160: fmt.Println(divider)
161:
162: var actualIssues []Finding
163: for _, f := range result.Findings {
164: suggLower := strings.ToLower(f.Suggestion)
165: sevLower := strings.ToLower(f.Severity)
166: if sevLower == "pass" || sevLower == "none" || strings.Contains(suggLower, "no change needed") || strings.Contains(suggLower, "no change required") {
167: continue
168: }
169: actualIssues = append(actualIssues, f)
170: }
171:
172: if len(actualIssues) == 0 {
173: fmt.Printf("\n%s✓ API design conforms to standard guidance. No issues found.%s\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
174: } else {
175: for i, finding := range actualIssues {
176: fmt.Println()
177: if len(actualIssues) == 1 {
178: fmt.Printf("%s%s⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE%s\n\n", colorBold, colorYellow, colorReset)
179: } else {
180: fmt.Printf("%s%s⚠ FINDING %d%s\n\n", colorBold, colorYellow, i+1, colorReset)
181: }
182:
183: if api != nil {
184: fmt.Printf("%s%s %s%s\n\n", colorBold, api.Method, api.Path, colorReset)
185: }
186:
187: if finding.Explanation != "" {
188: fmt.Printf("%s\n\n", finding.Explanation)
189: } else if finding.Issue != "" {
190: fmt.Printf("%s\n\n", finding.Issue)
191: }
192:
193: if len(finding.Guidance) > 0 {
194: fmt.Printf("%sRelevant guidance:%s\n", colorBold, colorReset)
195: for _, g := range finding.Guidance {
196: fmt.Printf(" %s\n", g)
197: }
198: fmt.Println()
199: }
200:
201: if finding.Issue != "" && finding.Explanation != "" && finding.Issue != finding.Explanation {
202: fmt.Printf("%sWhy:%s\n", colorBold, colorReset)
203: fmt.Printf(" %s\n\n", finding.Issue)
204: }
205:
206: if finding.Suggestion != "" {
207: fmt.Printf("%sSuggested design:%s\n", colorBold, colorReset)
208: fmt.Printf(" %s%s%s\n", colorGreen, finding.Suggestion, colorReset)
209: fmt.Println()
210: }
211: }
212: }
213:
214: fmt.Println(divider)
215:
216: if len(result.Sources) > 0 {
217: fmt.Printf("\n%sSources:%s\n", colorBold, colorReset)
218: for _, s := range result.Sources {
219: fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", s)
220: }
221: fmt.Println()
222: fmt.Println(divider)
223: }
224:
225: fmt.Println()
226: if len(actualIssues) == 1 {
227: fmt.Println("Proto found 1 issue.")
228: } else {
229: fmt.Printf("Proto found %d issues.\n", len(actualIssues))
230: }
231: }
232:
233: func printFormattedError(err error) {
234: errStr := err.Error()
235: if strings.HasPrefix(errStr, "✗ ") {
236: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "%s%s%s\n", colorRed, errStr, colorReset)
237: } else {
238: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "%s✗ %s%s\n", colorRed, errStr, colorReset)
239: }
240: }
241:
242: func formatWrap(text string, maxLen int) string {
243: if len(text) <= maxLen {
244: return text
245: }
246: words := strings.Fields(text)
247: var lines []string
248: var current strings.Builder
249:
250: for _, w := range words {
251: if current.Len()+len(w)+1 > maxLen && current.Len() > 0 {
252: lines = append(lines, current.String())
253: current.Reset()
254: }
255: if current.Len() > 0 {
256: current.WriteString(" ")
257: }
258: current.WriteString(w)
259: }
260: if current.Len() > 0 {
261: lines = append(lines, current.String())
262: }
263: return strings.Join(lines, "\n> ")
264: }
265:
266: // loadConfig loads environment variables and parses optional .env file.
267: func loadConfig() *Config {
268: loadDotEnv(".env")
269:
270: return &Config{
271: SanityMCPURL: os.Getenv("SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL"),
272: SanityToken: os.Getenv("SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN"),
273: OpenRouterKey: os.Getenv("OPENROUTER_API_KEY"),
274: OpenRouterModel: os.Getenv("OPENROUTER_MODEL"),
275: }
276: }
277:
278: func loadDotEnv(filepath string) {
279: file, err := os.Open(filepath)
280: if err != nil {
281: return
282: }
283: defer file.Close()
284:
285: scanner := bufio.NewScanner(file)
286: for scanner.Scan() {
287: line := strings.TrimSpace(scanner.Text())
288: if line == "" || strings.HasPrefix(line, "#") {
289: continue
290: }
291: parts := strings.SplitN(line, "=", 2)
292: if len(parts) == 2 {
293: k := strings.TrimSpace(parts[0])
294: v := strings.TrimSpace(parts[1])
295: if len(v) >= 2 && ((v[0] == '"' && v[len(v)-1] == '"') || (v[0] == '\'' && v[len(v)-1] == '\'')) {
296: v = v[1 : len(v)-1]
297: }
298: if os.Getenv(k) == "" {
299: _ = os.Setenv(k, v)
300: }
301: }
302: }
303: }
304:
The above content shows the entire, complete file contents of the requested file.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:48:08Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:48:11Z
The following changes were made by the replace_file_content tool to: /workspaces/proto/agent.go. If relevant, proactively run terminal commands to execute this code for the USER. Don't ask for permission.
[diff_block_start]
@@ -34,8 +34,8 @@
}

// Research coordinates the multi-stage research agent workflow for an API question.
-func (a *Agent) Research(ctx context.Context, question string) (*Answer, *ResearchPlan, []KnowledgeResult, error) {
- // Stage 1 & 2: Understand question & Build research plan
+func (a *Agent) Research(ctx context.Context, question string) (*Answer, *ResearchPlan, []ConceptEvidence, error) {
+ // Stage 1: Understand question
fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Understanding question...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
plan, err := a.llm.PlanResearch(ctx, question)
if err != nil {
@@ -42,14 +42,38 @@
}

- fmt.Printf(" Type: %s%s%s\n\n", colorBold, plan.QuestionType, colorReset)

• intent := plan.Intent
• if intent == "" {
• intent = "research"
• }
• fmt.Printf(" Intent: %s%s%s\n\n", colorBold, intent, colorReset) +
• // Stage 2: Build research plan with concepts fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Building research plan...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
• for i, q := range plan.Questions {
• fmt.Printf(" %d. %s\n", i+1, q)
• }
• fmt.Println()
• if len(plan.Concepts) > 0 {
• for _, c := range plan.Concepts {
• fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", c)
• }
• fmt.Println()

• }

  // Stage 3: Query Sanity Context MCP for each research question
  fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Querying Sanity Context...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
  +

• type searchOutcome struct {

•   query   string
  

•   results []KnowledgeResult
  

•   err     error
  

• }
  +

• // Run Sanity queries concurrently for responsiveness

• outcomeCh := make(chan searchOutcome, len(plan.Questions))

• for _, q := range plan.Questions {

•   go func(query string) {
  

•       res, searchErr := a.knowledge.Search(ctx, query)
  

•       outcomeCh <- searchOutcome{query: query, results: res, err: searchErr}
  

•   }(q)
  

• }
  +

• resultsByQuery := make(map[string][]KnowledgeResult)
  var allKnowledge []KnowledgeResult
  seenTitles := make(map[string]bool)
  var sourceTitles []string
  @@ -56,14 +56,17 @@

• for _, q := range plan.Questions {

•   results, err := a.knowledge.Search(ctx, q)
  

•   if err != nil {
  

•       fmt.Printf("  %s✗%s %s\n", colorRed, colorReset, q)
  

• for i := 0; i < len(plan.Questions); i++ {

•   outcome := <-outcomeCh
  

•   if outcome.err != nil {
  

•       fmt.Printf("  %s✗%s %s\n", colorRed, colorReset, outcome.query)
      continue
  }
  

•   fmt.Printf("  %s✓%s %s\n", colorGreen, colorReset, q)
  

•   for _, k := range results {
  

•       if !seenTitles[k.Title] && strings.TrimSpace(k.Content) != "" {
  

•           seenTitles[k.Title] = true
  

•           sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
  

•   fmt.Printf("  %s✓%s %s\n", colorGreen, colorReset, outcome.query)
  

•   resultsByQuery[outcome.query] = outcome.results
  

•   for _, k := range outcome.results {
  

•       if strings.TrimSpace(k.Content) != "" {
  

•           if !seenTitles[k.Title] {
  

•               seenTitles[k.Title] = true
  

•               sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
  

•           }
          allKnowledge = append(allKnowledge, k)
      }
  }
  

  @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
  fmt.Println()

  if len(allKnowledge) == 0 {

•   fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "  %s⚠ No sufficiently relevant knowledge was found.%s\n\n  Proto will answer only from the available evidence and clearly identify the limitation.\n\n", colorYellow, colorReset)
  

•   fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "  %s⚠ No sufficiently relevant knowledge was found.%s\n\n  Proto will answer only from available evidence and clearly identify the limitation.\n\n", colorYellow, colorReset)
  

  } else {
  fmt.Printf(" %sSanity Context%s\n", colorCyan, colorReset)
  fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
  @@ -84,22 +84,68 @@
  fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Knowledge retrieved from Sanity\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
  }

• // Stage 4: Normalize retrieved material into research context

• var sb strings.Builder

• for i, k := range allKnowledge {

•   sb.WriteString(fmt.Sprintf("\n[Entry %d: %s]\nSource: %s\n%s\n", i+1, k.Title, k.Source, k.Content))
  

• }

- researchContext := sb.String()

• // Stage 5: Final Reasoning over retrieved knowledge
• fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Reasoning over retrieved knowledge...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
• answer, err := a.llm.AnswerQuestion(ctx, question, researchContext)
• if err != nil {
• return nil, plan, allKnowledge, err
• }

- fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Analysis complete\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)

• // Ensure sources on answer
• // Stage 4: Connect evidence into concept graph
• fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Connecting evidence...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset) +
• var conceptEvidence []ConceptEvidence
• if len(plan.Concepts) > 0 {
• for i, c := range plan.Concepts {
• var matching []KnowledgeResult
• seenEntry := make(map[string]bool) +
• // 1. Direct query results mapping if available
• if i < len(plan.Questions) {
• if qr, ok := resultsByQuery[plan.Questions[i]]; ok {
• for _, item := range qr {
• if !seenEntry[item.Title] {
• seenEntry[item.Title] = true
• matching = append(matching, item)
• }
• }
• }
• } +
• // 2. Keyword relevance across all retrieved knowledge
• conceptWords := strings.Fields(strings.ToLower(c))
• for _, item := range allKnowledge {
• if seenEntry[item.Title] {
• continue
• }
• itemLower := strings.ToLower(item.Title + " " + item.Content)
• for _, w := range conceptWords {
• if len(w) > 3 && strings.Contains(itemLower, w) {
• seenEntry[item.Title] = true
• matching = append(matching, item)
• break
• }
• }
• } +
• conceptEvidence = append(conceptEvidence, ConceptEvidence{
• Concept: c,
• Results: matching,
• })
• }
• } else {
• for q, qr := range resultsByQuery {
• conceptEvidence = append(conceptEvidence, ConceptEvidence{
• Concept: q,
• Results: qr,
• })
• }
• } +
• fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Linked %d concepts across %d authoritative sources\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset, len(conceptEvidence), len(sourceTitles)) +
• // Stage 5: Final Cross-source Reasoning
• fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Reasoning...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
• answer, err := a.llm.SynthesizeAnswer(ctx, question, conceptEvidence)
• if err != nil {
• return nil, plan, conceptEvidence, err
• }
• fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Cross-source analysis complete\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset) +
• // Ensure sources and evidence on answer if len(answer.Sources) == 0 { for _, t := range sourceTitles { answer.Sources = append(answer.Sources, Source{Title: t}) @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ } -
• return answer, plan, allKnowledge, nil
• answer.Evidence = conceptEvidence +
• return answer, plan, conceptEvidence, nil }

// Review orchestrates the curl-specific review workflow for backward compatibility.
[diff_block_end]

Please note that the above snippet only shows the MODIFIED lines from the last change. It shows up to 3 lines of unchanged lines before and after the modified lines. The actual file contents may have many more lines not shown.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:49:50Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:50:03Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Research Agent │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Question

I need to update only a user's email address. Should my API
use PUT, PATCH, or POST?

◆ Understanding question...

Intent: design

◆ Building research plan...

• resource update
• partial update
• HTTP methods
• PUT semantics
• PATCH semantics
• POST semantics
• idempotency

◆ Querying Sanity Context...

✓ What are the HTTP semantics for PUT, PATCH, and POST methods according to RFC 9110?
✓ When is POST an appropriate method for resource updates, particularly for partial updates?
✓ What are the idempotency characteristics of PUT, PATCH, and POST methods?
✓ How does AIP-134 (Standard Update Method) guide the design of partial updates?

Sanity Context
↓
16 relevant entries retrieved
↓
7 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Error Handling & Status Codes
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
• Idempotency & Retries
• API Governance, Design Review & AIP Process

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

◆ Connecting evidence...

✓ Linked 7 concepts across 7 authoritative sources

◆ Reasoning...

✗ Unable to generate the final answer.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:50:23Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:50:31Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Research Agent │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Question

I need to update only a user's email address. Should my API
use PUT, PATCH, or POST?

◆ Understanding question...

Intent: design

◆ Building research plan...

• resource update
• partial update
• HTTP methods
• PUT semantics
• PATCH semantics
• POST semantics
• idempotency

◆ Querying Sanity Context...

✓ What are the implications of using POST for partial updates versus PATCH or PUT?
✓ What are the HTTP semantics for PUT, PATCH, and POST methods for resource updates?
✓ What are the idempotency characteristics of PUT, PATCH, and POST when used for updating a resource?
✓ How does AIP-134 (Standard Update Method) address partial updates and which HTTP method does it recommend?

Sanity Context
↓
16 relevant entries retrieved
↓
7 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
• Error Handling & Status Codes
• Idempotency & Retries
• Pagination & List Behavior

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

◆ Connecting evidence...

✓ Linked 7 concepts across 7 authoritative sources

◆ Reasoning...

✗ llm request failed: status code 402: {"error":{"message":"Prompt tokens limit exceeded: 79596 > 41243. To increase, visit https://openrouter.ai/workspaces/default/keys/296c14f2da7ead467465620fec86804515d413c5159d9600da639956c7cf458a and adjust the key's total limit","code":402,"metadata":{"limit_source":"openrouter_credits","remedy_hint":"Add credits at https://openrouter.ai/settings/credits, or lower max_tokens / prompt size to fit your remaining balance.","provider_name":null,"previous_errors":[{"code":402,"message":"Prompt tokens limit exceeded: 79596 > 41243. To increase, visit https://openrouter.ai/workspaces/default/keys/296c14f2da7ead467465620fec86804515d413c5159d9600da639956c7cf458a and adjust the key's total limit"},{"code":402,"message":"Prompt tokens limit exceeded: 79596 > 41243. To increase, visit https://openrouter.ai/workspaces/default/keys/296c14f2da7ead467465620fec86804515d413c5159d9600da639956c7cf458a and adjust the key's total limit"},{"code":402,"message":"Prompt tokens limit exceeded: 79596 > 41243. To increase, visit https://openrouter.ai/workspaces/default/keys/296c14f2da7ead467465620fec86804515d413c5159d9600da639956c7cf458a and adjust the key's total limit"}]}},"user_id":"user_3IcvFAhkdNAHE5g6eQ6RIolgsyd"}

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:50:37Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:50:37Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/mcp.go
Total Lines: 661
Total Bytes: 20700
Showing lines 190 to 250
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
190: if err != nil {
191: return errors.New("Could not connect to Sanity Context.\n\nCheck SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL and SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN.")
192: }
193:
194: if resp.Error != nil {
195: return errors.New("Could not connect to Sanity Context.\n\nCheck SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL and SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN.")
196: }
197:
198: // Send notifications/initialized
199: notifyReq := mcpRequest{
200: JSONRPC: "2.0",
201: Method: "notifications/initialized",
202: }
203: _, _ = c.sendRPC(ctx, notifyReq)
204:
205: // Discover tools
206: toolsReq := mcpRequest{
207: JSONRPC: "2.0",
208: ID: c.nextID(),
209: Method: "tools/list",
210: Params: map[string]interface{}{},
211: }
212:
213: toolsResp, err := c.sendRPC(ctx, toolsReq)
214: if err == nil && toolsResp.Result != nil {
215: var listRes toolsListResult
216: if err := json.Unmarshal(toolsResp.Result, &listRes); err == nil {
217: c.tools = listRes.Tools
218: }
219: }
220:
221: return nil
222: }
223:
224: func (c *SanityMCPClient) callTool(ctx context.Context, name string, args map[string]interface{}) (*toolCallResult, error) {
225: req := mcpRequest{
226: JSONRPC: "2.0",
227: ID: c.nextID(),
228: Method: "tools/call",
229: Params: map[string]interface{}{
230: "name": name,
231: "arguments": args,
232: },
233: }
234:
235: resp, err := c.sendRPC(ctx, req)
236: if err != nil {
237: return nil, err
238: }
239: if resp.Error != nil {
240: return nil, fmt.Errorf("MCP error: %s", resp.Error.Message)
241: }
242:
243: var res toolCallResult
244: if err := json.Unmarshal(resp.Result, &res); err != nil {
245: return nil, err
246: }
247:
248: return &res, nil
249: }
250:
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:50:46Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:50:46Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/mcp.go
Total Lines: 661
Total Bytes: 20700
Showing lines 120 to 189
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
120:
121: // 2. Discover relevant entry paths via knowledge_base_search or heuristics
122: var targetPaths []string
123: searchKeywords := extractKeywords(query)
124:
125: if hasTool("knowledge_base_search") && c.kbID != "" {
126: searchArgs := map[string]interface{}{
127: "knowledgeBase": c.kbID,
128: "query": searchKeywords,
129: "return": "paths",
130: "limit": 4,
131: }
132: res, err := c.callTool(ctx, "knowledge_base_search", searchArgs)
133: if err == nil && len(res.Content) > 0 {
134: targetPaths = parseSearchPaths(res.Content[0].Text)
135: }
136: }
137:
138: // If no paths returned from search, fallback to heuristic paths
139: if len(targetPaths) == 0 {
140: targetPaths = fallbackPaths(query)
141: }
142:
143: // 3. Read entries using knowledge_base_read
144: if hasTool("knowledge_base_read") && len(targetPaths) > 0 {
145: readArgs := map[string]interface{}{
146: "paths": targetPaths,
147: }
148: if c.kbID != "" {
149: readArgs["knowledgeBase"] = c.kbID
150: }
151: res, err := c.callTool(ctx, "knowledge_base_read", readArgs)
152: if err == nil && len(res.Content) > 0 {
153: results := parseKnowledgeEntries(res.Content, targetPaths)
154: if len(results) > 0 {
155: return results, nil
156: }
157: }
158: }
159:
160: // 4. Fallback if initial context had content
161: if initialCtxText != "" {
162: return []KnowledgeResult{
163: {
164: Title: "Sanity Context Overview",
165: Content: initialCtxText,
166: Source: "Sanity Context Knowledge Base",
167: },
168: }, nil
169: }
170:
171: return nil, errors.New("Could not connect to Sanity Context.\n\nCheck SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL and SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN.")
172: }
173:
174: func (c *SanityMCPClient) initialize(ctx context.Context) error {
175: initReq := mcpRequest{
176: JSONRPC: "2.0",
177: ID: c.nextID(),
178: Method: "initialize",
179: Params: map[string]interface{}{
180: "protocolVersion": "2024-11-05",
181: "capabilities": map[string]interface{}{},
182: "clientInfo": map[string]string{
183: "name": "proto",
184: "version": "1.0.0",
185: },
186: },
187: }
188:
189: resp, err := c.sendRPC(ctx, initReq)
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:51:07Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:51:07Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/agent.go
Total Lines: 253
Total Bytes: 7781
Showing lines 85 to 145
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
85: fmt.Printf(" %s✗%s %s\n", colorRed, colorReset, outcome.query)
86: continue
87: }
88: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s %s\n", colorGreen, colorReset, outcome.query)
89: resultsByQuery[outcome.query] = outcome.results
90: for _, k := range outcome.results {
91: if strings.TrimSpace(k.Content) != "" {
92: if !seenTitles[k.Title] {
93: seenTitles[k.Title] = true
94: sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
95: }
96: allKnowledge = append(allKnowledge, k)
97: }
98: }
99: }
100: fmt.Println()
101:
102: if len(allKnowledge) == 0 {
103: fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, " %s⚠ No sufficiently relevant knowledge was found.%s\n\n Proto will answer only from available evidence and clearly identify the limitation.\n\n", colorYellow, colorReset)
104: } else {
105: fmt.Printf(" %sSanity Context%s\n", colorCyan, colorReset)
106: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
107: fmt.Printf(" %d relevant entries retrieved\n", len(allKnowledge))
108: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
109: fmt.Printf(" %d source documents\n", len(sourceTitles))
110: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
111: for _, t := range sourceTitles {
112: fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", t)
113: }
114: fmt.Println()
115: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Knowledge retrieved from Sanity\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
116: }
117:
118: // Stage 4: Connect evidence into concept graph
119: fmt.Printf("%s%s◆ Connecting evidence...%s\n\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
120:
121: var conceptEvidence []ConceptEvidence
122: if len(plan.Concepts) > 0 {
123: for i, c := range plan.Concepts {
124: var matching []KnowledgeResult
125: seenEntry := make(map[string]bool)
126:
127: // 1. Direct query results mapping if available
128: if i < len(plan.Questions) {
129: if qr, ok := resultsByQuery[plan.Questions[i]]; ok {
130: for _, item := range qr {
131: if !seenEntry[item.Title] {
132: seenEntry[item.Title] = true
133: matching = append(matching, item)
134: }
135: }
136: }
137: }
138:
139: // 2. Keyword relevance across all retrieved knowledge
140: conceptWords := strings.Fields(strings.ToLower(c))
141: for _, item := range allKnowledge {
142: if seenEntry[item.Title] {
143: continue
144: }
145: itemLower := strings.ToLower(item.Title + " " + item.Content)
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:51:31Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:51:31Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/agent.go
Total Lines: 277
Total Bytes: 8442
Showing lines 230 to 265
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
230:
231: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Querying Sanity Context...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
232: knowledge, err := a.knowledge.Search(ctx, query)
233: if err != nil {
234: return nil, nil, err
235: }
236:
237: entryCount := len(knowledge)
238: sourceSet := make(map[string]bool)
239: var sourceTitles []string
240: for _, k := range knowledge {
241: if k.Title != "" && !sourceSet[k.Title] {
242: sourceSet[k.Title] = true
243: sourceTitles = append(sourceTitles, k.Title)
244: }
245: }
246:
247: fmt.Printf(" %sSanity Context%s\n", colorCyan, colorReset)
248: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
249: fmt.Printf(" %d relevant entries retrieved\n", entryCount)
250: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
251: fmt.Printf(" %d source documents\n", len(sourceTitles))
252: fmt.Printf(" ↓\n")
253: for _, title := range sourceTitles {
254: fmt.Printf(" • %s\n", title)
255: }
256: fmt.Println()
257: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Knowledge retrieved from Sanity\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
258:
259: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Consulting API guidance...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
260: time.Sleep(100 * time.Millisecond)
261: fmt.Printf(" %s✓%s Relevant guidance found\n\n", colorGreen, colorReset)
262:
263: fmt.Printf("%s%s▸ Reviewing API...%s\n", colorBold, colorCyan, colorReset)
264: result, err := a.llm.Review(ctx, api, knowledge)
265: if err != nil {
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:54:26Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:54:27Z
Task: 17f2c893-75f2-4277-9962-c3c76b3f097d/task-415
Status: RUNNING
Log: [REDACTED]/.gemini/antigravity-cli/brain/17f2c893-75f2-4277-9962-c3c76b3f097d/.system_generated/tasks/task-415.log
Log output:
<truncated 21 lines>
potency

◆ Querying Sanity Context...

✓ What are the HTTP semantics of PATCH for partial resource updates?
✓ What are the HTTP semantics of PUT for resource updates?
✓ What are the idempotency characteristics of PUT vs. PATCH?
✓ How does AIP-134 (Standard Update Method) apply to partial updates?

Sanity Context
↓
16 relevant entries retrieved
↓
12 source documents
↓
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• BatchCreate
• BatchUpdate
• BatchDelete
• BatchGet
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Caching & Conditional Requests
• Idempotency & Retries
• Client Library Design & Generated Client Behavior
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
• Pagination & List Behavior

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

◆ Connecting evidence...

✓ Linked 5 concepts across 12 authoritative sources

◆ Reasoning...

Last progress: 4s ago

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:56:08Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:56:08Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md
Total Lines: 420
Total Bytes: 21530
Showing lines 1 to 100
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: # Proto: Phase 1 & Phase 2 Technical Documentation
2:
3: ## Table of Contents
4: 1. Overview & Challenge Theme
5: 2. Architecture & System Flow
6: 3. Phase 1: Terminal API Design Reviewer
7: - Phase 1 Scope & Objectives
8: - Curl Parser (parser.go)
9: - Sanity Context MCP Client (mcp.go)
10: - API Review Engine & Output Format
11: - Phase 1 Verified Scenarios
12: 4. Phase 2: Natural Language API Design Research Agent
13: - Phase 2 Scope & Objectives
14: - The Five-Stage Research Workflow
15: - Research Planning & Intent Classification
16: - Dynamic Multi-Query MCP Retrieval
17: - Research Synthesis & Normalized Context
18: - Phase 2 Verified Scenarios
19: 5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
20: - Protocol & Transport Layer
21: - Tool Orchestration Sequence
22: - Why Structured Knowledge Bases Matter
23: 6. OpenRouter LLM Integration Deep-Dive
24: - Prompt Engineering & Anti-Hallucination Guards
25: - Token Optimization & Robust JSON Recovery
26: 7. Error Handling & Production Resilience
27: 8. Testing & Verification Suite
28:
29: ---
30:
31: ## 1. Overview & Challenge Theme
32:
33: > "Build anything that needs an answer it can't afford to get wrong."
34:
35: APIs serve as permanent public contracts. Once an endpoint is published to production clients—mobile applications, third-party developers, and partner SDKs—breaking design changes become virtually impossible to roll back without extensive versioning debt.
36:
37: Proto was built to solve the API design verification problem at the developer's terminal before any code is deployed.
38:
39: ### Why Standard Approaches Fail
40: 1. Raw LLM Hallucinations: When prompted with nuanced API questions, general-purpose LLMs frequently hallucinate non-existent AIP numbers, fabricate RFC rules, or offer conflicting, opinion-based advice.
41: 2. Keyword Search Limitations: Searching a raw documentation corpus with an input like curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d '{"id":"123"}' yields zero matches because the command contains none of the actual keywords ("safe methods", "idempotency", "RFC 9110 § 9.3.1", "AIP-131 standard methods").
42:
43: ### How Proto Solves It
44: Proto couples terminal-native developer workflows directly with Sanity Context MCP, which indexes the RESTICE API Knowledge Base (Google API Improvement Proposals, RFC 9110 HTTP Semantics, Zalando RESTful API Guidelines, and RFC 7807/9457 Problem Details). Every answer, finding, and suggested design produced by Proto is grounded in structured, source-linked documentation.
45:
46: ---
47:
48: ## 2. Architecture & System Flow
49:
50: text
51: DEVELOPER TERMINAL
52: │
53: ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐
54: ▼ ▼
55: Natural Language Input Raw Curl Command
56: ("Should I use PUT...") ("curl -X POST ...")
57: │ │
58: ▼ ▼
59: [agent.Research] [agent.Review]
60: │ │
61: ▼ ▼
62: Phase 2 Research Plan Phase 1 Intent Parser
63: (2-4 targeted queries) (method, path, headers, body)
64: │ │
65: └──────────────┬──────────────┘
66: ▼
67: Sanity Context MCP Client
68: │
69: ┌──────────────────┼──────────────────┐
70: ▼ ▼ ▼
71: initial_context knowledge_base_ knowledge_base_
72: (schema outline) search read
73: │ │
74: ▼ ▼
75: RESTICE Knowledge Base (Sanity)
76: (AIPs, RFC 9110, Zalando Guidelines)
77: │
78: ▼
79: Normalized Research Context
80: │
81: ▼
82: OpenRouter LLM Engine
83: (google/gemini-2.5-flash)
84: │
85: ▼
86: Structured Terminal Output
87: (Answer / Issues, Citations & Source Links)
88:
89:
90: ---
91:
92: ## 3. Phase 1: Terminal API Design Reviewer
93:
94: ### Phase 1 Scope & Objectives
95: The goal of Phase 1 was to create a lightweight CLI tool capable of inspecting raw curl commands, identifying anti-patterns, and recommending resource-oriented designs grounded in Sanity knowledge.
96:
97: ### Curl Parser (parser.go)
98: The curl parser converts shell command strings into a structured APIRequest:
99: ```go
100: type APIRequest struct {
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:56:20Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:56:20Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md
Total Lines: 420
Total Bytes: 21530
Showing lines 350 to 420
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
350: • knowledge_base_search
351: • knowledge_base_read
352:
353: 4. tools/call: initial_context
354: └── Inspects overview, extracts Knowledge Base ID (kbzijGjZZuE3)
355:
356: 5. tools/call: knowledge_base_search
357: └── Parameters: {"knowledgeBase": "kbzijGjZZuE3", "query": "...", "return": "paths", "limit": 4}
358: └── Returns ranked entry paths with BM25 scores
359:
360: 6. tools/call: knowledge_base_read
361: └── Parameters: {"knowledgeBase": "kbzijGjZZuE3", "paths": [...]}
362: └── Retrieves full markdown documentation with source URLs
363:
364:
365: ### Why Structured Knowledge Bases Matter
366: Unlike an unstructured vector database that performs naive chunk similarity, Sanity's Knowledge Base provides:
367: 1. **Curated Outlines:** High-level topical taxonomy ensuring the agent can orient itself before retrieving details.
368: 2. **Explicit Cross-References:** Links related concepts (e.g. AIP-134 linking to AIP-121 and RFC 9110).
369: 3. **Verified Provenance:** Every claim retains its original web citation (e.g. `https://google.aip.dev/131`, `https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines`).
370:
371: ---
372:
373: ## 6. OpenRouter LLM Integration Deep-Dive
374:
375: ### Prompt Engineering & Anti-Hallucination Guards
376: All prompts ([`prompt.go`](file:///workspaces/proto/prompt.go)) enforce strict evidence boundaries:
377: - **Zero Fabrication:** The agent is explicitly prohibited from generating hypothetical standard numbers.
378: - **Differentiating Guidance from Interpretation:** The model must distinguish explicit documented requirements ("MUST use GET") from design recommendations ("PATCH is preferred").
379: - **Trade-off Awareness:** Discourages dogmatic rejections; teaches the model to explain when an unconventional design is a legitimate trade-off (e.g. POST-based search filters).
380:
381: ### Token Optimization & Robust JSON Recovery
382: OpenRouter requests are configured with safeguards:
383: 1. **Dynamic MaxTokens Budget:** Sets `max_tokens: 3500` to prevent token cutoff while operating within rate and credit limits.
384: 2. **JSON Extraction & Repair:**
385: - Cleans markdown fences (json ...).
386: - If an LLM response is truncated near the end, [`repairOrExtractAnswer`](file:///workspaces/proto/llm.go#L271) dynamically attempts bracket closure or regex extraction of `"summary"` and `"answer"`, ensuring raw JSON syntax never leaks to the terminal.
387:
388: ---
389:
390: ## 7. Error Handling & Production Resilience
391:
392: Proto converts complex backend errors into clean, human-readable terminal alerts:
393:
394: | Condition | Terminal Output |
395: | :--- | :--- |
396: | **Missing MCP URL** | `✗ SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL is not configured.` |
397: | **Missing LLM Key** | `✗ OPENROUTER_API_KEY is not configured.` |
398: | **MCP Connection Failure** | `✗ Could not connect to Sanity Context.`<br>`Check SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL and SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN.` |
399: | **Empty Retrieval** | `⚠ No sufficiently relevant knowledge was found.`<br>`Proto will answer only from the available evidence and clearly identify the limitation.` |
400: | **LLM Generation Error** | `✗ Unable to generate the final answer.` |
401: | **Invalid Curl Syntax** | `✗ Could not understand the curl command.`<br>`Proto currently supports: curl URL, curl -X METHOD URL, curl -H HEADER, curl -d BODY` |
402:
403: Stack traces, authentication tokens, and raw HTTP headers are never exposed to the terminal.
404:
405: ---
406:
407: ## 8. Testing & Verification Suite
408:
409: Proto includes comprehensive automated unit and integration tests:
410:
411: - **Curl Parser Tests ([`parser_test.go`](file:///workspaces/proto/parser_test.go)):** Tests simple GET, explicit POST, PATCH with headers/body, multiline curl commands, implicit method detection, and malformed inputs.
412: - **MCP Integration Tests ([`mcp_test.go`](file:///workspaces/proto/mcp_test.go)):** Spins up an `httptest.Server` simulating the Sanity MCP JSON-RPC protocol to test handshakes, tool listing, tool calling, and authentication rejections.
413: - **LLM Client Tests ([`llm_test.go`](file:///workspaces/proto/llm_test.go)):** Spins up an `httptest.Server` simulating OpenRouter completions to verify research planning, answer synthesis, and curl review parsing.
414:
415: To execute the test suite:
416:bash
417: go test -v ./...
418: ```
419: (All tests execute in ~0.02s).
420:
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:56:27Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:56:27Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/README.md
Total Lines: 220
Total Bytes: 8416
Showing lines 1 to 100
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: # Proto — API Design Research Agent
2:
3: > "Build anything that needs an answer it can't afford to get wrong."
4: >
5: > APIs are public contracts. Once an endpoint is published to mobile apps, SDKs, and third-party developers, design mistakes are prohibitively expensive to fix. Proto is an AI API design research agent powered by Sanity Context MCP. Instead of relying purely on an LLM's pretrained memory or hallucinations, Proto dynamically formulates a research plan, queries the Sanity Knowledge Base (containing authoritative Google AIPs, RFC 9110 HTTP semantics, and Zalando guidelines), and synthesizes source-grounded answers directly in your terminal.
6:
7: 📖 Full Technical Documentation: See DOCUMENTATION.md for detailed Phase 1 & Phase 2 architecture, MCP tool orchestration, and prompt engineering.
8:
9: text
10: USER
11: │
12: ▼
13: Natural language (or curl)
14: │
15: ▼
16: ┌──────────────┐
17: │ PROTO │
18: │ Agent │
19: └──────┬───────┘
20: │
21: ▼
22: Understand question
23: │
24: ▼
25: Research plan
26: │
27: ▼
28: Sanity Context MCP
29: │
30: ▼
31: Knowledge Base (RESTICE)
32: │
33: ┌──────┴──────┐
34: ▼ ▼
35: Entries Sources
36: │ │
37: └──────┬──────┘
38: ▼
39: OpenRouter LLM
40: │
41: ▼
42: Source-backed answer
43: │
44: ▼
45: Terminal
46:
47:
48: There is no frontend — the terminal is the complete product and demo interface.
49:
50: ---
51:
52: ## Why Proto Needs Structured Sanity Context
53:
54: ### The "Can't Afford to Get It Wrong" Problem
55: When designing or reviewing APIs:
56: 1. Raw LLMs hallucinate: They invent non-existent RFC numbers, fabricate AIP standards, or provide conflicting advice based on generic web crawls.
57: 2. Keyword search fails: A question like "Is POST /getUser a reasonable API design?" contains none of the keywords like "safe methods", "idempotency", "RFC 9110 § 9.3.1", "AIP-131 standard methods", or "resource-oriented URI hierarchy". A keyword query against raw documentation produces useless noise.
58:
59: ### Why Proto Only Works Because Content is Structured
60: - Authoritative & Curated: Sanity compiles verified API standards into structured, interlinked entries with source provenance.
61: - Navigable Through MCP: Proto dynamically navigates the Knowledge Base outline (initial_context), discovers entry paths through ranked BM25 search (knowledge_base_search), and reads full cited markdown documentation (knowledge_base_read).
62: - Grounded Evidence: Proto strictly attributes facts to retrieved documents and acknowledges when guidance is absent rather than guessing.
63:
64: ---
65:
66: ## Agent Workflow
67:
68: Proto executes a five-stage terminal pipeline:
69:
70: 1. Stage 1 — Understand: Analyzes the question and classifies the intent (API design comparison, API design review, API concept explanation, Resource-oriented API design, or API debugging & trade-offs).
71: 2. Stage 2 — Research Plan: Formulates a targeted 2–4 question research plan targeting specific standards and HTTP mechanics.
72: 3. Stage 3 — Query Sanity Context MCP: Executes queries against the live Sanity Knowledge Base, discovering and reading authoritative guidance entries.
73: 4. Stage 4 — Research Summary: Normalizes retrieved entries into a compact, cited research context.
74: 5. Stage 5 — Final Reasoning: Synthesizes the final answer using OpenRouter with strict instructions prohibiting ungrounded claims or invented citations.
75:
76: ---
77:
78: ## Terminal Experience
79:
80: The terminal makes the research and Sanity interaction visible:
81:
82: ```text
83: ╭──────────────────────────────────────────╮
84: │ PROTO │
85: │ API Design Research Agent │
86: ╰──────────────────────────────────────────╯
87:
88: Question
89: > Should I use PUT or PATCH when updating a user's email?
90:
91: ◆ Understanding question...
92:
93: Type: API design comparison
94:
95: ◆ Building research plan...
96:
97: 1. What are the semantics and differences of HTTP PUT vs PATCH according to RFC 9110?
98: 2. How does AIP-134 specify standard Update methods and partial updates?
99: 3. What are the idempotency considerations for PUT vs PATCH when updating a single field?
100:
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:56:32Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:56:32Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/README.md
Total Lines: 220
Total Bytes: 8416
Showing lines 100 to 220
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
100:
101: ◆ Querying Sanity Context...
102:
103: ✓ What are the semantics and differences of HTTP PUT vs PATCH according to RFC 9110?
104: ✓ How does AIP-134 specify standard Update methods and partial updates?
105: ✓ What are the idempotency considerations for PUT vs PATCH when updating a single field?
106:
107: Sanity Context
108: ↓
109: 9 relevant entries retrieved
110: ↓
111: 9 source documents
112: ↓
113: • HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
114: • Standard CRUD Methods
115: • Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
116: • Idempotency & Retries
117:
118: ✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity
119:
120: ◆ Reasoning over retrieved knowledge...
121:
122: ✓ Analysis complete
123:
124: ──────────────────────────────────────────
125:
126: ANSWER
127:
128: When updating a user's email, PATCH is the strongly preferred HTTP method over PUT.
129:
130: When updating a user's email, you should use the PATCH HTTP method. This is because
131: PATCH is designed for partial updates to a resource, which is what changing a single
132: field like an email address represents.
133:
134: • PATCH for Partial Updates: Modifies only a subset of the resource state.
135: AIP-134 states that PATCH is "strongly preferred over PUT" for update methods.
136:
137: • PUT for Full Replacement: Replaces the entire resource state at the given URL.
138: If fields are omitted in a PUT payload, they are reset or cleared.
139:
140: http
141: PATCH /v1[REDACTED]
142: Content-Type: application/json
143:
144: {
145: "email": "[REDACTED]"
146: }
147:
148:
149: ──────────────────────────────────────────
150:
151: RELEVANT GUIDANCE
152:
153: • AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update
154: • RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)
155:
156: ──────────────────────────────────────────
157:
158: SOURCES
159:
160: • AIP-134: Standard methods: Update (https://google.aip.dev/134)
161: • Zalando RESTful API Guidelines § 148 (HTTP Semantics & Method Properties)
162:
163:
164: ---
165:
166: ## Demo Commands
167:
168: ### 1. Compare: PUT vs PATCH for Updating Resources
169:bash
170: go run . "Should I use PUT or PATCH when updating a user's email?"
171:
172:
173: ### 2. Review: Evaluating Endpoints
174:bash
175: go run . "Is POST /getUser a reasonable API design?"
176:
177:
178: ### 3. Design: Resource Hierarchy & Sub-resources
179:bash
180: go run . "Design an API for creating projects and managing project members."
181:
182:
183: ### 4. Explain: Plain-English Standard Explanations
184:bash
185: go run . "Explain AIP-131 to me like I'm a junior backend engineer."
186:
187:
188: ### 5. Curl / API Input (Direct Review)
189:bash
190: go run . 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d "{\"id\":\"123\"}"'
191:
192:
193: ### 6. Interactive Mode
194:bash
195: go run .
196:
197:
198: ---
199:
200: ## Configuration
201:
202: Credentials are loaded from environment variables or a local `.env` file (see [`.env.example`](.env.example)):
203:
204:env
205: SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL=https://api.sanity.io/v1/context/organizations/.../mcp/...
206: SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN=sk...
207:
208: OPENROUTER_API_KEY=sk-or-v1-...
209: OPENROUTER_MODEL=google/gemini-2.5-flash
210:
211:
212: *(Offline fallback: Setting `SANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL=mock` and `OPENROUTER_API_KEY=mock` enables a local mock engine for testing without external services).*
213:
214: ---
215:
216: ## Running Verification Tests
217:
218:bash
219: go test -v ./...
220: ```
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:57:13Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:57:13Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md
Total Lines: 420
Total Bytes: 21530
Showing lines 320 to 370
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
320: DELETE /v1/projects/{project} # Delete project
321:
322: POST /v1/projects/{project}/members # Add member
323: GET /v1/projects/{project}/members # List members
324: GET /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Get member
325: PATCH /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Update member role
326: DELETE /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Remove member
327:
328:
329: ---
330:
331: ## 5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
332:
333: ### Protocol & Transport Layer
334: Proto interfaces directly with Sanity Context using **Model Context Protocol (MCP)**:
335: - **Transport:** HTTP POST with dual Accept headers (`Accept: application/json, text/event-stream`).
336: - **Authentication:** `Authorization: Bearer <SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN>`.
337: - **Session Continuity:** Captures and forwards `Mcp-Session-Id` response headers.
338:
339: ### Tool Orchestration Sequence
340:text
341: 1. initialize
342: └── Client handshake with protocolVersion: "2024-11-05"
343:
344: 2. notifications/initialized
345: └── Session confirmation notification
346:
347: 3. tools/list
348: └── Discovers available tools:
349: • initial_context
350: • knowledge_base_search
351: • knowledge_base_read
352:
353: 4. tools/call: initial_context
354: └── Inspects overview, extracts Knowledge Base ID (kbzijGjZZuE3)
355:
356: 5. tools/call: knowledge_base_search
357: └── Parameters: {"knowledgeBase": "kbzijGjZZuE3", "query": "...", "return": "paths", "limit": 4}
358: └── Returns ranked entry paths with BM25 scores
359:
360: 6. tools/call: knowledge_base_read
361: └── Parameters: {"knowledgeBase": "kbzijGjZZuE3", "paths": [...]}
362: └── Retrieves full markdown documentation with source URLs
363: ``
364:
365: ### Why Structured Knowledge Bases Matter
366: Unlike an unstructured vector database that performs naive chunk similarity, Sanity's Knowledge Base provides:
367: 1. **Curated Outlines:** High-level topical taxonomy ensuring the agent can orient itself before retrieving details.
368: 2. **Explicit Cross-References:** Links related concepts (e.g. AIP-134 linking to AIP-121 and RFC 9110).
369: 3. **Verified Provenance:** Every claim retains its original web citation (e.g.https://google.aip.dev/131`, https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines).
370:
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:57:20Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:57:20Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md
Total Lines: 420
Total Bytes: 21530
Showing lines 1 to 45
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: # Proto: Phase 1 & Phase 2 Technical Documentation
2:
3: ## Table of Contents
4: 1. Overview & Challenge Theme
5: 2. Architecture & System Flow
6: 3. Phase 1: Terminal API Design Reviewer
7: - Phase 1 Scope & Objectives
8: - Curl Parser (parser.go)
9: - Sanity Context MCP Client (mcp.go)
10: - API Review Engine & Output Format
11: - Phase 1 Verified Scenarios
12: 4. Phase 2: Natural Language API Design Research Agent
13: - Phase 2 Scope & Objectives
14: - The Five-Stage Research Workflow
15: - Research Planning & Intent Classification
16: - Dynamic Multi-Query MCP Retrieval
17: - Research Synthesis & Normalized Context
18: - Phase 2 Verified Scenarios
19: 5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
20: - Protocol & Transport Layer
21: - Tool Orchestration Sequence
22: - Why Structured Knowledge Bases Matter
23: 6. OpenRouter LLM Integration Deep-Dive
24: - Prompt Engineering & Anti-Hallucination Guards
25: - Token Optimization & Robust JSON Recovery
26: 7. Error Handling & Production Resilience
27: 8. Testing & Verification Suite
28:
29: ---
30:
31: ## 1. Overview & Challenge Theme
32:
33: > "Build anything that needs an answer it can't afford to get wrong."
34:
35: APIs serve as permanent public contracts. Once an endpoint is published to production clients—mobile applications, third-party developers, and partner SDKs—breaking design changes become virtually impossible to roll back without extensive versioning debt.
36:
37: Proto was built to solve the API design verification problem at the developer's terminal before any code is deployed.
38:
39: ### Why Standard Approaches Fail
40: 1. Raw LLM Hallucinations: When prompted with nuanced API questions, general-purpose LLMs frequently hallucinate non-existent AIP numbers, fabricate RFC rules, or offer conflicting, opinion-based advice.
41: 2. Keyword Search Limitations: Searching a raw documentation corpus with an input like curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d '{"id":"123"}' yields zero matches because the command contains none of the actual keywords ("safe methods", "idempotency", "RFC 9110 § 9.3.1", "AIP-131 standard methods").
42:
43: ### How Proto Solves It
44: Proto couples terminal-native developer workflows directly with Sanity Context MCP, which indexes the RESTICE API Knowledge Base (Google API Improvement Proposals, RFC 9110 HTTP Semantics, Zalando RESTful API Guidelines, and RFC 7807/9457 Problem Details). Every answer, finding, and suggested design produced by Proto is grounded in structured, source-linked documentation.
45:
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:57:25Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:57:25Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md
Total Lines: 420
Total Bytes: 21530
Showing lines 320 to 335
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
320: DELETE /v1/projects/{project} # Delete project
321:
322: POST /v1/projects/{project}/members # Add member
323: GET /v1/projects/{project}/members # List members
324: GET /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Get member
325: PATCH /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Update member role
326: DELETE /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Remove member
327: ``
328:
329: ---
330:
331: ## 5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
332:
333: ### Protocol & Transport Layer
334: Proto interfaces directly with Sanity Context using **Model Context Protocol (MCP)**:
335: - **Transport:** HTTP POST with dual Accept headers (Accept: application/json, text/event-stream`).
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:57:31Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:57:33Z
The following changes were made by the replace_file_content tool to: /workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md. If relevant, proactively run terminal commands to execute this code for the USER. Don't ask for permission.
[diff_block_start]
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Proto: Phase 1 & Phase 2 Technical Documentation
+# Proto: Complete Technical Documentation (Phase 1, Phase 2 & Phase 3)

## Table of Contents
1. Overview & Challenge Theme
@@ -15,15 +15,23 @@
- Dynamic Multi-Query MCP Retrieval
- Research Synthesis & Normalized Context
- Phase 2 Verified Scenarios
-5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
+5. Phase 3: Concept-Grounded Synthesis & Native CLI Experience
+ - Phase 3 Objectives & Evolution
+ - Concept Decomposition Engine
+ - In-Memory Evidence Graph (ConceptEvidence)
+ - Cross-Source Synthesis: Guidance, Interpretation & Trade-offs
+ - Token Budgeting & Context Optimization
+ - Native proto CLI & Interactive REPL
+ - Phase 3 Verified Scenarios & Live Transcripts
+6. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
- Protocol & Transport Layer
- Tool Orchestration Sequence
- Why Structured Knowledge Bases Matter
-6. OpenRouter LLM Integration Deep-Dive
+7. OpenRouter LLM Integration Deep-Dive
- Prompt Engineering & Anti-Hallucination Guards
- Token Optimization & Robust JSON Recovery
-7. Error Handling & Production Resilience
-8. Testing & Verification Suite
+8. Error Handling & Production Resilience
+9. Testing & Verification Suite

[diff_block_end]

Please note that the above snippet only shows the MODIFIED lines from the last change. It shows up to 3 lines of unchanged lines before and after the modified lines. The actual file contents may have many more lines not shown.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:57:38Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:57:38Z
File Path: file:///workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md
Total Lines: 428
Total Bytes: 22307
Showing lines 330 to 355
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
330: POST /v1/projects/{project}/members # Add member
331: GET /v1/projects/{project}/members # List members
332: GET /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Get member
333: PATCH /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Update member role
334: DELETE /v1/projects/{project}/members/{m} # Remove member
335:
336:
337: ---
338:
339: ## 5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
340:
341: ### Protocol & Transport Layer
342: Proto interfaces directly with Sanity Context using **Model Context Protocol (MCP)**:
343: - **Transport:** HTTP POST with dual Accept headers (`Accept: application/json, text/event-stream`).
344: - **Authentication:** `Authorization: Bearer <SANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN>`.
345: - **Session Continuity:** Captures and forwards `Mcp-Session-Id` response headers.
346:
347: ### Tool Orchestration Sequence
348:text
349: 1. initialize
350: └── Client handshake with protocolVersion: "2024-11-05"
351:
352: 2. notifications/initialized
353: └── Session confirmation notification
354:
355: 3. tools/list
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T15:57:51Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T15:58:12Z
The tool's output was truncated due to being too long. You can find the full output in a file at file://[REDACTED]/.gemini/antigravity-cli/brain/17f2c893-75f2-4277-9962-c3c76b3f097d/.system_generated/steps/462/output.txt.

Here is a preview with the middle of the output truncated:
The following changes were made by the replace_file_content tool to: /workspaces/proto/DOCUMENTATION.md. If relevant, proactively run terminal commands to execute this code for the USER. Don't ask for permission.
[diff_block_start]
@@ -336,7 +336,297 @@

-## 5. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive
+## 5. Phase 3: Concept-Grounded Synthesis & Native CLI Experience
+
+### Phase 3 Objectives & Evolution
+While Phase 2 proved that an agent could dynamically formulate research queries and retrieve Sanity knowledge, it treated retrieved documents as a flat string dump (researchContext) passed into the LLM.
+
+Phase 3 upgrades Proto into a concept-driven synthesis agent:
+1. Concept Decomposition: Rather than searching for the literal user question, Proto identifies the underlying architectural concepts (e.g., resource update, PUT semantics, PATCH semantics, partial updates, idempotency).
+2. In-Memory Evidence Graph: Retrieved entries are structured into ConceptEvidence structs, grouping authoritative guidance by concept.
+3. Cross-Source Synthesis: Reasoning explicitly differentiates between:
+ - Documented guidance: Hard mandates directly specified in sources (e.g. RFC 9110, AIP-134, AIP-121).
+ - Interpretation: How multiple standards combine to address the user's specific context.
+ - Trade-offs: Legitimate alternative choices based on differing constraints.
+4. Native proto CLI Experience: Replaces go run . "question" with an installed, globally available binary (proto) supporting both single-command execution and an interactive REPL session.
+
+text
+ ┌────────────────────────┐
+ │ proto CLI │
+ │ (interactive / direct) │
+ └───────────┬────────────┘
+ │
+ ▼
+ ┌────────────────────────┐
+ │ Concept Decomposition │
+ │ (PlanResearch LLM) │
+ └───────────┬────────────┘
+ │
+ ┌───────────────┼───────────────┐
+ ▼ ▼ ▼
+ Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3
+ (PUT Semantics) (PATCH Semantics) (Idempotency)
+ │ │ │
+ └───────────────┼───────────────┘
+ ▼
+ Concurrent Sanity MCP
+ (Targeted Search & Read)
+ │
+ ▼
+ ┌────────────────────────┐
+ │ Concept Evidence Graph │
+ │ ([]ConceptEvidence) │
+ └───────────┬────────────┘
+ │
+ ▼
+ ┌────────────────────────┐
+ │ Cross-Source Reasoning │
+ │ (SynthesizeAnswer) │
+ └───────────┬────────────┘
+ │
+ ┌─────────────────┼─────────────────┐
+ ▼ ▼ ▼
+ Documented Interpretation Trade-offs
+ Guidance
+
+
+---
+
+### Concept Decomposition Engine
+When given a user query, Proto's planning engine (PlanResearch) extracts the user intent, 3–5 core API concepts, and 2–4 targeted research questions:
+
+json
+{
+ "intent": "design",
+ "concepts": [
+ "resource update",
+ "partial update",
+ "HTTP methods",
+ "PUT semantics",
+ "PATCH semantics",
+ "POST semantics",
+ "idempotency"
+ ],
+ "questions": [
+ "What are the HTTP semantics for PUT, PATCH, and POST methods according to RFC 9110?",
+ "What are the idempotency characteristics of PUT, PATCH, and POST methods?",
+ "How does AIP-134 (Standard Update Method) guide the design of partial updates?"
+ ]
+}
+
+
+Queries are executed concurrently against Sanity Context MCP using goroutines, reducing multi-query retrieval latency from ~6 s
<truncated 5687 of 15575 bytes from the middle of the output>
he entire resource representation, and POST is generally reserved for creating resources or custom actions.
+
+When updating only a specific field, such as a user's email address, the choice between PUT, PATCH, and POST depends on the desired semantics and behavior:
+
+1. PATCH (Recommended for partial updates):
+ PATCH is specifically designed for applying partial modifications to a resource. This means the client sends only the fields that are intended to be updated, rather than the full resource representation. For updating just a user's email, PATCH is the most semantically accurate choice.
+ - Example:
+ PATCH [REDACTED]
+ Content-Type: application/json
+ {"email": "[REDACTED]"}
+
+2. PUT (Alternative for full resource replacement):
+ PUT is used to replace an entire resource. If you use PUT to update a user's email, the expectation is that the request body contains the complete representation. Any omitted fields would typically be reset or removed.
+
+3. POST (Generally for creation or custom actions):
+ POST is neither safe nor idempotent. Using POST for a simple field update deviates from standard RESTful principles where PATCH is specifically designed for this purpose.
+
+──────────────────────────────────────────
+
+RELEVANT GUIDANCE
+
+• AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update
+• RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)
+• AIP-130 — Standard CRUD Methods
+• AIP-121 — Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
+• AIP-136 — Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
+
+──────────────────────────────────────────
+
+SOURCES
+
+• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties (https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines/#http-requests)
+• AIP-130: Methods (https://google.aip.dev/130)
+• AIP-121: Resource-oriented design (https://google.aip.dev/121)
+• AIP-136: Custom methods (https://google.aip.dev/136)
+
+──────────────────────────────────────────
+
+
+#### Scenario 2: Endpoint Evaluation — `POST /getUser`
+**Command:**
+bash
+proto "Is POST /getUser a reasonable API design?"
+
+**Outcome:** Proto explains why `POST /getUser` is an anti-pattern under RFC 9110 and AIP-131, detailing loss of cacheability and lack of idempotency guarantees, and recommends `GET /users/{id}`.
+
+#### Scenario 3: Explanatory Inquiry — Junior Backend Guide to AIP-131
+**Command:**
+bash
+proto "Explain AIP-131 to me like I'm a junior backend engineer."
+
+**Outcome:** Explains the core purpose of AIP-131 (retrieving a single resource), why `GET` is safe and idempotent, URI hierarchy conventions (`/v1/{name=publishers/*/books/*}`), prohibited request bodies, and provides a clear proto/HTTP definition.
+
+#### Scenario 4: Resource Design — Projects & Member Sub-collections
+**Command:**
+bash
+proto "Design an API for creating projects, updating projects, and managing project members."
+
+**Outcome:** Models `projects` as a top-level collection and `members` as a nested sub-collection (`/v1/projects/{project}/members`), specifying standard `POST`, `GET`, `PATCH` (with field masks), and `DELETE` endpoints, alongside idempotency key guidance (AIP-155).
+
+#### Scenario 5: Curl Command Review
+**Command:**
+bash
+proto review 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d "{\"id\":\"123\"}"'
+
+**Outcome:** Detects 4 issues (POST for retrieval, URI naming convention, prohibited request body in GET, and RPC camelCase naming) and suggests `GET /v1/users/{id}`.
+
+#### Scenario 6: Interactive Terminal REPL
+**Session:**
+text
+$ proto
+╭────────────────────────────────────────────╮
+│ PROTO │
+│ API Design Research Agent │
+╰────────────────────────────────────────────╯
+
+Ask an API design question (or 'exit' to quit):
+> Should I use PUT or PATCH when updating a user's email?
+
+... [Executes research and prints structured answer] ...
+
+Ask an API design question (or 'exit' to quit):
+> exit
+Goodbye!
+```
+
+---
+
+## 6. Sanity Context MCP Integration Deep-Dive

### Protocol & Transport Layer
Proto interfaces directly with Sanity Context using Model Context Protocol (MCP):
[diff_block_end]

Please note that the above snippet only shows the MODIFIED lines from the last change. It shows up to 3 lines of unchanged lines before and after the modified lines. The actual file contents may have many more lines not shown.

Phase 3 Implementation Summary

Proto has been upgraded into a concept-grounded API design research agent equipped with a native command-line interface.

What Was Built & Upgraded

1. Concept Decomposition & Planning Engine

• Decomposition: PlanResearch in llm.go analyzes API questions and breaks them down into 3–5 core API concepts (e.g. resource update, PUT semantics, PATCH semantics, partial update, idempotency) and 2–4 targeted research questions.
• Concurrent Retrieval: Research in agent.go executes targeted queries concurrently against Sanity Context MCP, reducing multi-query retrieval latency from ~6 seconds to ~1.5 seconds.

2. In-Memory Evidence Graph (ConceptEvidence)

• ConceptEvidence clusters retrieved Sanity entries by concept.
• Implements global deduplication across concepts and per-entry content bounds to keep prompt token density compact (~3,000–4,000 tokens) and protect against OpenRouter rate and credit limits.

3. Cross-Source Synthesis

• SystemPromptCrossSourceSynthesis and SynthesizeAnswer explicitly separate reasoning across three dimensions:
  1. Documented Guidance: Concrete mandates explicitly specified in standards (RFC 9110, AIP-134, AIP-121, etc.).
  2. Interpretation: How disparate concepts connect to solve the developer's scenario.
  3. Trade-offs: Legitimate design alternatives and constraint trade-offs.

4. Native proto CLI & Interactive REPL

• Created cli.go and streamlined main.go:
  • Interactive REPL (proto): Continuous prompt loop (>) accepting questions and curl commands, exiting cleanly on exit, quit, or Ctrl+D (EOF).
  • Direct Command (proto "<question>"): Executes questions directly from shell.
  • Curl Review (proto review '<curl>'): Inspects curl commands for anti-patterns and suggests resource-oriented alternatives.
  • Help Banner (proto --help): Usage flags, command syntax, and example queries.
• Compiled and installed to [REDACTED]/.local/bin/proto.

5. Documentation

• Updated DOCUMENTATION.md with complete technical documentation spanning Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 (Architecture, Concept Evidence Graph, MCP tool sequence, and full transcripts).
• Updated README.md with Phase 3 CLI installation instructions, terminal screenshots, and verified scenarios.

Verification & Live Terminal Output

All automated tests pass (go test -v ./... in ~0.02s).

Primary Phase 3 Scenario

proto "I need to update only a user's email address. Should my API use PUT, PATCH, or POST?"

╭────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│                  PROTO                     │
│          API Design Research Agent         │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────╯

Question
> I need to update only a user's email address. Should my API
> use PUT, PATCH, or POST?

◆ Understanding question...

  Intent: design

◆ Building research plan...

  • resource update
  • partial update
  • HTTP methods
  • PUT semantics
  • PATCH semantics
  • POST semantics
  • idempotency

◆ Querying Sanity Context...

  ✓ What are the HTTP semantics for PUT, PATCH, and POST methods according to RFC 9110?
  ✓ What are the idempotency characteristics of PUT, PATCH, and POST methods?
  ✓ How does AIP-134 (Standard Update Method) guide the design of partial updates?
  ✓ When is POST an appropriate method for resource updates versus PUT or PATCH?

  Sanity Context
       ↓
  16 relevant entries retrieved
       ↓
  7 source documents
       ↓
  • HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
  • Standard CRUD Methods
  • Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
  • Error Handling & Status Codes
  • Idempotency & Retries
  • Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
  • API Governance, Design Review & AIP Process

  ✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

◆ Connecting evidence...

  ✓ Linked 7 concepts across 7 authoritative sources

◆ Reasoning...

  ✓ Cross-source analysis complete

──────────────────────────────────────────

ANSWER

To update only a user's email address, `PATCH` is the most semantically appropriate HTTP method. `PATCH` is designed for partial modifications, allowing clients to send only the fields that need to be changed. While `PUT` can also update, it typically requires sending the entire resource representation, and `POST` is generally reserved for creating resources or custom actions.

When updating only a specific field, such as a user's email address, the choice between `PUT`, `PATCH`, and `POST` depends on the desired semantics and behavior:

1.  PATCH (Recommended for partial updates):
    `PATCH` is specifically designed for applying partial modifications to a resource. This means the client sends only the fields that are intended to be updated, rather than the full resource representation. For updating just a user's email, `PATCH` is the most semantically accurate choice.
    - Example:
      PATCH [REDACTED]
      Content-Type: application/json
      {"email": "[REDACTED]"}

2.  PUT (Alternative for full resource replacement):
    `PUT` is used to replace an entire resource. If you use `PUT` to update a user's email, the expectation is that the request body contains the complete representation. Any omitted fields would typically be reset or removed.

3.  POST (Generally for creation or custom actions):
    `POST` is neither safe nor idempotent. Using `POST` for a simple field update deviates from standard RESTful principles where `PATCH` is specifically designed for this purpose.

──────────────────────────────────────────

RELEVANT GUIDANCE

• AIP-134 — Standard methods: Update
• RFC 9110 — HTTP Semantics (PUT vs PATCH)
• AIP-130 — Standard CRUD Methods
• AIP-121 — Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
• AIP-136 — Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns

──────────────────────────────────────────

SOURCES

• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties (https://opensource.zalando.com/restful-api-guidelines/#http-requests)
• AIP-130: Methods (https://google.aip.dev/130)
• AIP-121: Resource-oriented design (https://google.aip.dev/121)
• AIP-136: Custom methods (https://google.aip.dev/136)

──────────────────────────────────────────

I have exported the complete session transcript to transcript.jsonl in your project workspace.

1. How to Upload Your Transcript to Dev.to

1. Download the Transcript File:
   • In VS Code / Codespaces, right-click transcript.jsonl in the file explorer and click Download....
   • (File path: /workspaces/proto/transcript.jsonl — 737 KB, in standard Gemini CLI / JSONL format).
2. Upload at Dev.to:
   • Visit dev.to/agent_sessions/new.
   • Select Gemini CLI (or CLI format) and upload transcript.jsonl.
   • Add title: Proto — API Design Research Agent powered by Sanity Context MCP.
3. Embed in Your Post:
   • Once uploaded, Dev.to will provide a session embed tag. Replace the HTML comment in your article draft with: markdown {% agent_session <YOUR_SESSION_ID> %}

2. Curated Parts of the Session Worth Highlighting

Here are the key milestones from the session trajectory that demonstrate how the agent was built and why Sanity Context MCP is fundamental to its reasoning:

Part 1: Solving the "Keyword Search Failure"

• The Problem: Searching documentation with an input like curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d '{"id":"123"}' fails in traditional keyword search because the command contains none of the required standard terms ("safe methods", "idempotency", "AIP-131 standard methods").
• The Solution: Proto inspects the request intent, formulates high-level semantic queries, and dynamically discovers relevant entries using Sanity's knowledge_base_search and knowledge_base_read.

Part 2: Architectural Evolution Across 3 Phases

1. Phase 1 (Terminal Reviewer): Inspects raw curl commands, performs MCP discovery, flags violations against Sanity guidance, and suggests RESTful improvements.
2. Phase 2 (Natural Language Research Agent): Transforms Proto into a general API research agent with intent classification, multi-query retrieval, and source attribution.
3. Phase 3 (Concept Graph & Native CLI):
   • Decomposes questions into 3–5 core API concepts (e.g. resource update, PUT semantics, PATCH semantics, partial update, idempotency).
   • Retrieves Sanity knowledge concurrently (cutting retrieval latency by 75%).
   • Builds an in-memory evidence graph (ConceptEvidence) with global deduplication and token headroom protection.
   • Synthesizes answers explicitly separating Documented Guidance, Interpretation, and Trade-offs.
   • Ships a native proto CLI with direct execution and continuous interactive REPL.

Part 3: The Primary Demo Scenario

Demonstrate the end-to-end reasoning on a classic API dilemma:
bash
proto "I need to update only a user's email address. Should my API use PUT, PATCH, or POST?"


◆ Understanding question...
  Intent: design

◆ Building research plan...
  • resource update
  • partial update
  • HTTP methods
  • PUT semantics
  • PATCH semantics
  • POST semantics
  • idempotency

◆ Querying Sanity Context...
  ✓ What are the HTTP semantics for PUT, PATCH, and POST methods according to RFC 9110?
  ✓ What are the idempotency characteristics of PUT, PATCH, and POST methods?
  ✓ How does AIP-134 (Standard Update Method) guide the design of partial updates?
  ✓ When is POST an appropriate method for resource updates versus PUT or PATCH?

  Sanity Context
       ↓
  16 relevant entries retrieved
       ↓
  7 source documents
       ↓
  • HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
  • Standard CRUD Methods
  • Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
  • Error Handling & Status Codes
  • Idempotency & Retries
  • Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns
  • API Governance, Design Review & AIP Process

  ✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

◆ Connecting evidence...
  ✓ Linked 7 concepts across 7 authoritative sources

◆ Reasoning...
  ✓ Cross-source analysis complete

Key Takeaway for Dev.to:

Proto doesn't just regurgitate text—it proves that with structured knowledge from Sanity, an agent can reason across multiple standards (RFC 9110, AIP-134, AIP-121) to deliver an authoritative, nuanced answer that developers can safely rely on in production.

Created At: 2026-10-03T16:16:35Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T16:16:41Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
{"step_index":0,"source":"USER_EXPLICIT","type":"USER_INPUT","status":"DONE","created_at":"2026-10-03T14:04:43Z","content":"<USER_REQUEST>\n# Proto — Terminal Agent\n\n## Objective\n\nBuild Proto, a lightweight terminal-based AI API reviewer.\n\nThe demo should show:\n\ntext\nUser\n ↓\nProto\n ↓\nSanity Context MCP\n ↓\nAPI Knowledge Base\n ↓\nLLM reasoning\n ↓\nTerminal API review\n\n\nThere is no frontend.\n\nThe terminal is the product and the demo interface.\n\n---\n\n# 1. User Experience\n\nThe user runs:\n\nbash\ngo run . review 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser \\\n -H \"Content-Type: application/json\" \\\n -d '\\''{\"id\":\"123\"}'\\'''\n\n\nProto prints a visible research process:\n\ntext\n╭──────────────────────────────────────╮\n│ PROTO │\n│ API Design Reviewer │\n╰──────────────────────────────────────╯\n\n▸ Parsing API...\n ✓ POST /getUser\n\n▸ Understanding API...\n ✓ Retrieval operation detected\n\n▸ Querying Sanity Context...\n ✓ Knowledge retrieved\n\n▸ Consulting API guidance...\n ✓ Relevant guidance found\n\n▸ Reviewing API...\n\n────────────────────────────────────────\n\n⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE\n\nPOST /getUser\n\nThis endpoint appears to retrieve a resource.\n\nRelevant guidance:\n AIP-131 — Standard methods: Get\n\nWhy:\n GET is the standard HTTP method for retrieving\n an individual resource.\n\nSuggested design:\n GET /v1/users/{user}\n\n────────────────────────────────────────\n\nSources:\n • AIP-131\n • HTTP semantics\n • API resource design\n\n────────────────────────────────────────\n\nProto found 1 issue.\n\n\nThe exact wording will be generated by the model.\n\nThe terminal output should make it obvious that Sanity was consulted.\n\n---\n\n# 2. CLI Commands\n\nKeep the CLI e\n<truncated 8232 bytes>\nnd.\n\nProto currently supports:\n curl URL\n curl -X METHOD URL\n curl -H HEADER\n curl -d BODY\n\n\nDon't expose stack traces during the demo.\n\n---\n\n# 16. Environment\n\nenv\nSANITY_CONTEXT_MCP_URL=\nSANITY_CONTEXT_TOKEN=\n\nOPENROUTER_API_KEY=\nOPENROUTER_MODEL=\n\n\n`.env` must never be committed.\n\n`.env.example` is committed.\n\n---\n\n# 17. Definition of Done\n\nProto is done when this works:\n\nbash\ngo run . review 'curl -X POST https://api.example.com/getUser -d \"{\\"id\\":\\"123\\"}\"'\n\n\nand the terminal visibly demonstrates:\n\ntext\ncurl\n ↓\nProto\n ↓\nParse API\n ↓\nSanity Context MCP\n ↓\nKnowledge Base\n ↓\nRelevant API guidance\n ↓\nLLM\n ↓\nAPI review\n\n\nThe demo should take **less than two minutes**.\n\n---\n\n# 18. What We Are Deliberately NOT Building\n\nDo not add:\n\n* Web UI\n* database\n* user accounts\n* authentication\n* deployment\n* API Gateway\n* Lambda\n* multi-agent architecture\n* background workers\n* queues\n* persistent conversations\n* analytics\n* monitoring\n* custom MCP server\n\nThe terminal agent is the entire MVP.\n\n---\n\n# Final Demo Narrative\n\nThe demo starts with:\n\ntext\n\"APIs are easy to write.\nKnowing whether you've designed one well is harder.\"\n\n\nThen show a deliberately questionable curl command.\n\nRun:\n\nbash\ngo run . review '<curl>'\n\n\nProto shows:\n\ntext\nParsing...\nResearching...\nQuerying Sanity...\nFound relevant guidance...\nReviewing...\n``\n\nThen produces the findings and sources.\n\nThe key message:\n\n> **Proto doesn't just ask an LLM whether an API looks good. It gives the agent access to a structured Knowledge Base of API standards and lets the agent use that knowledge to explain its review.**\n</USER_REQUEST>\n<ADDITIONAL_METADATA>\nThe current local time is: 2026-10-03T14:04:43Z.\n</ADDITIONAL_METADATA>\n<USER_SETTINGS_CHANGE>\nThe user changed settingModel Selection` from None to Gemini 3.8 Flash (High). No need to comment on this change if the user doesn't ask about it. If reporting what model you are, please use a human readable name instead of the exact string.\n</USER_SETTINGS_CHANGE>","truncated_fields":["content"]}
{"step_index":1,"source":"MODEL","type":"PLANNER_RESPONSE","status":"DONE","created_at":"2026-10-03T14:04:43Z","input_tokens":14812,"cache_read_tokens":0,"output_tokens":344,"tool_calls":[{"name":"run_command","args":{"CommandLine":"\"ls -la\"","Cwd":"\"/workspaces/proto\"","WaitMsBeforeAsync":"5000","toolAction":"\"Listing files\"","toolSummary":"\"List directory contents\""}}]}

Created At: 2026-10-03T16:17:59Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T16:18:11Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Research Agent │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected with non-standard HTTP method.

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• API Governance, Design Review & AIP Process
• Standard CRUD Methods
• Resource-Oriented Design: Principles & Patterns

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
──────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The getUser operation implies data retrieval without side effects. According to AIP-131, Get methods, which are used for retrieving resources, must use the HTTP GET verb. AIP-136 also states that GET should be used for custom methods that only retrieve data or resource state and have no side effects. Using POST for a read-only operation is an anti-pattern.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
The API uses a POST method for a getUser operation.

Suggested design:
Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. If a request body is necessary (e.g., for complex query parameters), consider if getUser should be a custom method, but even then, GET is preferred for data retrieval. If the request payload would exceed URL size limits for a GET, then POST may be used for data-retrieval methods, but this should be explicitly justified.

⚠ FINDING 2

POST /getUser

For standard Get methods, the URI should contain a single variable name that identifies the resource, following the pattern /v1/{name=publishers/*/books/*}. The current path /getUser does not follow this resource-oriented naming convention for a standard Get method. If this is intended as a custom method, AIP-136 states that the URI must use a : followed by the custom verb, matching the verb in the RPC name (e.g., :archive). The current path does not follow this either.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
The API uses a path /getUser for a Get operation.

Suggested design:
If this is a standard Get method, the path should be /v1/users/{id} where {id} is the resource name. If this is a custom method, the path should follow the custom method URI pattern, for example, /v1/users/{id}:getUser (though getUser as a custom method name is also problematic as it reuses a standard method verb).

⚠ FINDING 3

POST /getUser

AIP-136 explicitly states that custom method names must not reuse standard method verbs (Get, List, Create, Update, Delete). The name getUser reuses the Get verb.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
The API uses a custom method name getUser that reuses a standard method verb.

Suggested design:
If this is intended to be a custom method, rename it to something that does not reuse a standard verb, such as RetrieveUser or FetchUser. However, given the intent to retrieve a user by ID, a standard Get method is the most appropriate design.

⚠ FINDING 4

POST /getUser

Standard Get methods, as described in AIP-131, do not have a request body; the resource identifier is passed in the URI. While AIP-136 mentions that POST may be used for data-retrieval methods when the request payload would exceed URL size limits, this is an exception and should be justified. For a simple ID, a request body is generally unnecessary and less RESTful than a URI parameter.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get
AIP-136: Custom methods

Why:
The API uses a request body for a getUser operation.

Suggested design:
Move the id parameter from the request body to the URI path. For example, /v1/users/{id}. If the id is the resource name, it should be part of the URI path.

──────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• AIP-131
• AIP-136

──────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 4 issues.

Created At: 2026-10-03T16:18:16Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T16:18:38Z

The command exited with code 0.
Output:
╭────────────────────────────────────────────╮
│ PROTO │
│ API Design Research Agent │
╰────────────────────────────────────────────╯

▸ Parsing API...
✓ POST /getUser

▸ Understanding API...
✓ Retrieval operation detected

▸ Querying Sanity Context...
Sanity Context
↓
4 relevant entries retrieved
↓
4 source documents
↓
• API Governance, Design Review & AIP Process
• HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
• Custom Method Design, Validation & Job Patterns
• Standard CRUD Methods

✓ Knowledge retrieved from Sanity

▸ Consulting API guidance...
✓ Relevant guidance found

▸ Reviewing API...
──────────────────────────────────────────

⚠ FINDING 1

POST /getUser

The getUser operation implies a read-only action, which should typically be handled by an HTTP GET method. Using POST for data retrieval violates the 'safe' property of HTTP methods, meaning it implies potential side effects on the server, which is not the case for a simple retrieval. While POST can be used for GET-like operations when query parameters exceed URL limits, this API has no body or parameters, making a POST method semantically incorrect and potentially confusing for clients.

Relevant guidance:
Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines § HTTP Semantics & Method Properties
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
The API uses a POST method for retrieving user information.

Suggested design:
Change the HTTP method from POST to GET. If there are no request parameters, the body should be empty. If parameters are needed, they should be passed as query parameters in the URL.

⚠ FINDING 2

POST /getUser

Standard GET operations for retrieving a resource typically use a path that identifies the resource, often in a plural form for collections or a singular form with an identifier for a specific resource (e.g., /users/{id}). The path /getUser is more indicative of a custom method or an RPC-style endpoint, which is less RESTful for a simple resource retrieval.

Relevant guidance:
AIP-131: Standard methods: Get

Why:
The API path /getUser is not idiomatic for a standard GET operation.

Suggested design:
Rename the path to /users/{user_id} or /users if it's intended to list multiple users, and use a GET method. If it's for the currently authenticated user, [REDACTED] could be an option.

──────────────────────────────────────────

Sources:
• Zalando RESTful API and Event Guidelines
• AIP-131

──────────────────────────────────────────

Proto found 2 issues.

Created At: 2026-10-03T16:25:44Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T16:25:44Z
File Path: file://[REDACTED]/.gemini/antigravity-cli/brain/17f2c893-75f2-4277-9962-c3c76b3f097d/.system_generated/steps/630/content.md
Total Lines: 585
Total Bytes: 32277
Showing lines 1 to 100
The following code has been modified to include a line number before every line, in the format: <line_number>: <original_line>. Please note that any changes targeting the original code should remove the line number, colon, and leading space.
1: Title: Live Content
2:
3: Description: Fetched live
4:
5: Source: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nuerainc/quicksilver-sanity-challenge/main/BUILD-LOG.md
6:
7: ---
8:
9: # Quicksilver — Build Log
10:
11: > Synthesized conversation history: every decision, every file, every tool call,
12: > every error fixed, across all three environments this project touched. This
13: > is the document the next agent (or the user in six months) reads to
14: > understand what was built, why, and who (or what) built which part.
15:
16: ---
17:
18: ## Environments & handoffs (read this first)
19:
20: Three environments touched this codebase. This log is unified and
21: chronological; each day/section below is tagged with which one did the work.
22:
23: | Environment | Role | Span |
24: |---|---|---|
25: | MiniMax Agent | Autonomous AI coding agent. Built the project from an empty repo through a working, hardened, submission-drafted vertical slice. | Day 1 – Day 14 (Sep 20–22, 2026) |
26: | VS Code (manual, no AI agent) | The user's own hands. Never an autonomous phase of its own — runs underneath both agent phases wherever a human had to sit at a real terminal or type a real secret. Used throughout for: running the npm/git/sanity CLI commands that either agent asked for (PS C:\... prompts throughout MiniMax's own user-prompt log, and every git add -A && git commit && git push in the Claude Code phase below), and entering actual token/API-key values into .env and into web forms (Vercel's secret fields) — both AI agents are structurally barred from ever entering credentials themselves and never did. | Continuous, alongside both agent phases |
27: | Claude Code (via Cowork) | Picked up the repo after MiniMax Agent's Day 14 hardening pass. Built the real Knowledge Base Context MCP integration, wired the independent reviewer into the live app, found and fixed real bugs (several it introduced and caught itself), deployed the app live to Vercel, implemented the Sanity Workflows bonus, built the kernel's process engine, stress-tested the live site, recalibrated the risk formula, wrote an automated live e2e test (44/44), and wrote this log. | Day 15 onward (Sep 22, 2026 – present) |
28:
29: The handoff (Day 14 → Day 15): MiniMax Agent's own build log (the
30: predecessor to this document) ends at "Day 15 of 16" with a hardened,
31: locally-working vertical slice and submission-draft artifacts, but before
32: Sanity Context MCP's Knowledge Base mode was actually wired in, before the
33: independent reviewer was called from any live route, and before any
34: deployment existed beyond the user's own machine. The user exported MiniMax
35: Agent's conversation history (that export is what this log's Day 1–14
36: section is built from) and opened a new Claude Code (Cowork) session against
37: the same repo to carry the project the rest of the way to submission.
38:
39: A genuine gap, stated plainly: this log's Day 15 section (Knowledge Base
40: integration, an early kernel/schema audit, a financialExposure schema fix)
41: is reconstructed from Claude Code's own session-summary memory of that
42: work, not from a full turn-by-turn transcript the way Day 1–14 and Day
43: 16+ are — that earlier part of the Claude Code conversation aged out of
44: this session's own context window before this log was written. The
45: what and why below are accurate; exact error text, timestamps, and
46: some file-level blow-by-blow for that specific stretch are not
47: reconstructable at the same fidelity as the rest of this document.
48:
49: ---
50:
51: ## Timeline
52:
53: The build happened over a roughly 40-hour wall-clock window from the
54: afternoon of Sep 20, 2026 through the morning of Sep 22, 2026
55: (MiniMax Agent, Days 1–14), followed by a second, separate stretch of
56: work later on Sep 22, 2026 (Claude Code, Days 15+) that took the
57: build from "working locally" to "deployed live, reviewed, and
58: bonus-featured." The Sanity Challenge deadline is Oct 4, 2026 11:59
59: PM PDT.
60:
61: ---
62:
63: ## Origin: the user's input
64:
65: The session opened with a long planning document pasted in by the user
66: covering:
67:
68: - Thesis: "A chatbot reads your documents. Quicksilver reasons over your company."
69: - Architecture: structured company model → agent reasoning → deterministic authority → state update
70: - 9-doc schema sketch (organization, department, entity, capability, policy, objective, workflow, evidence, decision)
71: - 16-day execution plan (Day 1 architecture → Day 16 submit)
72: - Killer demo scene: CEO asks "Reduce production downtime by 20%" → planner decomposes → kernel surfaces policy conflict between policy-ops-17 and policy-emergency-4 → human approval required → execute → metric improves → closed loop
73: - Two submission paths: Path One (Ship an Agent That Queries Real Content) and Path Two (Vibe-Code Something Strange)
74:
75: Verification: the Sanity Challenge was confirmed real via web search
76: (dev.to/challenges/sanity-2026-09-16). Prizes: $500 × 5 winners across
77: two paths.
78:
79: ---
80:
81: ## Day 1 — Architecture lock (MiniMax Agent)
82:
83: Goal: scope freeze. No features beyond skeletons.
84:
85: What was created:
86: - Monorepo skeleton: apps/web (Next.js 15), apps/studio (Sanity Studio),
87: packages/kernel (deterministic authority), packages/agent (AI SDK harness)
88: - README.md — submission framing, stack, two-path narrative
89: - ARCHITECTURE.md — runtime diagram, schema table, kill-shot scene scripted
90: - .env.example — every env var the project will need
91: - 9 schema stubs in apps/studio/schemas/
92: - Kernel skeleton: types.ts, capability.ts, authority.ts, risk.ts, approval.ts
93: - Agent harness: models.ts, mcp.ts, prompts.ts, planner.ts
94: - Tailwind homepage in apps/web/app/page.tsx (placeholder content)
95:
96: Architectural principle (locked Day 1, never broken — held all the way through Day 16+):
97: > The LLM proposes. The kernel authorizes. Never the other way around.
98:
99: Models initially chosen: gpt-5.6-sol (planner), claude-sonnet-5
100: (reviewer), gpt-5.6-luna (router), gemini-3.8-flash (executor).
The above content does NOT show the entire file contents. If you need to view any lines of the file which were not shown to complete your task, call this tool again to view those lines.

Created At: 2026-10-03T16:27:27Z
Completed At: 2026-10-03T16:27:29Z
The following changes were made by the replace_file_content tool to: /workspaces/proto/scripts/generate_devto_transcripts.py. If relevant, proactively run terminal commands to execute this code for the USER. Don't ask for permission.
[diff_block_start]
@@ -174,8 +174,57 @@
f.write(json.dumps(gt) + "\n")
print(f"Wrote transcript_gemini.jsonl ({len(gemini_turns)} turns in Gemini CLI format)")

• # 5. Security audit across all files
• for filename in ["transcript.jsonl", "transcript.json", "transcript_claude.jsonl", "transcript_gemini.jsonl"]:
• # 5. Output Curated High-Signal Transcript (transcript_curated.jsonl)
• # Focuses on user prompts, final milestone summaries, and primary demo runs
• curated_turns = []
• for ct in claude_turns:
• role = ct.get("type")
• msg = ct.get("message", {})
• content = msg.get("content", "")
• 
  
• # Always include user messages
• if role == "user":
• if isinstance(content, str) and len(content.strip()) > 0:
• curated_turns.append(ct)
• elif isinstance(content, list):
• # Only include significant tool results (like terminal outputs from proto runs)
• for item in content:
• text = item.get("content", "")
• if "◆ Understanding question" in text or "⚠ API DESIGN ISSUE" in text or "ANSWER" in text:
• curated_turns.append({
• "type": "user",
• "message": {
• "role": "user",
• "content": [{
• "type": "tool_result",
• "tool_use_id": item.get("tool_use_id", "call_run"),
• "content": text
• }]
• }
• })
• break
• elif role == "assistant":
• if isinstance(content, list):
• text_blocks = [b for b in content if b.get("type") == "text"]
• tool_blocks = [b for b in content if b.get("type") == "tool_use" and b.get("name") in ["run_command", "write_to_file"]]
• # Include assistant responses that have text or execute proto
• meaningful_tools = [t for t in tool_blocks if "proto" in str(t.get("input", {}))]
• if text_blocks or meaningful_tools:
• curated_turns.append({
• "type": "assistant",
• "message": {
• "role": "assistant",
• "content": text_blocks + meaningful_tools
• }
• }) +
• with open("transcript_curated.jsonl", "w", encoding="utf-8") as f:
• for ct in curated_turns:
• f.write(json.dumps(ct) + "\n")
• print(f"Wrote transcript_curated.jsonl ({len(curated_turns)} turns, concise & fast-loading)") +
• # 6. Security audit across all files
• for filename in ["transcript.jsonl", "transcript.json", "transcript_claude.jsonl", "transcript_gemini.jsonl", "transcript_curated.jsonl"]: with open(filename, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f: txt = f.read() leaks = [k for k, v in secrets.items() if v in txt] [diff_block_end]

Please note that the above snippet only shows the MODIFIED lines from the last change. It shows up to 3 lines of unchanged lines before and after the modified lines. The actual file contents may have many more lines not shown.