I had debated building something like this, and I really want to see what the other fork in the path looks like.
One of the core tenants of mine is to not impose a workflow or set of tooling on the user. I specifically opted not to go with k8s because access to local files is going to be a pain, and I think people will still expect that. There’s all sorts of “I need this binary that’s not in APT”, or “you need this cert to test, and we can’t commit it” stumbling blocks.
Yours feels like it’s pushing me into an unfamiliar workflow, but opinionated tools are often better so it’s worth a try.
My only direct criticism is that I think k8s is a bad way to go for this (but is probably what people expect). For personal use, k8s is more than I want to deal with. For work use, I suspect lambdas would be cheaper and avoid a ton of maintenance junk. We tend to think of agents as a persistent process, but they’re sort of not. They’re a stateless process that is effectively dead until a new message comes in, let it be dead until something else comes down the pipe.
1. I can feel the claudisms coming through, a turnoff for me personally
2. You're shaving yourself short on a good pun
I'll still give it a look since I am in the market for a kubernetes based platform for dealing with lots of agents across harnesses. Scion was my goto, but I'm not so keen on that project anymore.
My ideal solution does not require a running server (CRDs should be sufficient) nor a UI, I want to start new agents in my existing automations.
Also, which lines on the website are the claudiest? I tried to edit out the tone, especially too many one-two punches, but to be honest couldn’t be bothered to write every word myself still
If you want humans to spend time reading and evaluating, put the human time into writing and editing.