potiuk opened a new issue, #319:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow-steward/issues/319

   **Goal:** Bring Block's Goose to feature parity with Claude Code as a skill 
runtime. Grounds: [RFC-AI-0004 Principle 3 — Vendor 
neutrality](../tree/main/docs/rfcs/RFC-AI-0004.md).
   
   **Why Goose:** Fully open-source (Apache 2.0), backend-agnostic (Claude, 
GPT, Gemini, OpenRouter, local LLMs via Ollama), first-class MCP support, 
mature recipe / extension system. Goose is one of the strongest open-source 
agentic CLIs for adopters who want a fully-OSS stack — no vendor CLI in the 
dependency tree.
   
   **What "parity" means:**
   
   - Skills under `.claude/skills/<name>/SKILL.md` are invokable as Goose 
recipes
   - The `tools/*` bridges are reachable (Goose's `developer` extension covers 
shell commands directly)
   - Sandbox parity: Goose has its own permissions model + supports running 
under external sandboxes; map to the framework's `bubblewrap` baseline
   - HITL primitives: Goose supports per-action confirmation modes — verify and 
document
   
   **Suggested approach:**
   
   - Map `SKILL.md` → Goose recipe format (Goose recipes are YAML / Markdown 
describing a workflow)
   - Reuse the framework's MCP servers where Goose supports them — Goose has 
strong MCP coverage
   - Validate against the eval suite 
([`tools/skill-evals/`](../tree/main/tools/skill-evals/)) — Goose's multi-model 
nature makes it useful for cross-model validation
   
   **Reference:**
   
   - RFC-AI-0004: 
[`docs/rfcs/RFC-AI-0004.md`](../tree/main/docs/rfcs/RFC-AI-0004.md)
   - Goose: https://github.com/block/goose
   - Goose recipes: https://block.github.io/goose/docs/guides/recipes/
   - Existing skill shape: [`.claude/skills/`](../tree/main/.claude/skills/)
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to