{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"smithery_boring-boring","slug":"boring-boring","name":"boring","type":"agent","url":"https://github.com/Boring206/boring-gemini","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/boring-boring","categories":["ai-agents","app-builders"],"tags":["mcp","model-context-protocol","smithery:boring/boring"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_0","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.spec.driven.code.generation.with.iterative.auto.fix","name":"spec-driven code generation with iterative auto-fix","description":"Generates code implementations from natural language specifications, then automatically detects failures through test execution and iteratively refines implementations until they pass. Uses a feedback loop that chains specification → generation → verification → error analysis → regeneration, enabling self-correcting workflows without manual intervention between cycles.","intents":["I want to write a feature spec and have the agent implement it end-to-end with automatic error correction","I need code generated that's guaranteed to pass my test suite without manual debugging","I want to reduce the back-and-forth between spec writing and implementation validation"],"best_for":["teams implementing spec-driven development workflows","developers building safety-critical code that requires rigorous verification","solo developers wanting to offload implementation details while maintaining control via specs"],"limitations":["auto-fix cycles are bounded — no maximum iteration limit documented, risking infinite loops on unsolvable specs","requires well-formed test suites to drive verification; weak or missing tests reduce effectiveness","performance degrades with complex specs requiring many refinement cycles (each cycle invokes LLM)"],"requires":["Cursor IDE, VS Code, or Claude Desktop with MCP support","Gemini API access (primary LLM provider)","executable test framework in target language (Jest, pytest, etc.)"],"input_types":["natural language specification","test code (unit/integration tests)","existing codebase context"],"output_types":["generated source code","test execution results","error analysis and fix recommendations"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.based.ide.integration.with.privacy.first.execution","name":"mcp-based ide integration with privacy-first execution","description":"Exposes code generation and verification capabilities through the Model Context Protocol (MCP), enabling native integration into Cursor, VS Code, and Claude Desktop without sending code to external servers. Uses local MCP server architecture where all code processing, test execution, and LLM calls are orchestrated locally with optional privacy controls.","intents":["I want AI-assisted coding without uploading my proprietary code to cloud services","I need seamless integration with my existing IDE workflow without context switching","I want to use Boring as a consistent tool across Cursor, VS Code, and Claude Desktop"],"best_for":["enterprises with strict data residency or IP protection requirements","developers working on sensitive/proprietary codebases","teams standardizing on MCP-compatible tools for consistent AI workflows"],"limitations":["MCP server must be running locally — adds deployment complexity vs cloud-only solutions","IDE integration quality depends on MCP implementation in each client (Cursor, VS Code, Claude Desktop); feature parity not guaranteed","local execution means no benefit from cloud-scale compute optimization"],"requires":["Cursor 0.40+ or VS Code 1.80+ with MCP extension support","Claude Desktop with MCP server configuration","Node.js 18+ or Python 3.9+ (depending on MCP server implementation)","local network access to MCP server endpoint"],"input_types":["code files from IDE workspace","user prompts/specifications","IDE context (selected text, file metadata)"],"output_types":["code suggestions/completions","refactored code blocks","inline diagnostics and fixes"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_2","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.multi.file.codebase.aware.code.generation","name":"multi-file codebase-aware code generation","description":"Generates code with awareness of the full project structure, existing implementations, and cross-file dependencies by analyzing the codebase context before generation. Likely uses AST parsing or semantic analysis to understand module relationships, import patterns, and naming conventions, enabling generated code that integrates seamlessly with existing patterns.","intents":["I want generated code that follows my project's existing patterns and conventions","I need the agent to understand how my modules interact before generating new code","I want to generate code for a feature that spans multiple files without manual integration work"],"best_for":["developers working on large, multi-file projects with established patterns","teams with strict code style and architecture guidelines","projects where cross-file consistency is critical (monorepos, microservices)"],"limitations":["codebase analysis adds latency proportional to project size; very large codebases (100k+ LOC) may timeout","context window limits prevent analyzing entire massive projects — requires intelligent context selection","generated code quality depends on consistency of existing patterns; chaotic codebases produce inconsistent generations"],"requires":["codebase accessible to MCP server (local filesystem)","supported language for AST parsing (JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, etc.)","project with clear module structure and import patterns"],"input_types":["natural language feature request","target file location","existing codebase files and structure"],"output_types":["generated source code","import statements and module references","integration points with existing code"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.test.driven.verification.and.validation","name":"test-driven verification and validation","description":"Executes test suites against generated code to validate correctness, capturing test output and failure details to drive iterative refinement. Integrates with standard test frameworks (Jest, pytest, etc.) by spawning test processes, parsing results, and feeding failures back into the generation loop for automatic error correction.","intents":["I want generated code that's guaranteed to pass my existing test suite","I need automated validation that my implementation matches the spec without manual testing","I want to catch bugs in generated code immediately rather than discovering them in production"],"best_for":["teams practicing test-driven development (TDD) or behavior-driven development (BDD)","projects with comprehensive test coverage","safety-critical systems where code correctness is non-negotiable"],"limitations":["test quality directly impacts generation quality — poor or incomplete tests won't catch real bugs","test execution time multiplies with iteration count; slow test suites become bottlenecks","integration tests requiring external services (databases, APIs) may fail unpredictably in automated loops"],"requires":["executable test suite in project (Jest, pytest, Mocha, etc.)","test framework compatible with subprocess execution","tests that run deterministically without manual intervention"],"input_types":["test code (unit/integration/e2e tests)","generated implementation code","test execution environment"],"output_types":["test pass/fail status","error messages and stack traces","coverage metrics (if available)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_4","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.error.analysis.and.structured.fix.recommendation","name":"error analysis and structured fix recommendation","description":"Parses test failures, compilation errors, and runtime exceptions to extract actionable error information, then generates targeted fix recommendations by analyzing the error context and failed code. Uses error message parsing and code diff analysis to understand what went wrong and suggest specific corrections without regenerating from scratch.","intents":["I want the agent to understand why generated code failed and suggest specific fixes","I need detailed error analysis that helps me understand what went wrong","I want targeted refinements rather than complete code regeneration"],"best_for":["developers debugging complex generated code","teams wanting to learn from generation failures","projects where understanding error root causes is important for code quality"],"limitations":["error message quality varies by language and framework — cryptic errors may not parse correctly","stack traces don't always pinpoint root cause; error analysis may be superficial","no guaranteed mapping between error and fix — some errors require architectural changes beyond local fixes"],"requires":["structured error output from test/compilation framework","code context (generated code + error location)","language-specific error parsing rules"],"input_types":["error messages and stack traces","generated code that failed","test output"],"output_types":["error root cause analysis","fix recommendations","code snippets showing corrections"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_5","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.natural.language.to.code.specification.translation","name":"natural language to code specification translation","description":"Converts natural language feature descriptions into structured code specifications that can be reliably implemented and verified. Likely uses prompt engineering or specification templates to extract requirements, constraints, and acceptance criteria from free-form text, creating a machine-readable spec that guides generation.","intents":["I want to describe a feature in plain English and have it automatically converted to a testable spec","I need to ensure my feature description is unambiguous before implementation starts","I want to document requirements in a way that both humans and AI can understand"],"best_for":["non-technical stakeholders writing feature descriptions","teams standardizing on spec-driven development","projects where requirement clarity is critical"],"limitations":["natural language is inherently ambiguous — translation may misinterpret intent","complex requirements with many edge cases may not translate cleanly to specs","spec quality depends on input clarity; vague descriptions produce vague specs"],"requires":["natural language input describing feature","context about existing codebase and patterns","clarity on acceptance criteria and constraints"],"input_types":["natural language feature description","project context and conventions","example implementations or patterns"],"output_types":["structured specification","acceptance criteria","test case templates"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_6","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.iterative.refinement.with.bounded.feedback.loops","name":"iterative refinement with bounded feedback loops","description":"Implements a controlled loop that generates code, tests it, analyzes failures, and regenerates with corrections, with configurable iteration limits and convergence detection. Uses feedback from each cycle to inform the next generation, progressively improving code quality until tests pass or iteration limit is reached.","intents":["I want the agent to keep refining code until it passes all tests automatically","I need to control how many times the agent retries before giving up","I want visibility into the refinement process and why iterations are happening"],"best_for":["developers wanting hands-off code generation with automatic error recovery","teams with well-defined test suites that can drive refinement","projects where iteration cost is acceptable (fast test suites)"],"limitations":["unbounded iterations risk infinite loops on unsolvable specs — iteration limits must be configured carefully","each iteration invokes LLM, multiplying API costs and latency","convergence detection is heuristic-based; may terminate prematurely or continue unnecessarily","some bugs require architectural changes that iterative local fixes cannot solve"],"requires":["test suite that can run repeatedly","configurable iteration limits and timeout settings","feedback mechanism to detect convergence or failure"],"input_types":["initial code specification","test suite","iteration configuration (max iterations, timeout)"],"output_types":["final generated code","iteration history and metrics","convergence status (passed, timeout, max iterations)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_7","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.cross.ide.workflow.consistency.via.mcp.standardization","name":"cross-ide workflow consistency via mcp standardization","description":"Provides identical capability set and behavior across Cursor, VS Code, and Claude Desktop by implementing a single MCP server that abstracts IDE differences. Uses MCP's standardized request/response protocol to ensure that spec-driven generation, testing, and verification work identically regardless of which IDE the developer uses.","intents":["I want to use the same Boring workflow in Cursor, VS Code, and Claude Desktop without learning different interfaces","I need my team to have consistent AI-assisted coding experience across different IDE choices","I want to switch IDEs without losing access to my AI coding tools"],"best_for":["teams with mixed IDE preferences (Cursor, VS Code, Claude Desktop)","developers frequently switching between IDEs","organizations standardizing on MCP-compatible tools"],"limitations":["IDE-specific features (debugging, performance profiling) may not be accessible through MCP abstraction","MCP implementation quality varies by IDE client — some may have bugs or missing features","workflow consistency depends on MCP server stability; server crashes affect all connected IDEs"],"requires":["MCP-compatible IDE (Cursor 0.40+, VS Code 1.80+, Claude Desktop)","MCP server running and accessible to all IDEs","consistent configuration across IDE instances"],"input_types":["IDE-specific context (selected code, file metadata)","user prompts and specifications"],"output_types":["generated code","inline suggestions","diagnostics and fixes"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_boring-boring__cap_8","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.project.context.indexing.and.semantic.understanding","name":"project context indexing and semantic understanding","description":"Indexes the codebase to build a semantic understanding of project structure, module relationships, naming conventions, and architectural patterns. Uses this index to inform code generation, ensuring generated code respects existing patterns and integrates seamlessly with the project's design.","intents":["I want generated code that understands my project's architecture and design patterns","I need the agent to respect my naming conventions and code style automatically","I want to generate code that integrates with my existing modules without manual refactoring"],"best_for":["large projects with established architectural patterns","teams with strict code style guidelines","monorepos and multi-package projects with complex dependencies"],"limitations":["indexing adds startup latency; large projects (100k+ LOC) may take minutes to index","index must be kept in sync with codebase changes — stale index produces poor generations","semantic understanding is limited by language support; some languages may have incomplete indexing"],"requires":["codebase accessible to MCP server","language-specific parser/indexer (AST parsing, semantic analysis)","sufficient memory to hold project index"],"input_types":["project source code","module structure and imports","naming conventions and patterns"],"output_types":["project index","semantic relationships","pattern recommendations"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":31,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Cursor IDE, VS Code, or Claude Desktop with MCP support","Gemini API access (primary LLM provider)","executable test framework in target language (Jest, pytest, etc.)","Cursor 0.40+ or VS Code 1.80+ with MCP extension support","Claude Desktop with MCP server configuration","Node.js 18+ or Python 3.9+ (depending on MCP server implementation)","local network access to MCP server endpoint","codebase accessible to MCP server (local filesystem)","supported language for AST parsing (JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, etc.)","project with clear module structure and import patterns"],"failure_modes":["auto-fix cycles are bounded — no maximum iteration limit documented, risking infinite loops on unsolvable specs","requires well-formed test suites to drive verification; weak or missing tests reduce effectiveness","performance degrades with complex specs requiring many refinement cycles (each cycle invokes LLM)","MCP server must be running locally — adds deployment complexity vs cloud-only solutions","IDE integration quality depends on MCP implementation in each client (Cursor, VS Code, Claude Desktop); feature parity not guaranteed","local execution means no benefit from cloud-scale compute optimization","codebase analysis adds latency proportional to project size; very large codebases (100k+ LOC) may timeout","context window limits prevent analyzing entire massive projects — requires intelligent context selection","generated code quality depends on consistency of existing patterns; chaotic codebases produce inconsistent generations","test quality directly impacts generation quality — poor or incomplete tests won't catch real bugs","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.43,"ecosystem":0.5900000000000001,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.5,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.28,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:25.636Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T15:19:05.145Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=boring-boring","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=boring-boring"}},"signature":"jBpPYjpUrivU4SZ2gmkiJ7OHNnSYqsxJdC5MRju17fsVso4Ae9B5MgHfT2/X7ENPcB1Vvy1DP8kXsdzZiMp0Aw==","signedAt":"2026-06-19T21:01:20.701Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/boring-boring","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/boring-boring","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=boring-boring","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}