{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-eidolon","slug":"eidolon","name":"Eidolon","type":"framework","url":"https://eidolonai.com/","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/eidolon","categories":["ai-agents"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"unknown","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.pluggable.agent.component.architecture.with.runtime.composition","name":"pluggable agent component architecture with runtime composition","description":"Eidolon provides a modular, plugin-based architecture where agents are composed from interchangeable components (LLM providers, memory backends, tool executors, reasoning engines) that can be swapped at runtime without code changes. Components implement standard interfaces and are registered via a dependency injection container, allowing teams to mix providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, local models) and storage backends (vector DBs, file systems, databases) without rewriting agent logic.","intents":["I want to build multi-agent systems where I can swap LLM providers without rewriting agent code","I need to test agents with different memory backends (Redis, PostgreSQL, in-memory) without changing business logic","I want to compose complex agents from reusable, independently-tested components","I need to support multiple tool execution environments (local, cloud functions, APIs) interchangeably"],"best_for":["teams building production multi-agent systems requiring provider flexibility","enterprises needing to switch between proprietary and open-source LLMs","developers building agent frameworks that need to support multiple backends"],"limitations":["component interface contracts must be well-defined upfront; breaking changes require versioning strategy","runtime composition adds latency for component initialization and dependency resolution","debugging multi-component systems requires tracing across component boundaries"],"requires":["understanding of dependency injection patterns","clear component interface definitions","runtime configuration management (YAML/JSON or environment variables)"],"input_types":["component definitions (code or configuration)","provider credentials and endpoints","agent specifications"],"output_types":["composed agent instances","component dependency graphs","runtime configuration manifests"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","architecture-patterns"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.multi.agent.orchestration.with.inter.agent.communication","name":"multi-agent orchestration with inter-agent communication","description":"Eidolon enables coordination of multiple specialized agents that can communicate, delegate tasks, and share context through a message-passing or event-driven architecture. Agents can be configured with different capabilities (reasoning, tool use, memory) and coordinate work through a central orchestrator that routes messages, manages agent state, and handles task dependencies and result aggregation.","intents":["I want to decompose complex problems across specialized agents (planner, executor, validator) that work together","I need agents to delegate subtasks to other agents and wait for results","I want to build hierarchical agent systems where some agents supervise others","I need to coordinate agents across different domains (research agent, code agent, deployment agent)"],"best_for":["teams building complex automation workflows requiring task decomposition","enterprises needing specialized agents for different domains to collaborate","developers implementing hierarchical reasoning systems"],"limitations":["inter-agent communication adds latency proportional to number of hops and message size","debugging distributed agent interactions requires comprehensive logging and tracing","deadlock or circular dependencies between agents require careful workflow design","state consistency across agents requires explicit synchronization mechanisms"],"requires":["message queue or event bus infrastructure (in-process or distributed)","agent state management and persistence layer","timeout and retry policies for inter-agent calls"],"input_types":["agent definitions with capabilities","task specifications with dependencies","routing rules and delegation policies"],"output_types":["aggregated results from multiple agents","execution traces showing inter-agent communication","structured task completion reports"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_10","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.api.server.generation.with.rest.grpc.endpoints.for.agent.access","name":"api server generation with rest/grpc endpoints for agent access","description":"Eidolon automatically generates API servers (REST or gRPC) that expose agents as callable endpoints, handling request parsing, response serialization, authentication, and rate limiting. The API schema is derived from agent definitions, enabling automatic documentation generation and client SDK creation without manual API definition.","intents":["I want to expose agents as REST or gRPC APIs without writing server code","I need automatic API documentation and client SDKs for agent endpoints","I want to add authentication and rate limiting to agent APIs","I need to version agent APIs and manage breaking changes"],"best_for":["teams building agent services requiring API exposure","organizations needing to integrate agents with external systems","developers wanting rapid API development without boilerplate"],"limitations":["auto-generated APIs may not match all use cases; custom endpoints may be needed","API versioning requires careful planning to avoid breaking clients","authentication and authorization must be configured per endpoint","rate limiting requires state management and coordination across instances"],"requires":["HTTP server framework (FastAPI, Flask, etc.) or gRPC runtime","API schema generation from agent definitions","authentication and rate limiting middleware"],"input_types":["agent definitions","API configuration (port, authentication, rate limits)","request payloads matching agent input types"],"output_types":["HTTP/gRPC server instances","API documentation (OpenAPI/Swagger)","response payloads matching agent output types"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_2","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.declarative.agent.configuration.with.yaml.json.specifications","name":"declarative agent configuration with yaml/json specifications","description":"Eidolon allows agents to be defined declaratively through configuration files (YAML/JSON) that specify agent name, capabilities, LLM provider, memory backend, tools, and reasoning strategy without requiring code. The configuration is parsed at startup and used to instantiate agents through the component registry, enabling non-developers to modify agent behavior and teams to version control agent definitions separately from code.","intents":["I want to configure agents without writing code or redeploying","I need to version control agent definitions separately from application code","I want non-technical team members to adjust agent behavior (model, temperature, tools)","I need to quickly experiment with different agent configurations in different environments"],"best_for":["teams with non-technical stakeholders who need to adjust agent behavior","organizations requiring configuration management and GitOps workflows","development teams wanting rapid experimentation with agent configurations"],"limitations":["complex conditional logic or dynamic agent creation still requires code","configuration validation errors may only surface at runtime","large configuration files become difficult to manage without tooling","secrets management requires external integration (environment variables, vaults)"],"requires":["YAML or JSON configuration files","schema validation for configuration format","environment variable substitution for secrets and endpoints"],"input_types":["YAML or JSON configuration files","environment variables for runtime values","component registry definitions"],"output_types":["instantiated agent objects","configuration validation reports","agent capability manifests"],"categories":["automation-workflow","configuration-management"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_3","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.tool.function.calling.with.schema.based.provider.abstraction","name":"tool/function calling with schema-based provider abstraction","description":"Eidolon abstracts tool calling across multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, local models) by converting tool definitions into provider-specific schemas (OpenAI function calling, Anthropic tool_use, etc.) and handling the provider-specific request/response formats transparently. Tools are defined once with a standard schema and automatically adapted to each provider's function calling protocol, with result handling and error recovery built in.","intents":["I want agents to call external tools/APIs without writing provider-specific code","I need to switch LLM providers without rewriting tool calling logic","I want to define tools once and have them work across OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models","I need reliable tool execution with automatic retries and error handling"],"best_for":["teams building agents that need multi-provider tool calling support","developers wanting to abstract away provider-specific function calling differences","organizations migrating between LLM providers"],"limitations":["some providers have different tool calling semantics (parallel vs sequential) requiring normalization","tool result validation and type coercion adds processing overhead","complex tool schemas with deep nesting may not map cleanly to all providers","provider-specific features (tool choice, parallel tool calls) require custom handling"],"requires":["tool definitions with JSON schema specifications","provider API keys and endpoints","tool implementation functions or API endpoints"],"input_types":["tool definitions (name, description, parameters schema)","tool implementation code or API endpoints","LLM provider configuration"],"output_types":["provider-specific function calling requests","tool execution results","error reports and retry attempts"],"categories":["tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_4","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.memory.management.with.pluggable.storage.backends","name":"memory management with pluggable storage backends","description":"Eidolon provides a memory abstraction layer supporting multiple storage backends (vector databases for semantic memory, traditional databases for structured memory, file systems for persistent memory) that agents can query and update. Memory is indexed by semantic similarity or structured queries, and the backend can be swapped (e.g., from in-memory to Redis to PostgreSQL) through configuration without changing agent code.","intents":["I want agents to remember context across conversations without storing everything in context window","I need semantic search over agent memory to retrieve relevant past interactions","I want to switch from in-memory storage to persistent databases as agents scale","I need agents to share memory across instances for consistency"],"best_for":["teams building stateful agents that need persistent memory","applications requiring semantic search over agent interactions","organizations needing to scale agents from development to production"],"limitations":["semantic memory requires embedding generation, adding latency and cost","memory retrieval quality depends on embedding model and query formulation","large memory stores require pagination and filtering to avoid context explosion","memory consistency across distributed agents requires synchronization mechanisms"],"requires":["embedding model (local or API-based)","vector database or traditional database for storage","memory schema definitions (what to store, how to index)"],"input_types":["agent interactions (messages, tool calls, results)","memory queries (semantic or structured)","memory update operations"],"output_types":["retrieved memory items with relevance scores","memory storage confirmations","memory statistics and usage reports"],"categories":["memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_5","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.reasoning.strategy.abstraction.with.chain.of.thought.and.planning.patterns","name":"reasoning strategy abstraction with chain-of-thought and planning patterns","description":"Eidolon provides pluggable reasoning strategies (chain-of-thought, tree-of-thought, hierarchical planning, etc.) that agents can use to decompose problems and generate solutions. Reasoning strategies are implemented as components that can be swapped to change how agents approach problem-solving without modifying agent logic, supporting different reasoning patterns for different problem types.","intents":["I want agents to use different reasoning strategies (CoT, ToT, planning) for different problem types","I need to experiment with reasoning approaches without rewriting agent code","I want agents to generate intermediate reasoning steps for explainability","I need to optimize reasoning for latency vs accuracy tradeoffs"],"best_for":["teams building agents that need to solve diverse problem types","researchers experimenting with different reasoning approaches","organizations requiring explainable agent decisions"],"limitations":["complex reasoning strategies (tree-of-thought) multiply LLM calls, increasing latency and cost","reasoning quality depends heavily on prompt engineering and model capability","intermediate reasoning steps may not always improve final answer quality","reasoning strategy selection requires domain knowledge or empirical testing"],"requires":["LLM capable of generating reasoning steps","reasoning strategy implementations","evaluation metrics to assess reasoning quality"],"input_types":["problem statements or queries","reasoning strategy specifications","constraints (latency, cost, accuracy targets)"],"output_types":["reasoning traces with intermediate steps","final solutions with justifications","reasoning quality metrics"],"categories":["planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_6","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.agent.lifecycle.management.with.initialization.execution.and.cleanup","name":"agent lifecycle management with initialization, execution, and cleanup","description":"Eidolon manages the complete lifecycle of agents from initialization (loading configuration, instantiating components, warming up resources) through execution (handling requests, managing state) to cleanup (persisting state, releasing resources). The lifecycle is managed through hooks and callbacks that allow custom initialization logic, error recovery, and resource cleanup without requiring developers to manage these concerns manually.","intents":["I want agents to initialize with all required resources (models, databases, API connections) before handling requests","I need agents to gracefully handle errors and recover without losing state","I want to ensure agents clean up resources (database connections, file handles) when shutting down","I need to monitor agent health and restart unhealthy agents automatically"],"best_for":["teams deploying agents to production requiring reliability","applications needing long-running agents with state persistence","organizations requiring observability and health monitoring"],"limitations":["initialization overhead can delay first request; requires warm-up or pre-initialization","state persistence requires external storage; in-memory state is lost on restart","error recovery strategies must be defined per agent; no one-size-fits-all approach","resource cleanup requires explicit implementation; resource leaks possible if not handled"],"requires":["lifecycle hook implementations","state persistence layer","health check and monitoring infrastructure"],"input_types":["agent configuration","initialization parameters","health check specifications"],"output_types":["initialized agent instances","health status reports","state persistence confirmations"],"categories":["automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_7","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.request.response.handling.with.streaming.and.async.execution","name":"request/response handling with streaming and async execution","description":"Eidolon handles agent requests through a request/response model that supports both synchronous blocking calls and asynchronous streaming responses. Agents can stream partial results as they become available, allowing clients to receive incremental updates without waiting for complete execution. The framework handles backpressure, buffering, and error propagation across streaming boundaries.","intents":["I want agents to stream results as they become available rather than waiting for completion","I need to handle long-running agent operations without blocking client connections","I want to build interactive applications where users see agent progress in real-time","I need to handle backpressure when clients consume results slower than agents produce them"],"best_for":["teams building interactive agent applications with real-time feedback","applications with long-running agent operations requiring progress visibility","systems needing to handle high-concurrency agent requests"],"limitations":["streaming adds complexity to error handling and recovery","partial results may be incomplete or require post-processing","backpressure handling requires careful buffer management to avoid memory issues","client-side streaming support varies (HTTP/1.1 vs HTTP/2 vs WebSocket)"],"requires":["async/await or callback-based execution model","streaming transport (Server-Sent Events, WebSocket, gRPC)","buffer management and backpressure handling"],"input_types":["agent requests with parameters","streaming preferences (chunk size, timeout)"],"output_types":["streamed response chunks","completion status and metadata","error messages with recovery options"],"categories":["automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_8","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.observability.and.tracing.with.execution.logs.and.metrics","name":"observability and tracing with execution logs and metrics","description":"Eidolon provides built-in observability through structured logging of agent execution (LLM calls, tool invocations, memory operations, reasoning steps) and metrics collection (latency, token usage, error rates). Execution traces can be exported to observability platforms (OpenTelemetry, DataDog, etc.) for analysis and debugging, with support for distributed tracing across multi-agent systems.","intents":["I want to understand what agents are doing and why they made decisions","I need to debug agent failures by examining execution traces","I want to monitor agent performance (latency, cost, accuracy) in production","I need to trace requests across multiple agents in a distributed system"],"best_for":["teams operating agents in production requiring visibility","organizations needing to debug agent behavior and failures","teams optimizing agent performance and cost"],"limitations":["comprehensive tracing adds overhead to agent execution","large execution traces require storage and indexing infrastructure","sensitive data in traces requires careful redaction and access control","trace analysis requires domain expertise to interpret agent behavior"],"requires":["structured logging framework","metrics collection and aggregation","observability platform (optional but recommended)"],"input_types":["agent execution events","LLM calls and responses","tool invocations and results"],"output_types":["structured execution logs","performance metrics and statistics","distributed traces with parent-child relationships"],"categories":["automation-workflow","monitoring"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-eidolon__cap_9","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.error.handling.and.recovery.with.retry.policies.and.fallbacks","name":"error handling and recovery with retry policies and fallbacks","description":"Eidolon implements configurable error handling strategies including automatic retries with exponential backoff, fallback providers (e.g., switch to cheaper model on rate limit), circuit breakers to prevent cascading failures, and graceful degradation when components fail. Error handling is defined per component and can be customized through configuration without code changes.","intents":["I want agents to automatically retry failed operations with exponential backoff","I need agents to fall back to alternative providers when primary provider fails","I want to prevent cascading failures when downstream services are unavailable","I need agents to degrade gracefully when optional components fail"],"best_for":["teams deploying agents to production requiring reliability","applications using multiple LLM providers for cost optimization","systems needing to handle transient failures gracefully"],"limitations":["retry logic can mask underlying issues if not configured carefully","fallback providers may have different behavior (latency, quality) affecting results","circuit breakers require careful tuning to avoid false positives","error recovery may increase total latency significantly"],"requires":["retry policy definitions (max attempts, backoff strategy)","fallback provider configurations","circuit breaker thresholds and timeouts"],"input_types":["error conditions and types","retry and fallback policies","circuit breaker configuration"],"output_types":["retry attempts and results","fallback provider selections","circuit breaker state transitions"],"categories":["automation-workflow","reliability"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":26,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["understanding of dependency injection patterns","clear component interface definitions","runtime configuration management (YAML/JSON or environment variables)","message queue or event bus infrastructure (in-process or distributed)","agent state management and persistence layer","timeout and retry policies for inter-agent calls","HTTP server framework (FastAPI, Flask, etc.) or gRPC runtime","API schema generation from agent definitions","authentication and rate limiting middleware","YAML or JSON configuration files"],"failure_modes":["component interface contracts must be well-defined upfront; breaking changes require versioning strategy","runtime composition adds latency for component initialization and dependency resolution","debugging multi-component systems requires tracing across component boundaries","inter-agent communication adds latency proportional to number of hops and message size","debugging distributed agent interactions requires comprehensive logging and tracing","deadlock or circular dependencies between agents require careful workflow design","state consistency across agents requires explicit synchronization mechanisms","auto-generated APIs may not match all use cases; custom endpoints may be needed","API versioning requires careful planning to avoid breaking clients","authentication and authorization must be configured per endpoint","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.32,"ecosystem":0.25,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.3,"quality":0.2,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.039Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:10.321Z","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=eidolon","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=eidolon"}},"signature":"/pDdrZbFf1wl4mynPjKECXpcsKn3eCZTVOkdrEzacvoFh2gawUoLu5IZul4zyeGAa4umMUOR4/3CUWF1IPcWCA==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T08:05:59.346Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/eidolon","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/eidolon","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=eidolon","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"}}