{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"hn-47920787","slug":"oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi","name":"OSS Agent I built topped the TerminalBench on Gemini-3-flash-preview","type":"agent","url":"https://github.com/dirac-run/dirac","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi","categories":["cli-tools"],"tags":["hackernews","show-hn"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.terminal.command.execution.with.llm.reasoning","name":"terminal-command execution with llm reasoning","description":"Executes shell commands in a sandboxed terminal environment while maintaining bidirectional context with an LLM agent. The agent receives command output, error streams, and exit codes in real-time, enabling it to reason about execution results and decide on next steps. Implements a command-response loop where the LLM can chain multiple commands based on previous outputs, with built-in handling for interactive prompts and long-running processes.","intents":["I want an AI agent to autonomously execute terminal commands and interpret results to complete tasks","I need the agent to handle command failures gracefully and retry with different approaches","I want to give the agent access to shell utilities while maintaining safety boundaries"],"best_for":["developers building autonomous CLI automation agents","teams implementing DevOps task automation with LLM reasoning","researchers benchmarking agent performance on terminal-based tasks"],"limitations":["Sandboxing scope depends on host OS permissions — cannot fully isolate destructive commands without containerization","Real-time streaming of large command outputs may cause context window overflow in LLM","Interactive terminal prompts (password inputs, confirmations) require pre-configured responses or timeout handling"],"requires":["Unix-like shell environment (bash, zsh, sh)","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+ depending on implementation","LLM API access (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic, or local model)"],"input_types":["natural language task descriptions","shell command strings","environment variables"],"output_types":["command execution results (stdout/stderr)","exit codes","structured task completion status"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.multi.step.task.decomposition.and.planning","name":"multi-step task decomposition and planning","description":"Breaks down complex terminal-based tasks into executable subtasks using chain-of-thought reasoning. The agent generates a plan, executes steps sequentially, and dynamically adjusts the plan based on intermediate results. Implements backtracking logic where failed steps trigger re-planning with updated context about what went wrong.","intents":["I want the agent to break down a complex task like 'set up a development environment' into concrete steps","I need the agent to recover from failed steps by replanning rather than halting","I want visibility into the agent's reasoning about task decomposition"],"best_for":["autonomous DevOps agents handling multi-stage deployments","research projects evaluating agent planning capabilities","developers building task-oriented CLI assistants"],"limitations":["Plan quality degrades with task complexity — very deep dependency chains may exceed LLM reasoning capacity","Backtracking can create loops if failure modes are not properly distinguished","No built-in cost optimization — may generate redundant planning steps that increase API calls"],"requires":["LLM with chain-of-thought capability (Gemini 2.0+, GPT-4, Claude 3+)","Task description in natural language or structured format","Execution environment with command access"],"input_types":["natural language task descriptions","structured task specifications","execution context (environment state)"],"output_types":["task execution plan (step-by-step)","execution trace with reasoning","final task completion status"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_2","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.structured.action.schema.validation.and.execution","name":"structured action schema validation and execution","description":"Enforces a schema-based constraint system where the LLM can only execute actions (commands, API calls) that conform to predefined schemas. The framework validates action parameters before execution, preventing malformed or dangerous commands from reaching the terminal. Implements a registry pattern where actions are registered with type hints, constraints, and execution handlers.","intents":["I want to constrain what commands the agent can execute to prevent accidental system damage","I need to validate command parameters before they run (e.g., ensure file paths are within allowed directories)","I want to add custom actions beyond shell commands (e.g., API calls, database operations)"],"best_for":["production deployments requiring safety guardrails on agent actions","teams extending agents with custom domain-specific actions","security-conscious organizations limiting agent capabilities"],"limitations":["Schema definition overhead — requires upfront specification of all allowed actions","Overly restrictive schemas may prevent agents from solving tasks that require creative command combinations","Schema validation adds ~50-100ms latency per action execution"],"requires":["Schema definition language (JSON Schema, Pydantic, or equivalent)","Action handler implementations for each registered action","LLM capable of following structured output constraints"],"input_types":["action schemas (JSON/YAML)","LLM-generated action requests","parameter values"],"output_types":["validated action parameters","execution results","validation error messages"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_3","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.context.aware.command.history.and.state.tracking","name":"context-aware command history and state tracking","description":"Maintains a structured history of all executed commands, their outputs, and side effects. The agent can query this history to understand what has already been done, avoiding redundant operations. Implements state snapshots at key points, allowing the agent to reason about system state changes and detect when commands had unexpected effects.","intents":["I want the agent to remember what commands it already ran and avoid repeating them","I need the agent to detect when a command had side effects different from what was expected","I want to audit what the agent did and why it made each decision"],"best_for":["long-running agent sessions where command deduplication matters","debugging agent behavior and understanding decision chains","compliance scenarios requiring full execution audit trails"],"limitations":["History grows unbounded — requires periodic cleanup or summarization for long sessions","State snapshots consume memory proportional to environment size","Detecting unexpected side effects requires heuristics that may produce false positives"],"requires":["Persistent storage for command history (in-memory or database)","Mechanism to capture command outputs and exit codes","State comparison logic to detect changes"],"input_types":["executed commands","command outputs","environment state snapshots"],"output_types":["command history (queryable)","state change summaries","audit logs"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.error.recovery.and.retry.logic.with.exponential.backoff","name":"error recovery and retry logic with exponential backoff","description":"Automatically detects command failures (non-zero exit codes, timeout, resource exhaustion) and implements retry strategies with exponential backoff. Different error types trigger different recovery strategies: transient errors retry immediately, resource errors wait before retrying, and permanent errors trigger re-planning. Includes timeout handling for long-running commands with configurable thresholds.","intents":["I want the agent to retry failed commands automatically instead of giving up","I need different retry strategies for different types of failures (network vs permission errors)","I want to prevent the agent from hammering a service with rapid retries"],"best_for":["agents operating in unreliable environments (CI/CD, cloud deployments)","long-running automation tasks where transient failures are common","systems requiring resilience without human intervention"],"limitations":["Retry logic cannot distinguish between transient and permanent failures without explicit error classification","Exponential backoff may cause unacceptable delays for time-sensitive tasks","Retry loops can mask underlying problems if not properly logged and monitored"],"requires":["Error classification system (transient vs permanent)","Configurable retry parameters (max attempts, backoff multiplier)","Timeout mechanism for long-running commands"],"input_types":["command execution results","error codes and messages","timeout thresholds"],"output_types":["retry decisions","backoff delays","final success/failure status"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_5","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.llm.provider.abstraction.and.multi.model.support","name":"llm provider abstraction and multi-model support","description":"Abstracts the LLM backend behind a unified interface, allowing the agent to work with different providers (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic, local models) without code changes. Implements provider-specific adapters that handle differences in API formats, token counting, and function-calling schemas. Supports model switching at runtime based on task requirements or cost optimization.","intents":["I want to switch between different LLM providers without rewriting agent code","I need to use cheaper models for simple tasks and more capable models for complex reasoning","I want to run the agent with a local model for privacy or cost reasons"],"best_for":["teams evaluating multiple LLM providers","cost-conscious projects needing model selection flexibility","organizations with privacy requirements favoring local models"],"limitations":["Provider abstraction adds ~10-20ms latency per LLM call due to adapter overhead","Not all providers support identical feature sets — some adapters may degrade functionality","Token counting differs across providers, making cost estimation approximate"],"requires":["API keys or endpoints for at least one LLM provider","Provider-specific SDK or HTTP client","Model name/identifier for the target provider"],"input_types":["prompts","structured messages","function schemas"],"output_types":["LLM completions","function calls","token usage metadata"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"hn-47920787__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.benchmark.driven.performance.optimization","name":"benchmark-driven performance optimization","description":"Implements instrumentation and metrics collection throughout the agent execution pipeline to identify bottlenecks. Tracks latency per component (LLM inference, command execution, planning), token usage, and task success rates. Provides hooks for performance profiling and optimization, with built-in support for A/B testing different strategies.","intents":["I want to measure where time is spent in agent execution (LLM vs command execution)","I need to track token usage and optimize prompts to reduce API costs","I want to compare different agent strategies and see which performs better"],"best_for":["researchers benchmarking agent performance (like TerminalBench)","teams optimizing agent latency for production use","projects evaluating cost-performance tradeoffs"],"limitations":["Instrumentation overhead adds ~5-10% latency to overall execution","Metrics collection requires persistent storage for analysis","Benchmark results are environment-specific and may not generalize"],"requires":["Metrics collection infrastructure (logging, time tracking)","Benchmark dataset or task suite","Analysis tools for comparing results"],"input_types":["execution traces","performance metrics","benchmark task definitions"],"output_types":["latency breakdowns","token usage reports","success rate metrics","performance comparisons"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":47,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Unix-like shell environment (bash, zsh, sh)","Python 3.8+ or Node.js 16+ depending on implementation","LLM API access (Gemini, OpenAI, Anthropic, or local model)","LLM with chain-of-thought capability (Gemini 2.0+, GPT-4, Claude 3+)","Task description in natural language or structured format","Execution environment with command access","Schema definition language (JSON Schema, Pydantic, or equivalent)","Action handler implementations for each registered action","LLM capable of following structured output constraints","Persistent storage for command history (in-memory or database)"],"failure_modes":["Sandboxing scope depends on host OS permissions — cannot fully isolate destructive commands without containerization","Real-time streaming of large command outputs may cause context window overflow in LLM","Interactive terminal prompts (password inputs, confirmations) require pre-configured responses or timeout handling","Plan quality degrades with task complexity — very deep dependency chains may exceed LLM reasoning capacity","Backtracking can create loops if failure modes are not properly distinguished","No built-in cost optimization — may generate redundant planning steps that increase API calls","Schema definition overhead — requires upfront specification of all allowed actions","Overly restrictive schemas may prevent agents from solving tasks that require creative command combinations","Schema validation adds ~50-100ms latency per action execution","History grows unbounded — requires periodic cleanup or summarization for long sessions","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.82,"quality":0.24,"ecosystem":0.46,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"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":"2026-06-17T09:51:04.692Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-04T08:09:59.925Z","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=oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi"}},"signature":"Vwuunc9275l+F39gQhEdMEW+d14fL/zfbfg48t+AIaHREEhLpGLIs8mwvLeM9mRQz2WLrlkaqMA5+/RHO33kCQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T15:57:42.922Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=oss-agent-i-built-topped-the-terminalbench-on-gemi","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"}}