{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt","slug":"significant-gravitas--autogpt","name":"AutoGPT","type":"agent","url":"https://agpt.co","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/significant-gravitas--autogpt","categories":["ai-agents"],"tags":["agentic-ai","agents","ai","artificial-intelligence","autonomous-agents","claude","gpt","llama-api","llm","openai","python"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_0","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.visual.agent.workflow.composition.via.drag.and.drop.block.graph.editor","name":"visual agent workflow composition via drag-and-drop block graph editor","description":"Users design autonomous agent workflows by dragging blocks (nodes) onto a canvas and connecting them with edges to define data flow. The frontend uses React Flow for graph visualization, Zustand for state management, and RJSF for dynamic input forms. The backend persists agent graphs as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) in the database, enabling version control and collaborative editing. This abstraction eliminates the need to write agent orchestration code manually.","intents":["I want to build a multi-step AI workflow without writing orchestration code","I need to visually design and test agent logic before deployment","I want to reuse and share agent workflows with my team"],"best_for":["non-technical founders and product managers prototyping AI agents","teams building internal AI tools without dedicated ML engineers","developers wanting rapid iteration on agent logic without code churn"],"limitations":["Complex conditional logic requires custom block creation; RJSF forms limit advanced parameter validation","Graph visualization performance degrades with >100 blocks in a single workflow","No built-in version control branching — only linear history snapshots"],"requires":["Modern web browser with WebGL support (Chrome 90+, Firefox 88+, Safari 14+)","Supabase authentication credentials for user session management","Backend API endpoint for graph persistence and execution"],"input_types":["block definitions (JSON schema)","agent graph topology (DAG)","block input parameters"],"output_types":["executable agent graph (DAG)","block execution trace","agent output artifacts"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.multi.provider.llm.integration.with.dynamic.model.selection.and.credential.management","name":"multi-provider llm integration with dynamic model selection and credential management","description":"AutoGPT abstracts LLM provider differences (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, LlamaAPI) through a unified block interface that accepts provider-agnostic prompts and parameters. The backend's credential management system encrypts and stores API keys per user, routing requests to the appropriate provider's SDK at execution time. Dynamic fields in block schemas allow users to select models and providers without code changes, and the system handles provider-specific response parsing (token counts, function calling formats, streaming).","intents":["I want to switch between GPT-4, Claude, and open-source models without rewriting agent logic","I need to manage multiple LLM API keys securely and route requests based on cost/latency","I want to use provider-specific features (e.g., Claude's vision, OpenAI's function calling) in the same workflow"],"best_for":["teams evaluating multiple LLM providers and wanting to avoid vendor lock-in","cost-conscious builders wanting to route requests to cheaper models (Ollama, LlamaAPI) for non-critical tasks","enterprises requiring credential isolation and audit trails for API key usage"],"limitations":["Provider API rate limits are not automatically managed — requires external rate-limiting middleware","Response format normalization adds ~50-100ms latency per LLM call due to parsing overhead","Function calling schemas must be manually mapped per provider (OpenAI vs Anthropic vs Ollama have different formats)","Streaming responses require separate WebSocket handling; batch requests not optimized for parallel execution"],"requires":["Valid API key for at least one LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, or LlamaAPI)","Python 3.9+ for backend LLM integration libraries","Encrypted credential storage (Supabase or equivalent) for API key persistence"],"input_types":["provider name (string)","model identifier (string)","prompt (text)","parameters (JSON: temperature, max_tokens, etc.)"],"output_types":["LLM response text","token usage metadata","function call arguments (if applicable)","streaming chunks"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_10","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.agent.execution.scheduling.with.cron.based.triggers.and.webhook.integration","name":"agent execution scheduling with cron-based triggers and webhook integration","description":"Users can schedule agents to run on a recurring basis using cron expressions (e.g., 'every day at 9 AM', 'every Monday at 5 PM'). The scheduler service maintains a queue of scheduled executions and triggers them at the specified times. Agents can also be triggered via webhooks, allowing external systems to invoke agents (e.g., a form submission triggers a data processing agent). Webhook payloads are passed as input to the agent, and responses are returned to the caller. The system logs all scheduled and webhook-triggered executions for audit purposes.","intents":["I want to run my agent on a schedule (e.g., daily report generation, periodic data sync)","I want external systems to trigger my agent via webhook (e.g., form submission, API call)","I need to track all scheduled executions and their results for monitoring"],"best_for":["teams automating recurring tasks (reports, data syncs, notifications)","integrating agents into existing workflows via webhooks","monitoring and alerting on scheduled agent executions"],"limitations":["Cron scheduling is basic; no support for complex schedules (e.g., 'every 2 weeks on Tuesday')","Webhook payloads are limited to JSON; binary data (files, images) must be base64-encoded","Webhook timeout is fixed (e.g., 30 seconds); long-running agents must use async execution","No built-in retry logic for failed scheduled executions; requires manual intervention"],"requires":["Scheduler service (background worker) for managing scheduled executions","Cron expression parser (e.g., croniter in Python)","Webhook endpoint exposed by backend for external triggers"],"input_types":["cron expression (string)","webhook payload (JSON)","agent parameters (JSON)"],"output_types":["scheduled execution ID (UUID)","webhook response (JSON)","execution status (queued/running/completed/failed)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_11","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.agent.collaboration.and.sharing.with.role.based.access.control.rbac","name":"agent collaboration and sharing with role-based access control (rbac)","description":"Users can share agents with team members by assigning roles (viewer, editor, owner) that control what actions they can perform. Viewers can execute agents but not modify them; editors can modify agents and execute them; owners can modify, execute, and share agents. The system tracks who made changes to agents (via version history) and enforces access control at the API level. Shared agents appear in the user's workspace with a 'shared' badge, and users can see who has access to each agent.","intents":["I want to share an agent with my team so they can use it without modifying it","I need to control who can edit my agents and track changes made by collaborators","I want to revoke access to an agent without deleting it"],"best_for":["teams collaborating on agents and needing access control","enterprises requiring audit trails of who modified agents","organizations with different user roles (analysts, engineers, managers)"],"limitations":["RBAC is simple (viewer/editor/owner); no fine-grained permissions (e.g., 'can modify blocks but not credentials')","No group-based sharing; agents must be shared individually with each user","Access revocation is immediate but not retroactive; previous executions by revoked users remain in history","No delegation of sharing permissions; only owners can share agents"],"requires":["User authentication and identity management (Supabase or equivalent)","Database schema for storing access control lists (ACLs)","API-level authorization checks for all agent operations"],"input_types":["agent ID (UUID)","user ID (UUID)","role (viewer/editor/owner)"],"output_types":["access control entry (user + role)","access list (all users with access)","audit log (who changed what, when)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_12","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.agent.performance.monitoring.and.analytics.with.execution.metrics.and.cost.tracking","name":"agent performance monitoring and analytics with execution metrics and cost tracking","description":"The system tracks execution metrics for each agent: success rate, average duration, credit usage, and error frequency. A dashboard displays these metrics over time, enabling users to identify performance bottlenecks and cost drivers. Detailed execution logs include block-level timing (how long each block took), LLM token usage, and error messages. Users can filter executions by date range, status, or error type. The system alerts users if an agent's success rate drops below a threshold or credit usage spikes unexpectedly.","intents":["I want to see how often my agent succeeds and where it fails most often","I need to understand which blocks are slow and optimize them","I want to track how much my agent costs to run and optimize for cost"],"best_for":["teams optimizing agent performance and cost","SaaS platforms offering agents and needing usage analytics","developers debugging agent failures and performance issues"],"limitations":["Metrics are aggregated hourly; real-time metrics are not available","Alerting is basic (threshold-based); no anomaly detection or predictive alerts","Cost tracking is at the block/LLM level; fine-grained cost attribution (per-token, per-API-call) requires custom logic","Dashboard is read-only; no built-in optimization recommendations"],"requires":["Metrics collection infrastructure (e.g., Prometheus, CloudWatch)","Time-series database for storing metrics (e.g., InfluxDB, TimescaleDB)","Dashboard UI for visualizing metrics (e.g., Grafana, custom React components)"],"input_types":["execution ID (UUID)","block name (string)","metric name (string: duration, tokens, cost, etc.)"],"output_types":["execution metrics (JSON)","agent analytics dashboard (aggregated metrics)","alert (if threshold exceeded)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_13","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.classic.autogpt.standalone.agent.with.memory.tool.use.and.autonomous.task.decomposition","name":"classic autogpt standalone agent with memory, tool use, and autonomous task decomposition","description":"The Classic AutoGPT component is a standalone agent framework (separate from the Platform) that implements an autonomous agent loop: perceive environment, reason about goals, decompose tasks, use tools, and update memory. The agent maintains a long-term memory of past actions and outcomes, enabling it to learn from failures and avoid repeating mistakes. Tool use is implemented via function calling (OpenAI/Anthropic APIs), and the agent can invoke external APIs, run code, and read files. The Forge toolkit provides utilities for building and testing custom agents, and the agbenchmark framework benchmarks agent performance on standardized tasks.","intents":["I want to build a fully autonomous agent that can break down complex tasks and execute them without human intervention","I need to benchmark my agent's performance against standard tasks and compare with other agents","I want to extend the agent with custom tools and memory strategies"],"best_for":["researchers and developers building autonomous agents and wanting a reference implementation","teams benchmarking agent performance and comparing approaches","developers wanting fine-grained control over agent behavior (memory, reasoning, tool use)"],"limitations":["Classic AutoGPT is less actively maintained than the Platform; the Platform is the primary focus","Autonomous agents are unpredictable and can take unexpected actions; requires careful monitoring and guardrails","Memory management is manual; no built-in persistence or memory optimization","Tool use is limited to function calling; no support for complex tool interactions or multi-step tool chains"],"requires":["Python 3.9+ for agent implementation","LLM API key (OpenAI or Anthropic) for reasoning and tool calling","Forge toolkit for building custom agents","agbenchmark for evaluating agent performance"],"input_types":["task description (string)","available tools (list of function schemas)","memory state (JSON)"],"output_types":["task result (string/JSON)","execution trace (list of actions taken)","memory updates (JSON)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_14","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.agent.benchmarking.framework.agbenchmark.with.standardized.task.evaluation.and.leaderboard","name":"agent benchmarking framework (agbenchmark) with standardized task evaluation and leaderboard","description":"The agbenchmark framework provides a standardized set of tasks (e.g., 'write a Python script to calculate Fibonacci', 'fetch data from an API and transform it') that agents can be evaluated against. Each task has a clear success criterion (e.g., 'output matches expected result'), and the framework measures success rate, execution time, and cost. Agents are ranked on a leaderboard, enabling comparison across different approaches and implementations. The framework is extensible; developers can add custom tasks and evaluation criteria.","intents":["I want to benchmark my agent's performance against standard tasks and compare with other agents","I need to evaluate whether my agent improvements actually work or if they're just anecdotal","I want to contribute new benchmark tasks to the community"],"best_for":["researchers and developers evaluating agent approaches and comparing performance","teams measuring progress on agent improvements over time","the open-source community contributing standardized benchmarks"],"limitations":["Benchmark tasks are limited in scope (coding, data fetching, etc.); real-world agent tasks are more complex","Success criteria are binary (pass/fail); no nuance for partial success or near-misses","Benchmarking is time-consuming (each task can take minutes); full benchmark runs are impractical for rapid iteration","Leaderboard is community-maintained; no official verification or fraud prevention"],"requires":["Python 3.9+ for running benchmarks","LLM API key for agent evaluation","Benchmark task definitions (JSON or YAML)"],"input_types":["agent implementation (Python class)","benchmark task (JSON: description, success criteria, expected output)"],"output_types":["task result (pass/fail)","execution metrics (time, cost, tokens)","leaderboard entry (agent name, score, rank)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_2","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.extensible.block.system.with.custom.block.creation.and.marketplace.distribution","name":"extensible block system with custom block creation and marketplace distribution","description":"The block system defines a standardized interface (input schema, output schema, execution logic) that developers can implement to create reusable workflow components. Custom blocks are registered in a block registry, versioned, and can be published to a marketplace for discovery and reuse. The backend's block loader dynamically instantiates blocks at execution time based on block type and version, supporting both built-in blocks (AI, integration, data flow) and community-contributed blocks. RJSF is used to auto-generate input forms from block schemas.","intents":["I want to create a custom block that integrates with my internal API or proprietary tool","I need to publish reusable blocks to a marketplace so other teams can use them","I want to version and update blocks without breaking existing agent workflows"],"best_for":["developers building domain-specific blocks for internal tools or SaaS integrations","open-source contributors extending AutoGPT with new capabilities","enterprises creating a library of standardized blocks for consistent agent patterns"],"limitations":["Block execution is synchronous by default; async blocks require custom event handling and add complexity","No built-in block testing framework — developers must write custom unit tests","Block schema validation is JSON Schema only; complex validation logic must be implemented in block code","Marketplace discovery is basic (keyword search only); no dependency resolution for blocks that require other blocks"],"requires":["Python 3.9+ for block implementation","Understanding of block interface (input_schema, output_schema, execute method)","JSON Schema knowledge for defining block input/output contracts","Access to block registry and marketplace API for publishing"],"input_types":["block schema (JSON Schema)","block code (Python class)","block metadata (name, version, description)"],"output_types":["registered block (in block registry)","published block (in marketplace)","block execution result"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","code-generation-editing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.agent.execution.engine.with.rabbitmq.based.microservice.orchestration.and.credit.based.rate.limiting","name":"agent execution engine with rabbitmq-based microservice orchestration and credit-based rate limiting","description":"The execution system is a distributed microservice architecture where the REST API service receives execution requests, publishes them to RabbitMQ queues, and worker services consume and execute agent graphs. The executor service traverses the DAG, instantiates blocks, passes data between blocks, and handles failures with retry logic. A credit system tracks execution costs (per LLM call, per block type, per execution duration) and enforces rate limits per user. The scheduler manages job queues and worker allocation, enabling horizontal scaling by adding more worker instances.","intents":["I want to run agent workflows asynchronously without blocking the API","I need to track and limit execution costs per user or team","I want to scale agent execution across multiple worker nodes"],"best_for":["teams running high-volume agent executions and needing horizontal scalability","SaaS platforms offering agent-as-a-service with per-user cost tracking","enterprises requiring audit trails and execution monitoring"],"limitations":["RabbitMQ adds ~200-500ms latency per execution due to message queuing overhead","Retry logic is basic (exponential backoff only); no circuit breaker pattern for failing blocks","Credit system is coarse-grained (per-block or per-LLM-call); fine-grained cost attribution requires custom logic","No built-in distributed tracing; debugging multi-step executions requires log aggregation"],"requires":["RabbitMQ instance (local or cloud-hosted) for message queuing","Python 3.9+ for executor and scheduler services","Database (PostgreSQL recommended) for execution history and credit tracking","Redis (optional) for caching and session management"],"input_types":["agent graph (DAG)","execution parameters (JSON)","user credentials (API key or session token)"],"output_types":["execution ID (UUID)","execution status (queued/running/completed/failed)","execution result (JSON)","credit usage (numeric)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.websocket.based.real.time.agent.execution.monitoring.and.streaming.output","name":"websocket-based real-time agent execution monitoring and streaming output","description":"The backend exposes a WebSocket API that clients can connect to for real-time updates during agent execution. As blocks execute, the system emits events (block_started, block_completed, output_generated, error_occurred) to connected clients, enabling live progress visualization. Streaming outputs from LLM blocks are forwarded directly to clients via WebSocket, reducing latency compared to polling. The frontend subscribes to these events and updates the UI in real-time, showing execution progress, intermediate results, and errors.","intents":["I want to see live progress as my agent executes, not wait for the final result","I need to stream LLM outputs to the user as they're generated, not buffer them","I want to debug agent execution by watching block inputs/outputs in real-time"],"best_for":["interactive agent applications where users expect real-time feedback","debugging and development workflows where visibility into execution is critical","streaming applications (chatbots, content generation) where latency matters"],"limitations":["WebSocket connections are stateful and require connection pooling; scaling to 10k+ concurrent users requires load balancing","Event emission adds ~10-50ms overhead per block execution due to serialization and network I/O","No built-in backpressure handling; rapid event emission can overwhelm slow clients","Browser WebSocket support requires modern browsers; older clients must fall back to polling"],"requires":["WebSocket-capable backend (FastAPI with WebSocket support)","Modern web browser with WebSocket support (Chrome 16+, Firefox 11+, Safari 6+)","Network connectivity between client and backend (no proxy/firewall blocking WebSocket upgrades)"],"input_types":["execution ID (UUID)","WebSocket connection (client-initiated)"],"output_types":["execution event stream (JSON)","block output (text/JSON)","error messages (text)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_5","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.dynamic.form.generation.from.block.schemas.using.react.json.schema.form.rjsf","name":"dynamic form generation from block schemas using react json schema form (rjsf)","description":"Block input schemas are defined as JSON Schema, and the frontend uses RJSF to automatically generate interactive forms for users to configure block parameters. RJSF supports custom widgets for complex input types (file uploads, credential selectors, model dropdowns), and the form validation is performed client-side before execution. The schema-driven approach allows block developers to define input contracts without writing UI code, and users can configure blocks without understanding the underlying schema structure.","intents":["I want to configure block parameters through a user-friendly form, not by editing JSON","I need custom input widgets for domain-specific types (e.g., credential selectors, model dropdowns)","I want form validation to catch configuration errors before execution"],"best_for":["non-technical users configuring agents without JSON editing","block developers wanting to expose parameters without writing custom UI","teams standardizing on a schema-driven approach to configuration"],"limitations":["RJSF has limited support for conditional fields (showing/hiding fields based on other field values); complex UX requires custom widgets","Validation is JSON Schema only; business logic validation must be implemented in block code","Custom widgets require React knowledge; non-developers cannot easily extend form behavior","Large schemas (>50 fields) result in unwieldy forms; no built-in field grouping or tabs"],"requires":["JSON Schema-compliant block input schema","React 18+ for RJSF integration","Custom widgets for non-standard input types (optional but recommended)"],"input_types":["JSON Schema (block input schema)","form values (user input)"],"output_types":["validated form data (JSON)","form errors (array of validation messages)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_6","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.encrypted.credential.storage.and.per.user.api.key.management.with.audit.logging","name":"encrypted credential storage and per-user api key management with audit logging","description":"The credentials management system encrypts and stores user API keys (for LLM providers, integrations, etc.) in the database, keyed by user ID. At execution time, the system retrieves and decrypts credentials, injecting them into blocks without exposing keys in agent definitions or logs. The system maintains an audit log of credential access (which user accessed which credential, when, from which block), enabling security monitoring. Credentials are scoped to users, preventing cross-user access and enabling multi-tenant isolation.","intents":["I want to securely store API keys without hardcoding them in agent definitions","I need to audit which blocks and users accessed which credentials","I want to rotate API keys without updating all agents that use them"],"best_for":["multi-tenant SaaS platforms requiring credential isolation","enterprises with security/compliance requirements (SOC 2, HIPAA)","teams managing many integrations and wanting centralized credential management"],"limitations":["Encryption key management is not built-in; requires external key management service (AWS KMS, HashiCorp Vault)","Audit logs are append-only; no built-in log retention policies or archival","Credential rotation requires manual updates; no automatic rotation for provider-managed credentials","Credential sharing between users is not supported; each user must store their own keys"],"requires":["Encryption key (stored securely, e.g., AWS KMS, HashiCorp Vault, or environment variable)","Database with encryption support (PostgreSQL with pgcrypto recommended)","User authentication system (Supabase or equivalent) for credential scoping"],"input_types":["credential name (string)","credential value (API key, password, etc.)","credential type (openai_api_key, anthropic_api_key, etc.)"],"output_types":["credential ID (UUID)","decrypted credential (at execution time only)","audit log entry (timestamp, user, credential, action)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_7","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.agent.graph.versioning.and.rollback.with.execution.history.tracking","name":"agent graph versioning and rollback with execution history tracking","description":"Every time a user saves an agent graph, the system creates a new version snapshot in the database, storing the complete DAG topology, block configurations, and metadata (creator, timestamp, description). Users can view the execution history for any agent, including which version was executed, execution status, duration, and credit usage. The system supports rolling back to previous versions, and execution history is immutable for audit purposes. Version diffs show what changed between versions (blocks added/removed, parameters modified).","intents":["I want to see what changed in my agent between versions and roll back if needed","I need to track which agent version was used for each execution for debugging","I want to maintain an audit trail of agent changes for compliance"],"best_for":["teams collaborating on agents and needing to track changes","production agents where rollback capability is critical","enterprises requiring audit trails for compliance (SOC 2, HIPAA)"],"limitations":["Version diffs are computed on-demand; no built-in branching or merging (linear history only)","Execution history is immutable but not automatically archived; storage grows with execution volume","No built-in A/B testing framework; comparing agent versions requires manual execution and analysis","Rollback is manual; no automatic rollback on execution failure"],"requires":["Database with versioning support (PostgreSQL recommended)","User authentication for tracking who made changes","Sufficient storage for execution history (estimate ~1KB per execution)"],"input_types":["agent graph (DAG)","version metadata (description, creator)"],"output_types":["version ID (UUID)","version snapshot (complete DAG)","execution history (list of executions)","version diff (changes between versions)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_8","uri":"capability://code.generation.editing.data.flow.type.validation.and.schema.aware.edge.routing.between.blocks","name":"data flow type validation and schema-aware edge routing between blocks","description":"The block system enforces type contracts: each block defines output types (e.g., 'text', 'json', 'image'), and edges can only connect outputs to inputs of compatible types. The frontend validates connections at graph design time, preventing type mismatches. At execution time, the executor validates data flowing through edges and raises errors if types don't match, preventing silent data corruption. The schema-driven approach enables IDE-like autocomplete for block outputs and inputs, guiding users to valid connections.","intents":["I want the system to prevent me from connecting incompatible blocks (e.g., image output to text input)","I need to see what outputs are available from a block before connecting it to the next block","I want type errors to be caught at design time, not during execution"],"best_for":["teams building complex workflows where type safety prevents bugs","non-technical users who benefit from guided block connections","developers wanting to avoid silent data corruption from type mismatches"],"limitations":["Type system is basic (string, number, boolean, json, image); no support for union types or generics","Type validation is strict; no implicit type coercion (e.g., string to number), requiring explicit conversion blocks","Custom types require block developer to define them; no built-in type registry or discovery","Type validation adds ~10-20ms overhead per edge traversal at execution time"],"requires":["Block output types defined in block schema (JSON Schema with custom 'type' field)","Frontend validation logic (React Flow custom edge validation)","Executor type checking at runtime"],"input_types":["block output type (string)","block input type (string)","data value (any)"],"output_types":["validation result (boolean)","type error message (string)","compatible blocks (list)"],"categories":["code-generation-editing","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-significant-gravitas--autogpt__cap_9","uri":"capability://search.retrieval.agent.marketplace.with.discovery.rating.and.one.click.deployment","name":"agent marketplace with discovery, rating, and one-click deployment","description":"The marketplace is a curated library of pre-built agents that users can browse, filter by category/use case, and deploy with a single click. Each agent listing includes a description, screenshots, ratings, and usage statistics. Deployed agents are cloned into the user's workspace, allowing customization. The backend tracks agent popularity (downloads, ratings) and surfaces trending agents. Agent creators can publish agents to the marketplace and earn credits or revenue (if monetization is enabled).","intents":["I want to find a pre-built agent for a common use case (e.g., customer support, content generation) instead of building from scratch","I want to see how other users have solved similar problems and learn from their agents","I want to publish my agent to the marketplace so others can use it"],"best_for":["non-technical users wanting quick-start agents without building from scratch","teams looking for inspiration and best practices from community agents","developers monetizing agents through the marketplace"],"limitations":["Marketplace discovery is basic (keyword search, category filters); no advanced filtering (by LLM provider, block types, etc.)","No built-in agent versioning in marketplace; publishing a new version replaces the old one","Quality control is minimal; no review process for published agents, risking low-quality or malicious agents","Revenue sharing model is not defined; monetization is a future feature"],"requires":["User account with publishing permissions (optional, can be restricted)","Agent definition (DAG) to publish","Marketplace API for listing and deployment"],"input_types":["agent definition (DAG)","agent metadata (name, description, category, tags)","search query (string)"],"output_types":["agent listing (metadata + ratings)","search results (list of agents)","deployed agent (cloned into user workspace)"],"categories":["search-retrieval","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":59,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Modern web browser with WebGL support (Chrome 90+, Firefox 88+, Safari 14+)","Supabase authentication credentials for user session management","Backend API endpoint for graph persistence and execution","Valid API key for at least one LLM provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, or LlamaAPI)","Python 3.9+ for backend LLM integration libraries","Encrypted credential storage (Supabase or equivalent) for API key persistence","Scheduler service (background worker) for managing scheduled executions","Cron expression parser (e.g., croniter in Python)","Webhook endpoint exposed by backend for external triggers","User authentication and identity management (Supabase or equivalent)"],"failure_modes":["Complex conditional logic requires custom block creation; RJSF forms limit advanced parameter validation","Graph visualization performance degrades with >100 blocks in a single workflow","No built-in version control branching — only linear history snapshots","Provider API rate limits are not automatically managed — requires external rate-limiting middleware","Response format normalization adds ~50-100ms latency per LLM call due to parsing overhead","Function calling schemas must be manually mapped per provider (OpenAI vs Anthropic vs Ollama have different formats)","Streaming responses require separate WebSocket handling; batch requests not optimized for parallel execution","Cron scheduling is basic; no support for complex schedules (e.g., 'every 2 weeks on Tuesday')","Webhook payloads are limited to JSON; binary data (files, images) must be base64-encoded","Webhook timeout is fixed (e.g., 30 seconds); long-running agents must use async execution","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.9915432811413505,"quality":0.5,"ecosystem":0.6000000000000001,"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":"2026-05-24T12:16:22.064Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T13:57:19.179Z","last_commit":"2026-05-02T23:36:34Z"},"community":{"stars":183951,"forks":46243,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=significant-gravitas--autogpt","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=significant-gravitas--autogpt"}},"signature":"5b2S5Z437MPwKyfunldloGnrWimCT38rAXBgWV14YzfIOc9UVuD+JFTJbmAbLFxKPqx3wZSfqL2lGOAxYOkOAw==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T13:46:59.378Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/significant-gravitas--autogpt","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/significant-gravitas--autogpt","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=significant-gravitas--autogpt","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"}}