Repository navigation
docs: update problem statement with progressive discovery details - #14
Conversation
|
@copilot rebase on main |
Merged the latest |
SamMorrowDrums
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some comments and suggestions, most weakly held. I am just struggling to get to the core of comparing things that are fundamentally different, in a space where many players do not seem to see any meaningful distinction, especially been unstructured and structured tool calling, and the consequences of either path.
🤷
|
Addressed the review feedback:
Also tightened the protocol rationale, evidence, scope, and evaluation criteria. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot review overview
🟡 Changes recommended
A moderate authorization and configuration-context requirement remains unresolved.
Review effort: Lite
Findings: 2
Open (2)
What changed in this PR
Updates the progressive discovery problem statement and adds an auditability question.
Changes:
- Documents motivation, examples, requirements, and evaluation criteria.
- Adds discovery auditability to the open questions.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
docs/problem-statement.md |
Expands the progressive discovery problem statement and requirements. |
docs/open-questions.md |
Adds a discovery auditability question. |
💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.
| [Related Work](related-work.md) | | ||
| [Contributing](../CONTRIBUTING.md) | ||
| # Progressive Discovery Problem Statement | ||
|
|
| bundled in plugins or “connectors” should be capable of exposing their full | ||
| surface, currently the lack of user configuration capabilities frequently | ||
| prevents this. |
3a930aa to
ae7054d
Compare

Initial strawman for a problem statement from @SamMorrowDrums, @helloeve, and myself.