Skill: evaluate-agent-native
Use this skill to rigorously evaluate whether a service qualifies as "agent-native" according to the five-criterion standard. Also check for the URL Onboarding signal — the strongest indicator that a service was truly built for agents from day one.
The gold standard: URL Onboarding
Before applying the five criteria, ask the highest-level question:
Can an agent join and start using this service by reading a single URL?
Services that answer YES are exhibiting the strongest possible form of agent-nativeness. They have internalized the agent as first-class user so deeply that the onboarding flow itself is machine-readable:
CODEBLOCK0
Examples:
- - Moltbook:
Read https://www.moltbook.com/skill.md — complete registration, heartbeat, posting, DM protocol - Ensue / autoresearch@home:
Read https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mutable-state-inc/autoresearch-at-home/master/collab.md — complete swarm joining, claiming, publishing protocol
This is qualitatively different from:
- - An SDK that a human developer installs (requires human coding time)
- An MCP server that a human adds to a config file (requires human config edit)
- A REST API that requires API key setup (requires human account creation)
URL Onboarding means the agent itself handles all of this — reading, understanding, and executing the join sequence autonomously.
Mark URL Onboarding as a strong bonus signal and highlight it prominently in the evaluation report.
When to activate
Activate when the user asks:
- - "Is [service] agent-native?"
- "Does [service] qualify for the awesome list?"
- "I want to add [service] — does it meet the criteria?"
- "What's the difference between agent-native and agent-adapted?"
- "Why isn't [service] on the list?"
- "Does [service] have URL Onboarding?"
The five hard criteria
A service must pass all five to qualify as agent-native. Evaluate each one explicitly.
Criterion 1 — Agent-First Positioning
Test: Does the official homepage or documentation explicitly identify AI agents as the primary consumer?
Evidence to look for:
- - Homepage headline naming AI agents
- Documentation framing agents as the core user
- Product name or tagline that only makes sense for agents
Red flags:
- - "Now with AI agent support" (agents are an add-on)
- "Build apps, workflows, and agents" (agents are one of many outputs)
Criterion 2 — Agent-Specific Primitives
Test: Does the API expose at least one primitive with no meaningful human-facing equivalent?
Questions to ask:
- - What is the core API object? Agent inbox? KYA token? Claim? Heartbeat? Or generic inbox/token/task?
- Would this primitive exist if agents didn't exist?
- Is the output format optimized for LLM consumption or human reading?
Pass examples: agent inbox, KYA identity token, approval gate with context-window injection, claim_experiment(), heartbeat protocol, publish_hypothesis().
Fail examples: a REST API that sends emails (humans use it too), a webhook any server can receive.
Criterion 3 — Autonomy-Compatible Control Plane
Test: Can an agent complete a full task loop without a human clicking anything?
Questions to ask:
- - Can the agent provision its own credentials?
- Can the agent initiate, execute, and complete the action without a human redirect?
- Does the service provide agent-appropriate constraint mechanisms?
Criterion 4 — Machine-to-Machine Integration Surface
Test: Is the primary interface an SDK, REST API, MCP server, webhook, or machine-readable URL?
Questions to ask:
- - Can an agent use this service without a human ever opening a browser?
- Is there a URL, SDK, REST API, or MCP server documented as the primary integration path?
Note: A service that exposes a machine-readable skill.md or protocol URL (URL Onboarding) passes this criterion with exceptional strength.
Criterion 5 — Agent Identity / Delegation Semantics
Test: Does the service distinguish (a) agent's own identity, (b) delegated user permissions, (c) audit trail?
Bonus signals (check all that apply)
| Signal | Weight | Evidence to look for |
|---|
| URL Onboarding ⭐⭐⭐ | Highest | Service hosts a machine-readable skill.md / protocol doc an agent reads and follows to self-register |
| Dedicated agent identity model |
High | Agent gets its own credential/wallet/token |
| MCP server published | Medium | Official MCP server with documented tools |
| Agent Skills (SKILL.md) published | Medium |
npx skills add org/repo works |
| Per-agent state / memory / session | Medium | State isolated by agent instance |
| Audit / trajectory artifacts | Medium | Machine-readable evidence of agent actions |
How to test for URL Onboarding:
- 1. Look for a
skill.md, SKILL.md, collab.md, or similar machine-readable protocol file hosted at the service's domain or GitHub. - Ask: could an agent read that URL and complete the full registration/onboarding sequence autonomously?
- Try the instruction:
Read <url> and follow the instructions — does it work?
Classification decision tree
CODEBLOCK1
Evaluation output format
CODEBLOCK2
Common borderline cases
"The product added an MCP server — does that make it agent-native?"
No. MCP support is a bonus signal, not a criterion. The core question is whether the service was designed from inception for agents. A human email provider that adds an MCP server is still agent-adapted.
"The service has URL Onboarding but other criteria are weak."
URL Onboarding is the strongest bonus signal but cannot substitute for the five hard criteria. Evaluate all five independently; URL Onboarding is an amplifier, not a replacement.
"The service says 'for AI agents' in marketing."
Check the actual primitives. URL Onboarding is a reliable signal because it requires genuine design effort — you can't fake it with a marketing blog post.
技能:evaluate-agent-native
使用此技能,根据五项标准严格评估某项服务是否符合原生代理资格。同时检查 URL 接入信号——这是判断某项服务是否真正从第一天起为代理构建的最强指标。
黄金标准:URL 接入
在应用五项标准之前,先提出最高层级的问题:
代理能否通过读取单个 URL 加入并开始使用该服务?
回答是的服务展现了最强形式的代理原生性。它们已将代理视为一等用户,以至于接入流程本身都是机器可读的:
一条指令即可完成完整的代理接入:
读取
并按照说明操作。
示例:
- - Moltbook:读取 https://www.moltbook.com/skill.md — 完整的注册、心跳、发布、DM 协议
- Ensue / autoresearch@home:读取 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mutable-state-inc/autoresearch-at-home/master/collab.md — 完整的群组加入、认领、发布协议
这与以下情况有本质区别:
- - 需要人类开发者安装的 SDK(需要人类编码时间)
- 需要人类添加到配置文件中的 MCP 服务器(需要人类配置编辑)
- 需要设置 API 密钥的 REST API(需要人类创建账户)
URL 接入意味着代理本身处理所有这些——自主读取、理解并执行加入流程。
将 URL 接入标记为强加分信号,并在评估报告中突出显示。
何时激活
当用户询问以下问题时激活:
- - [服务]是原生代理吗?
- [服务]是否符合 awesome 列表的资格?
- 我想添加[服务]——它符合标准吗?
- 原生代理和适配代理有什么区别?
- 为什么[服务]不在列表中?
- [服务]有 URL 接入吗?
五项硬性标准
一项服务必须全部通过才能被认定为原生代理。逐项明确评估。
标准 1 — 代理优先定位
测试: 官方首页或文档是否明确将 AI 代理标识为主要消费者?
需要寻找的证据:
- - 首页标题提及 AI 代理
- 文档将代理定位为核心用户
- 产品名称或标语仅对代理有意义
警示信号:
- - 现已支持 AI 代理(代理是附加功能)
- 构建应用、工作流和代理(代理是众多输出之一)
标准 2 — 代理专用原语
测试: API 是否至少暴露一个没有有意义的人类对应物的原语?
需要问的问题:
- - 核心 API 对象是什么?代理收件箱?KYA 令牌?认领?心跳?还是通用收件箱/令牌/任务?
- 如果代理不存在,这个原语还会存在吗?
- 输出格式是针对 LLM 消费优化还是人类阅读优化?
通过示例: 代理收件箱、KYA 身份令牌、带上下文窗口注入的审批门、claimexperiment()、心跳协议、publishhypothesis()。
失败示例: 发送电子邮件的 REST API(人类也使用)、任何服务器都能接收的 webhook。
标准 3 — 自主兼容控制平面
测试: 代理能否无需人类点击任何内容完成完整的任务循环?
需要问的问题:
- - 代理能否自行配置凭证?
- 代理能否在没有人类重定向的情况下发起、执行并完成操作?
- 服务是否提供适合代理的约束机制?
标准 4 — 机器对机器集成面
测试: 主要接口是否是 SDK、REST API、MCP 服务器、webhook 或机器可读 URL?
需要问的问题:
- - 代理能否在不打开浏览器的情况下使用此服务?
- 是否有记录为主要集成路径的 URL、SDK、REST API 或 MCP 服务器?
注意: 暴露机器可读的 skill.md 或协议 URL(URL 接入)的服务以极强的力度通过此标准。
标准 5 — 代理身份/委托语义
测试: 服务是否区分 (a) 代理自身身份、(b) 委托的用户权限、(c) 审计追踪?
加分信号(勾选所有适用项)
| 信号 | 权重 | 需要寻找的证据 |
|---|
| URL 接入 ⭐⭐⭐ | 最高 | 服务托管机器可读的 skill.md/协议文档,代理读取并遵循以自行注册 |
| 专用代理身份模型 |
高 | 代理获得自己的凭证/钱包/令牌 |
| 已发布 MCP 服务器 | 中 | 官方 MCP 服务器,带有文档化的工具 |
| 已发布代理技能(SKILL.md) | 中 | npx skills add org/repo 可工作 |
| 每代理状态/记忆/会话 | 中 | 按代理实例隔离的状态 |
| 审计/轨迹工件 | 中 | 代理操作的机器可读证据 |
如何测试 URL 接入:
- 1. 查找托管在服务域名或 GitHub 上的 skill.md、SKILL.md、collab.md 或类似的机器可读协议文件。
- 询问:代理能否读取该 URL 并自主完成完整的注册/接入流程?
- 尝试指令:读取 并按照说明操作——是否有效?
分类决策树
服务是否通过全部 5 项标准?
├── 是 → 原生代理 ✅
│ └── 是否也有 URL 接入?
│ ├── 是 → 原生代理 ⭐(URL 接入——最高层级)
│ └── 否 → 原生代理(标准)
└── 否
├── 最初为人类构建,后来添加了代理接口?
│ └── 是 → 适配代理 ⚠️
└── 帮助人类构建代理?
└── 是 → 代理构建器 ❌
评估输出格式
评估:{服务名称}
网站: {URL}
URL 接入检查 ⭐
是否有 URL 接入: 是 / 否
接入指令(如果是): 读取 {URL} 并按照说明 {加入/注册/参与}
备注: {代理通过读取该 URL 获得的内容}
标准 1 — 代理优先定位
结果: 通过 / 未通过 / 部分通过
证据: {精确引用} — {来源 URL}
标准 2 — 代理专用原语
结果: 通过 / 未通过 / 部分通过
证据: {原语名称和描述}
无人类对应物原因: {解释}
标准 3 — 自主兼容控制平面
结果: 通过 / 未通过 / 部分通过
证据: {代理如何无需人类确认即可操作}
标准 4 — 机器对机器集成面
结果: 通过 / 未通过 / 部分通过
证据: {URL、SDK、API、MCP 详情}
标准 5 — 代理身份/委托语义
结果: 通过 / 未通过 / 部分通过 / 不适用
证据: {身份模型详情}
加分信号
- - [ ] URL 接入 ⭐⭐⭐ — 代理通过读取一个 URL 加入
- [ ] 专用代理身份模型
- [ ] 已发布 MCP 服务器
- [ ] 已发布代理技能(SKILL.md)
- [ ] 每代理状态/记忆/会话
- [ ] 审计/轨迹/回放工件
总体判定
分类: 原生代理 ⭐(URL 接入)/ 原生代理 / 适配代理 / 代理构建器
建议: 添加到主列表 / 添加到排除部分 / 不添加
置信度: 高 / 中 / 低
理由: {一段总结}
后续步骤
{如果是带 URL 接入的原生代理:在 issue 和服务文件中突出显示}
{如果是无 URL 接入的原生代理:链接到 issue 模板}
{如果是适配代理:解释需要改变什么}
常见边界案例
产品添加了 MCP 服务器——这算原生代理吗?
不算。MCP 支持是加分信号,不是标准。核心问题是服务是否从设计之初就为代理构建。一个添加了 MCP 服务器的人类电子邮件提供商仍然是适配代理。
服务有 URL 接入但其他标准较弱。
URL 接入是最强的加分信号,但不能替代五项硬性标准。独立评估全部五项;URL 接入是放大器,不是替代品。
服务在营销中说面向 AI 代理。
检查实际的原语。URL 接入是可靠的信号,因为它需要真正的设计努力——你无法通过营销博客文章伪造它。