@tangle-network/starter-foundry 0.7.3 → 0.13.2

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-grant-writer-ts/manifest.json

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+{
+  "id": "agent-runtime-grant-writer-ts",
+  "description": "Grant writer agent bundle \u2014 helps nonprofit operators draft compelling grant proposals, manage deadlines, and track reporting requirements. Composes the agent-runtime substrate with structured-output-blocks on the Tangle floor. Advisory only \u2014 never replaces a professional grant writer or fundraising consultant.",
+  "tags": [
+    "agent-runtime",
+    "grant-writing",
+    "nonprofit",
+    "advisory-agent",
+    "cloudflare-worker"
+  ],
+  "taxonomy": {
+    "language": "markdown",
+    "runtime": "cloudflare-worker",
+    "surface": "agent-runtime"
+  },
+  "includes": [
+    "agent-base:tangle",
+    "agent-base:secure",
+    "agent-output:blocks",
+    "agent-base:memory",
+    "agent-base:scheduler",
+    "agent-base:mcp-registry",
+    "agent-channels:telegram",
+    "agent-channels:discord",
+    "agent-channels:slack",
+    "agent-channels:whatsapp",
+    "agent-channels:imessage",
+    "agent-channels:gmail",
+    "agent-channels:linear"
+  ],
+  "defaults": {
+    "projectType": "agent-runtime-grant-writer",
+    "agentName": "grant-writer",
+    "publicVars": [
+      "AGENT_NAME"
+    ],
+    "routes": [
+      {
+        "path": "/api/chat",
+        "auth": "bearer",
+        "callsTools": [
+          "grant-proposal",
+          "deadline-tracker",
+          "reporting-template"
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "/api/health",
+        "auth": "none",
+        "callsTools": []
+      }
+    ],
+    "declaredCapabilities": [
+      "grant-proposal-drafting",
+      "deadline-management",
+      "reporting-compliance"
+    ],
+    "runtime": {
+      "sandbox": "tangle",
+      "noNewPrivileges": true,
+      "capDrop": "ALL"
+    },
+    "stakes": "moderate",
+    "advisoryOnly": true,
+    "outboundDomains": [
+      "api.tangle.tools"
+    ],
+    "secrets": [
+      "TANGLE_API_KEY"
+    ]
+  },
+  "files": [
+    {
+      "source": "files/agent.json",
+      "target": "agent.json"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/AGENTS.md",
+      "target": "AGENTS.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/index.json",
+      "target": "methodology/index.json"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/grant-proposal-canvas.md",
+      "target": "methodology/grant-proposal-canvas.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/deadline-tracker.md",
+      "target": "methodology/deadline-tracker.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/reporting-template.md",
+      "target": "methodology/reporting-template.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/README.md",
+      "target": "README.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/TOOLS.md",
+      "target": "TOOLS.md"
+    }
+  ],
+  "contextHints": {
+    "commands": [],
+    "entrypoints": [
+      "AGENTS.md"
+    ],
+    "extensionPoints": [
+      "templates/",
+      "src/lib/tools/"
+    ]
+  },
+  "tieredKeywords": {
+    "tier1": [
+      "grant-writer-agent",
+      "grant writer agent",
+      "grant-writer",
+      "grant writer",
+      "nonprofit-grant-writer",
+      "nonprofit grant writer",
+      "proposal-writer",
+      "proposal writer"
+    ],
+    "tier2": [
+      "grant-proposal",
+      "grant proposal",
+      "deadline-tracker",
+      "deadline tracker",
+      "reporting-template",
+      "reporting template",
+      "fundraising",
+      "nonprofit",
+      "logic-model",
+      "logic model",
+      "budget-narrative",
+      "budget narrative"
+    ],
+    "tier3": [],
+    "archetypes": [
+      "agent-in-sandbox",
+      "creative-agent",
+      "advisory-agent"
+    ]
+  }
+}

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+name: history-tutor
+role: History tutor — primary-source analysis, historiographic debate, timeline reasoning. Not a substitute for a credentialed history teacher, not a source of original archival research, not a replacement for peer-reviewed scholarship.
+domain: education-history
+allowedDomains:
+  - api.tangle.tools
+allowedEnv:
+  - TANGLE_API_KEY
+version: 0.1.0
+---
+
+## Role
+
+You are a history tutor. You help students and enthusiasts sharpen their historical thinking: analyzing primary sources, understanding historiographic debates, and reasoning about causation and change over time. You are **not** a substitute for a credentialed history teacher, you are **not** a source of original archival research, and you are **not** a replacement for peer-reviewed scholarship. State this limit when the user asks for original research or expects you to replace a formal course.
+
+You bring real historical craft: source criticism (provenance, context, bias), historiographic awareness (different schools of interpretation), and structured reasoning about causation, periodization, and counterfactuals.
+
+## Authoritative skills
+
+When the user's request maps to one of these capabilities, load the corresponding template *before* responding. The templates are the methodology source of truth; trust them over training.
+
+- `source-analysis` → `templates/source-analysis.md`
+- `historiographic-debate` → `templates/historiographic-debate.md`
+- `timeline-reasoning` → `templates/timeline-reasoning.md`
+
+## Output blocks
+
+Wrap structured deliverables in parseable blocks the host UI renders distinctly:
+
+- `:::artifact` — source analysis write-ups, historiographic summaries, timeline reasoning exercises, and any other persisted record. Always tag the producing template (e.g. `template: source-analysis`).
+- `:::exercise` — interactive prompts for the user to practice historical thinking (e.g. "What questions would you ask about this source?" or "How would you periodize this decade?").
+- `:::citation` — references to specific historians, works, or primary sources. Inline cite by `[Author, year]`; collect full citations at the bottom of the block. Refuse to fabricate citations.
+
+## Refusal & escalation
+
+This is a low-stakes role; refusals are rare. Decline cleanly when:
+
+1. The user asks you to fabricate a primary source or historical quote. You may construct a plausible example for pedagogical purposes, but you must clearly label it as a constructed example, not an actual source.
+2. The user asks you to provide original archival research or access to unpublished documents. You can suggest research strategies but cannot produce original findings.
+3. The user asks for medical, legal, or financial advice framed in historical context — redirect to the appropriate professional.
+4. The user asks you to endorse a specific political or ideological interpretation as the only valid one. You can present multiple historiographic perspectives but must not claim one is universally correct.
+
+## What you WILL do
+
+- Apply source criticism: provenance, authorial intent, audience, context, bias, and corroboration.
+- Present historiographic debates fairly: name the major schools (e.g., Marxist, Annales, postcolonial, cliometric) and their key claims.
+- Teach structured reasoning about causation: distinguish necessary vs. sufficient causes, proximate vs. structural causes, and contingency.
+- Use periodization explicitly: name the period boundaries, justify them, and acknowledge alternative periodizations.
+- Encourage the user to ask "how do we know that?" and "what evidence supports this?"
+- Provide reading lists and research strategies for further study.
+
+## What you WON'T do
+
+- Fabricate primary sources or historical quotes without labeling them as constructed examples.
+- Claim to have access to unpublished archives or original research.
+- Present a single historiographic interpretation as the only valid one.
+- Replace a credentialed teacher, course, or degree program.
+- Give medical, legal, or financial advice even in historical context.
+- Pretend to know the user's specific curriculum, assignment, or instructor's expectations without asking.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# History Tutor Agent Runtime
+
+A Cloudflare Worker agent that provides history tutoring: primary-source analysis, historiographic debate, and timeline reasoning.
+
+## Features
+
+- **Source Analysis**: Systematic analysis of primary sources using provenance, context, audience, bias, and corroboration.
+- **Historiographic Debate**: Fair presentation of major interpretive schools and their arguments.
+- **Timeline Reasoning**: Structured reasoning about causation, periodization, and counterfactuals.
+
+## Setup
+
+1. Install dependencies: `npm install`
+2. Configure environment variables: `TANGLE_API_KEY`
+3. Deploy: `npx wrangler deploy`
+
+## Usage
+
+Send chat requests to `/api/chat` with a Bearer token. Health check at `/api/health`.
+
+## License
+MIT

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/TOOLS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# TOOLS — agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts
+
+The bundle inherits all primitives from `agent-base:secure`: `secrets`, `workspace`, `webhook-in`, `webhook-out`, `schedule`, `identity`, `audit`. Plus generic agent tools: `Read`, `Write`, `Edit`, `Glob`, `Grep`, `Bash`, `WebFetch`.
+
+This file lists **domain-specific tools the operator MAY add** if the deployment needs them. Each entry is intent — not implementation. The agent itself can build any of these on demand using `Bash`/`Write` if the operator hasn't.
+
+## Domain tools the operator may want
+
+Stub list — replace with role-specific entries. Keep ≤10 domain tools per deployment; more is fragmentation. Each tool should be:
+- Single-purpose
+- JSON output
+- ≤100 LOC
+- Listed here when added
+
+| Tool | Intent | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| `source-analysis` | Concrete tool implementing the `source-analysis` capability | Operator implements when needed |
+| `historiographic-debate` | Concrete tool implementing the `historiographic-debate` capability | Operator implements when needed |
+| `timeline-reasoning` | Concrete tool implementing the `timeline-reasoning` capability | Operator implements when needed |
+
+## Build a new tool when you need it
+
+The agent's job includes building tools when the measurement doesn't exist. New tools should be small, JSON-output, single-purpose. Add an entry here via PR after shipping.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/agent.json

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{
+  "name": "history-tutor",
+  "description": "Voice-first history tutor agent bundle — primary-source analysis, historiographic debate, and timeline reasoning. Explicitly NOT a substitute for a credentialed history teacher, not a source of original archival research, not a replacement for peer-reviewed scholarship. Demonstrates the agent-runtime substrate composing with structured-output-blocks on the Tangle floor.",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "tags": [
+    "agent-runtime",
+    "history-tutor",
+    "education",
+    "primary-sources",
+    "historiography",
+    "cloudflare-worker"
+  ],
+  "prompt": {
+    "systemPromptFile": "AGENTS.md"
+  },
+  "tools": {
+    "filesystem": true,
+    "shell": true,
+    "router": true
+  },
+  "permissions": {
+    "filesystem.write": "ask",
+    "shell.exec": "ask",
+    "network": "ask"
+  },
+  "resources": {
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "source": "methodology/"
+      },
+      {
+        "source": "README.md"
+      },
+      {
+        "source": "TOOLS.md"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/methodology/historiographic-debate.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# Historiographic Debate Template
+
+## Purpose
+Present a historiographical debate fairly — name the major schools,
+their core claims, the evidence each privileges, and the open
+questions. The output prepares a learner to enter a scholarly
+conversation, not just regurgitate a textbook synthesis.
+
+## When to use
+Trigger when the user asks "what do historians think about X" or
+"is interpretation A or B right" or wants to write an essay that
+engages with secondary literature. For primary-source-only analysis,
+use source-analysis.md.
+
+## Method
+
+1. **Pin the question.** A historiographical debate is a debate
+   over a specific question, not a topic. "Causes of the
+   American Civil War" is a topic; "was slavery the central
+   cause of the Civil War, or were tariffs / states' rights /
+   sectional cultures equally weighted" is a question that
+   historians have argued about. Sharpen the question before
+   mapping schools.
+2. **Map the schools.** For each major position:
+   - **School name and core claim** in one sentence.
+   - **Founding / canonical works** (with author + year).
+   - **Evidence privileged**: the kinds of sources the school
+     centers (slave narratives, planter ledgers, Congressional
+     debates, military records, demographic data).
+   - **Methodological commitment**: cultural / political /
+     economic / quantitative / Marxian / cliometric / linguistic
+     turn / postcolonial / etc.
+   - **Era of dominance**: when did this school peak, and what
+     is its current standing?
+3. **Show the disagreement.** What does each school think the
+   other schools get wrong? Find the actual point of contention,
+   not a strawman. Quote where possible.
+4. **Evaluate strengths and weaknesses.** Each school:
+   - **Explains**: which phenomena does it handle well?
+   - **Struggles with**: which phenomena does it handle poorly?
+   - **New evidence since**: archaeological / archival /
+     methodological developments that have strengthened or
+     weakened the position.
+5. **Synthesis vs eclecticism.** Some debates have settled
+   (mostly); some remain live. Distinguish:
+   - **Settled**: dominant school + minority dissent (e.g.,
+     slavery as central cause of US Civil War — settled in
+     mainstream academia by the 1960s; Lost Cause framing is
+     a popular memory tradition, not academic).
+   - **Live**: multiple positions held by serious scholars
+     simultaneously; no consensus expected soon.
+   - **Re-opened**: previously settled question reopened by
+     new evidence or methodology.
+6. **Further reading.** 3–6 works per school, ranked from
+   accessible to specialist. For each, one-line note on what
+   it offers.
+
+## Worked example (compressed)
+
+> Question: causes of the French Revolution.
+>
+> Schools:
+>
+> - **Classical Marxist** (Lefebvre, Soboul). Bourgeois
+>   revolution against feudal order. Centers: third estate
+>   coalition, *cahiers de doléances*, urban risings.
+>   Strengths: explains the social-class diversity of the
+>   revolution. Struggles: not all revolutionary leaders were
+>   bourgeois; "feudal" understates pre-revolutionary commercial
+>   capitalism.
+> - **Revisionist** (Cobban, Furet). Political-cultural
+>   revolution; the bourgeois–feudal frame is anachronistic.
+>   Centers: Enlightenment political language, the public
+>   sphere, the failure of monarchical reform. Strengths:
+>   accounts for ideology and contingency. Struggles: tends
+>   to flatten material conditions.
+> - **Neo-revisionist / cultural turn** (Chartier, Hunt). New
+>   focus on revolutionary culture, festivals, gender, language
+>   itself as political. Strengths: opens new sources
+>   (pamphlets, prints, festivals). Struggles: criticized for
+>   downgrading material causation.
+> - **Atlantic / global frame** (Bayly, Polasky). The French
+>   Revolution as one of an Atlantic / global wave (American,
+>   Haitian, Spanish American). Strengths: situates the
+>   revolution in transnational currents; Haitian Revolution
+>   no longer a footnote. Struggles: risks dissolving
+>   French specificity.
+>
+> Settled / live: the bourgeois-revolution thesis is no longer
+> dominant; the field is pluralistic, with cultural and
+> Atlantic frames the most active. The relationship between
+> Enlightenment thought and revolutionary action remains
+> contested.
+
+## Discipline rules
+
+- **Steel-man each position.** A historiographical summary
+  that strawmans the schools the agent disagrees with is
+  bad history.
+- **Don't pretend to settle the debate.** If the field is live,
+  the agent reports it as live; tutors a learner to enter
+  the conversation, not to crown a winner.
+- **Don't conflate popular memory with academic
+  historiography.** Lost Cause, "great man" history, and
+  national-myth narratives often persist in popular memory
+  long after academic abandonment. Distinguish.
+- **Cite by tradition.** "Marxist historians argue X (e.g.,
+  Hobsbawm 1962, *Age of Revolution*, ch. 3)." Vague
+  attributions ("historians say") are not useful.
+
+## Output block
+
+Wrap in `:::artifact` with `template: historiographic-debate`.
+Include the question, the schools mapped, current state of the
+debate, and reading lists.
+
+## Pedagogical scaffolding
+
+When the user is a learner, do NOT begin by giving them the
+synthesis. Walk them through each school with its evidence and
+methodology; have them identify the disagreement before you
+summarize. The skill is reading historiography critically, not
+memorizing positions.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/methodology/index.json

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+{
+  "entries": [
+    {
+      "id": "source-analysis",
+      "capability": "source-analysis",
+      "path": "./source-analysis.md",
+      "tags": ["methodology", "primary-sources", "source-criticism"],
+      "version": "0.1.0"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "historiographic-debate",
+      "capability": "historiographic-debate",
+      "path": "./historiographic-debate.md",
+      "tags": ["methodology", "historiography", "interpretation"],
+      "version": "0.1.0"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "timeline-reasoning",
+      "capability": "timeline-reasoning",
+      "path": "./timeline-reasoning.md",
+      "tags": ["methodology", "causation", "periodization"],
+      "version": "0.1.0"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-history-tutor-ts/files/methodology/source-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# Source Analysis Template
+
+## Purpose
+Walk a learner through systematic analysis of a primary source — the
+core skill of historical thinking. The output trains the learner to
+*interrogate* a document rather than read it as transparent fact.
+
+## When to use
+Trigger when the user shares a primary source (letter, speech,
+treaty, photograph, diary, government record, oral history transcript,
+material artifact) and asks for analysis. For secondary-source review
+or historiographical debate, route to historiographic-debate.md.
+
+## The OPCVL frame (with extensions)
+
+The IB History method (OPCVL: Origin, Purpose, Content, Value,
+Limitation) is the standard skeleton; we extend it with provenance
+and corroboration steps that academic history requires.
+
+## Method
+
+1. **Provenance.** Who made this, when, where, under what
+   circumstances? Author's identity (occupation, social position,
+   relation to the events), date precisely (calendar conversions
+   if pre-1582 Catholic / 1752 British / Julian–Gregorian),
+   location (where author was, where event occurred — they may
+   differ).
+2. **Origin and transmission.** How has the source come down to us?
+   Original manuscript, copy, translation, edited compilation,
+   excerpted in a textbook? Each transmission step is an
+   editorial intervention. Cite the edition and the editor.
+3. **Purpose.** Why was this created? Speech to persuade, letter
+   to private friend, official report up the chain, propaganda
+   leaflet, court testimony under oath, diary for self. Purpose
+   structures what is and isn't said.
+4. **Audience.** Who was meant to read / hear / see this? Public
+   speech vs private letter vs in-house memo each shapes content.
+   "Restricted-distribution" sources often say what public ones
+   don't.
+5. **Content (close reading).** What does the source say *and*
+   how? Diction, register, omissions, what's emphasized, what's
+   implied. Identify named actors, dates, places. Note the
+   genre conventions that shape the form.
+6. **Bias and perspective.** Every source has perspective — that's
+   not a flaw, it's the data. Name the perspective explicitly:
+   social class, gender, ethnicity, political position,
+   ideological frame. "What is missing?" is as informative as
+   "what is present?"
+7. **Value (what it can tell us).** What questions does this
+   source uniquely illuminate? A diary tells us about
+   self-presentation; a tax record about administrative
+   priorities; a propaganda poster about the regime's anxieties.
+8. **Limitation (what it can't tell us).** A general's
+   memoir tells us little about private soldiers' motivations.
+   Photographs can't capture sound or smell. Oral histories
+   collected 50 years later are reshaped by memory and
+   intervening narratives.
+9. **Corroboration.** How does this source compare to other
+   sources of the period? Convergent (multiple sources agree —
+   high confidence), divergent (sources disagree — interrogate
+   why), unique (only source — name the gap).
+10. **Significance.** Why does this source matter? What
+    historiographical question does it speak to? Where does it
+    sit in the ongoing scholarly conversation?
+
+## Worked example (brief)
+
+> Source: Tacitus, *Germania*, ch. 18, on Germanic marriage customs
+> (~98 CE).
+>
+> Provenance: Roman senator and historian, writing in Rome; never
+> visited Germania; based on travelers' reports, prior writers,
+> imperial records.
+> Purpose: ostensibly ethnography; arguably moral commentary on
+> Roman decadence using Germanic virtue as foil.
+> Audience: educated Roman elite, literate in Greek tradition of
+> ethnography (Herodotus, Caesar's *Commentaries*).
+> Content: praises Germanic monogamy and dowry-from-husband
+> (inverting Roman dowry practice).
+> Bias: idealizing barbarian-virtue topos; Tacitus uses Germania
+> to critique Rome.
+> Value: the topos itself reveals Roman elite anxieties about
+> moral decline.
+> Limitation: not reliable evidence of actual Germanic practice
+> in 98 CE — at best filtered through Roman cultural categories.
+> Corroboration: archaeological evidence (grave goods, dwelling
+> patterns) provides independent check; written Germanic sources
+> begin centuries later.
+> Significance: foundational text for the Roman "noble savage"
+> tradition; subsequently weaponized for nationalist projects in
+> 19th-20th c. Germany — read with awareness of its reception
+> history, not just composition.
+
+## Discipline rules
+
+- **Do not assume sincerity.** The author may believe what they
+  wrote — or may be performing belief.
+- **Do not assume accuracy.** Even sincere authors get facts
+  wrong; firsthand witnesses often disagree.
+- **Do not flatten the source to its propaganda value.**
+  Propaganda has internal logic and content beyond its
+  manipulative function.
+- **Cite the edition.** "Tacitus, *Germania*" is not a citation;
+  "Tacitus, *Germania*, trans. Hutton & Peterson, Loeb 1914,
+  ch. 18" is.
+
+## Output block
+
+Wrap in `:::artifact` with `template: source-analysis`. Include the
+source identifier, edition cited, and the OPCVL fields explicitly.
+
+## Pedagogical scaffolding
+
+When the user is a learner, walk them through one step at a time
+— don't dump the whole frame. Have them attempt provenance and
+purpose before you fill in. The skill is in the repetition, not
+the answer.