This queue turns the proposal-preflight gaps into a small public operating plan.
The Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile is not ready for formal AAIF project proposal submission. The next useful evidence is external technical feedback, adoption-trial interest, accepted upstream contribution, or public routing guidance from maintainers.
This queue exists to keep that work human, reviewable, and non-promotional.
- Do not mass-tag maintainers.
- Do not post generic promotion in unrelated repositories.
- Do not list a reviewer or adopter unless they explicitly opt in through a public link.
- Do not claim AAIF, Linux Foundation, employer, maintainer, or reviewer endorsement from a comment.
- Do not treat a read-only review as adoption.
- Do not treat open PRs as accepted contribution.
- Do not submit an AAIF proposal until the proposal preflight gaps are closed.
| Gap | Why it matters | Public proof needed |
|---|---|---|
| External reviewer feedback | AAIF proposal readiness needs independent challenge, not only self-audit | At least two public comments, issues, or PR reviews from non-Karuna reviewers |
| Adoption trial interest | The profile must prove it helps repositories outside the 16-repo testbed | One external maintainer or contributor publicly tries a read-only or branch trial |
| External adoption | Formal proposal evidence needs explicit opt-in, not inferred use | Public maintainer opt-in and a link to files, issue, branch, or PR |
| Maintainer diversity | Growth-stage readiness requires community and governance depth | Recurring reviewers or maintainers from different organizations |
| Accepted upstream contribution | Open PRs are not recognition | Merged PRs or maintainer acknowledgement with public attribution |
| Sponsor path signal | Formal AAIF routing needs credible reviewer or TC-adjacent guidance | Public comment that the work should route toward AAIF, AGENTS.md, MCP, A2A, agent gateway, or another specific venue |
| Lane | Reviewer profile | First artifact | Useful response shape |
|---|---|---|---|
| AGENTS.md and coding-agent workflows | Maintainers who use agent instructions or coding-agent contribution flows | docs/MAINTAINER_REVIEW_KIT.md and one boundary example |
Keep one section, remove one section, and state whether this belongs near AGENTS.md guidance |
| MCP and tool-boundary readiness | MCP server/client maintainers or tool-governance reviewers | templates/AGENTIC_BOUNDARY_MODEL.md and docs/REVIEWER_QUICKSTART_16_TESTBED.md |
Identify one tool/action boundary field that helps or creates burden |
| Agent gateway and policy governance | Gateway, policy, or platform maintainers | docs/ECOSYSTEM_ALIGNMENT_BRIEF.md and AccessGovernance Kit example |
State whether the profile helps explain routing, policy, approval, or audit evidence |
| Observability and traceability | Trace, audit, or agent-run telemetry reviewers | Observability examples and AAIF Observability PR evidence | State whether the trace/audit boundary language is useful or too broad |
| Identity and trust | Identity, RBAC, delegated-access, or workload-identity reviewers | IdentityCore Platform and AccessGovernance Kit examples | State whether delegated authority, session binding, and consent evidence are clear |
| OSS maintainer burden | Maintainers of small or medium OSS projects | docs/PUBLIC_REVIEW_PACKET.md and docs/REVIEW_SIGNAL_MATRIX.md |
Classify as useful, too heavy, too light, duplicative, wrong route, or no fit |
| Enterprise adoption | Enterprise architects or platform reviewers | 20-minute quickstart and one domain example | State whether the evidence would help due diligence before forking or contributing |
Current adoption-trial intake:
- Issue: #5
- Release surface: https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/releases/tag/v0.5.42
- First action: compare one repository boundary with one readiness example, then report one useful part, one heavy part, and one adoption blocker.
| Trial type | Timebox | What changes | What counts as public evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Read-only review | 30-60 minutes | No repository changes | Public comment using one review signal |
| Shadow score | 1-2 hours | Private or issue-only score against one repository | Public issue comment with gaps and no adoption claim |
| Branch trial | 1-2 days | Draft AGENTS.md, boundary model, or readiness JSON in a branch |
Public branch, draft PR, or issue link |
| Maintainer review | 1-2 review cycles | Maintainer reviews whether a small profile-aligned PR would be accepted | Public maintainer comment |
| Listed adoption | Only after opt-in | Registry entry with exact links | Maintainer explicitly asks to be listed |
| Priority | Action | Public surface | Success signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Update external reviewer call with proposal-preflight and queue links | Issue #6 |
One reviewer leaves a signal or asks a clarifying question |
| 2 | Update adoption-trial issue with read-only trial path | Issue #5 |
One maintainer or contributor tries a read-only review |
| 3 | Keep focused proposal review issue current | Issue #4 |
Reviewer identifies first proposal blocker |
| 4 | Avoid new broad upstream proposals | Contribution ledger | No unnecessary maintainer noise |
| 5 | Convert accepted feedback into a patch release | Roadmap and release notes | One reviewer-driven change lands in the profile |
I am looking for technical feedback on the Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile, not endorsement.
The current review entry point is:
https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/PUBLIC_REVIEW_PACKET.md
The proposal-preflight dossier is:
https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/AAIF_PROJECT_PROPOSAL_PREFLIGHT_DOSSIER.md
The useful review can be one comment:
- useful
- useful-after-changes
- too-heavy
- too-light
- duplicative
- wrong-route
- no-fit
One sentence on why is enough. This is independent OSS work and does not imply AAIF/Linux Foundation endorsement, adoption, or certification.
I am looking for one external repository to try a read-only adoption trial of the Agentic Enterprise Readiness Profile.
No runtime code change is needed. The smallest trial is to compare one repository against:
- a boundary model
- an `agentic-readiness.json` example
- the 20-minute reviewer quickstart
The trial protocol is:
https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/ADOPTION_TRIAL_PROTOCOL.md
The public intake issue is:
https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/5
A trial is not adoption, endorsement, certification, AAIF status, or Linux Foundation status. Listing requires explicit public opt-in.
Record evidence only when it is public and attributable:
- issue comment
- pull request review
- discussion comment
- draft PR
- branch link
- maintainer comment
- merged PR
- explicit opt-in adoption note
Do not record:
- private DMs
- employer-confidential feedback
- screenshots of private messages
- ambiguous likes, stars, or follows
- inferred adoption from a fork
- comments that do not relate to the profile
Move from review to proposal preparation only when these are true:
- At least two external reviewers have left public technical feedback.
- At least one external adoption trial exists or an external maintainer explicitly says the profile is useful enough to try.
- At least one upstream contribution has been merged or a maintainer has given public routing guidance.
- Governance, maintainer growth, security posture, and release process have been updated from reviewer feedback.
- The owner has made a deliberate decision on AAIF contribution-agreement, trademark, domain, account, and signatory implications.
Until then, the correct posture is external review and adoption-trial development.