EN中
Explore / Docs Migration Agent
Agent TemplateL1medium risk

Docs Migration Agent

Plan and execute documentation migrations with broken-link and heading consistency checks.

Directory
Curated baseline · 52

A curated public baseline; every entry carries a verification level and risk labels. 25 from the automated pipeline

~51
Recommended
Confidence: low
50
Benchmark
Confidence: low
Needs human reviewL1 · Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
Why
Recommendation 51, fits Coding, setup is easy.
Best for
Developers using Codex for coding workflows.
Not for
Users expecting a fully managed marketplace install flow.
Boundary
Verified to L1; L2/L3/L4 not covered, so this is not full runtime proof.
Remaining risk
Risk appears manageable for personal developer workflows when configured narrowly.
Next step
Review tokens, write access, and network scope in a sandbox before team adoption.
Review before adoption
This capability includes high-risk, token, write, shell, or auth-gated gaps. L4 means interface parsing, not production safety approval.

What it is good for

Plan and execute documentation migrations with broken-link and heading consistency checks. AgentMaps treats this as a agent template candidate and scores it with a capped benchmark score plus a separate recommendation score that includes trust, platform fit, setup preference, and risk preference.

Use cases

  • - Review code changes
  • - Inspect repository context
  • - Generate implementation notes
  • - Read local documents
  • - Create structured files

Best for

  • - Developers using Codex for coding workflows.
  • - Teams that want visible setup, verification, and risk evidence before adoption.

Not for

  • - Users expecting a fully managed marketplace install flow.
  • - Users who need enterprise SSO controls.

Limitations

  • - Scenario-level L5-L7 benchmark testing is not part of the current MVP record.
AI-native runtime contractAgentic workflow

Runtime pattern before adoption

AI may help filter, explain, and draft a trial plan, but must not perform write, shell, external side effects, or production publishing before review.

Visible states

  • Collect task context and platform constraints
  • Preview setup, source, and permission boundaries
  • Trial in a sandbox or low-permission environment
  • Wait for human review before continuing

User controls

  • Revise task/platform filters
  • Add to Compare
  • Open source for review
  • Cancel high-risk adoption
  • Submit pending/staging evidence

Approval gates

  • Approval before writes or state mutation

Failure recovery

  • When evidence is thin, compare alternatives before any automated adoption.

Trial acceptance

  • Can a user find a task-fit candidate within two minutes
  • Can the UI explain why it is recommended and where it does not fit
  • Can the user identify token, write, shell, network, or local file risk
  • Can the user separate L1/L2 evidence from full runtime proof
  • Does a failed trial have fallback or manual takeover

Verification evidence

The matrix shows passed, partial, skipped, and not-tested boundaries. It is not production adoption approval.

L1 Metadata

Source, docs, license, or package metadata exists.

passed
L2 Static audit

Static review assigns permission and risk boundaries.

skipped
L3 Install path

Install path can be checked, but not necessarily in your environment.

skipped
L4 Interface

Interface or entrypoint parsed; not a production safety approval.

skipped
  • Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • Source and documentation fields are present.
  • Static audit pending.
  • Install verification pending.
  • Interface parsing pending.
  • Benchmark score capped at 50 by L1 verification.

Trust profile

Heuristic estimate
Needs reviewstaticTrigger risk medium

Risk findings

  • - Repo Write Access

Verified evidence

  • - Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • - Source and documentation fields are present.
  • - Static audit pending.
  • - Install verification pending.

Score breakdown

Safety67
Execution proxy60
Maintenance78
Setup81
Interface69
Standards66
Task fit80
Portability77

Why it scores well

  • - Clear task fit for the selected scenario.
  • - Ready for metadata review.
  • - Focused platform fit.

Watch outs

  • - Scenario testing is still pending.
  • - Production adoption still needs local validation.

Alternatives

GitHub MCP Server
MCP Server · Coding, Automation
66
Rec

Connect agents to GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, and code search.

L4high riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Context7 MCP
MCP Server · Coding, Research
87
Rec

Fetch current library documentation and examples directly into coding agents.

L4low riskCursor
View details →
Supabase MCP
MCP Server · Data, Coding +1
62
Rec

Give agents controlled access to Supabase projects, schemas, SQL, and project metadata.

L3high riskSelf-hosted
View details →