Foreloop vs YYLO

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions llms.txt or an agent-oriented docs endpoint that agents can be pointed at; docs reference CLI, MCP endpoints, and skills but not an llms.txt-style discoverable doc file.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Direct probes show no llms.txt (404), no docs.md machine-readable variant (404), and no OpenAPI spec (404), meaning there is no agent-oriented docs endpoint to point an agent at; the only docs are standard human-facing HTML pages.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/docs/yylo.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialprobed6/10

   Foreloop ships a global CLI with a stable, additive `--json` output on every command, and docs explicitly state it can be run 'from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron,' which is direct evidence of headless/CI-style automation support. However, there's no CI-specific documentation (e.g. GitHub Actions example, env-based auth for non-interactive contexts) and the approval-gate design ('nothing runs until a person approves a contract') implies a human-in-the-loop checkpoint that could block fully unattended pipelines. missing for 10: CI/pipeline-specific setup docs or examples, confirmation that approval gates can be bypassed or pre-authorized for headless runs, independent/hands-on verification of CI usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”
   • [claimed-docs] “--json works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://foreloop.com/install”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO✓fullprobed7/10

   YYLO is a CLI orchestrator with scriptable commands (init, task start, ledger, loop, parallel-runner, run-until-completion) that produce structured watch receipts with exit codes and JSON state, and it's installable via npm as a public package with documented bins (yylo, yy, ypl) suitable for CI invocation. missing for 10: no explicit CI pipeline example (e.g., GitHub Actions config), no independent hands-on report of running it headlessly in CI, and llms.txt/openapi probes returned 404 suggesting thinner machine-readable integration docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “`yy loop` repeats arbitrary shell commands sequentially.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bounded concurrent fan-out for independent kanban tasks, data items, or complete commands—with structured evidence for every item.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [github] “A successful run prints the installed YYLO version, initializes `.juno_task/`, then emits a watch receipt with `"state":"COMPLETED"`, `"exit…”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userPlug MCP servers into this product so it can use their tools

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   All MCP-related evidence describes Foreloop exposing its own MCP server endpoint (/api/app/public/v1/mcp) so that external MCP clients (agents) can call into it — this is the reverse of the story, which asks whether the user can plug external MCP servers into Foreloop so it can use their tools. No evidence shows Foreloop acting as an MCP client that consumes other servers' tools.

   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's docs describe orchestrating coding agents, ledgers, workflows, and an 'open-standard path' for skills, but no evidence anywhere mentions MCP servers or a mechanism to plug in MCP tools for the agents it orchestrates.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userConnect an agent via an official MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed8/10

   Foreloop documents a first-party MCP server endpoint (/api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP) that any MCP client can connect to with just a URL and API key, explicitly enabling agents to claim tasks and work in repos. This is first-party documentation only, with no independent/hands-on corroboration of the MCP connection working in practice. Missing for 10: independent verification that an external MCP client successfully connects and operates against this endpoint.

   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is a CLI orchestrator for coding agents/workflows, and as such platform-type product it could plausibly ship an official MCP server for other agents to connect to, but no evidence pack item mentions MCP at all (only 'open-standard' skills installation, ledger, workflow-runner, etc.). No official MCP server documentation, endpoint, or announcement exists in the evidence.

   ⚑ flag

5. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop✓fullprobed8/10

   Foreloop ships an official globally-installable CLI (npm i -g foreloop) that manages projects, loops, intentions, stories, and tasks, supports scripting via `--json` with a stable additive schema, and is explicitly designed to be run 'from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron,' making it clearly AI-native/agentic-workflow friendly. missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and more detail on full command surface.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm i -g foreloop # installs globally, so the CLI works in any directory”
   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”
   • [claimed-docs] “--json works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://foreloop.com/install”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO✓fullprobed8/10

   YYLO ships an official CLI (@yylo/cli) with documented commands (init, ledger, loop, doctor, task start, merge land) and is verifiably published on npm plus MIT-licensed on GitHub, matching an AI-native agentic workflow tool. missing for 10: independent third-party usage reports/reviews beyond vendor docs and registry probes, and some llms.txt/docs-md/openapi endpoints 404 suggesting incomplete machine-readable doc surface.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullprobed8/10

   Foreloop documents a public MCP endpoint (/api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP with just a URL and API key) plus a CLI with stable, additive `--json` output usable from any scriptable context including cron and coding agents, giving AI-native users two documented programmatic surfaces. missing for 10: no independent/third-party corroboration of the API's stability or real-world agent integration beyond first-party docs, and no formal OpenAPI/REST reference is shown alongside the MCP/CLI docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”
   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://foreloop.com/install”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialprobed5/10

   YYLO exposes a well-documented CLI (`yylo`, `yy`, `ypl`) with structured JSON output, a ledger/task API, YAML workflow contracts, and templating for chaining steps, which an AI-native user could script against — supported by first-party docs and a live public npm package. However, there is no true public HTTP/OpenAPI-style API: explicit probes for llms.txt, docs.md, and OpenAPI specs all returned 404, meaning the only 'API' is the CLI surface, not a documented network API a remote agent could call directly. Missing for 10: an OpenAPI/REST API spec, an llms.txt or machine-readable API manifest, and evidence of remote/programmatic (non-CLI) invocation.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “`yy loop` repeats arbitrary shell commands sequentially.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Save the same contract as YAML for a reusable workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/docs/yylo.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialprobed6/10

   Foreloop exposes an official CLI, a JS feedback SDK (initForeloopFeedback), and an MCP endpoint for agent clients, giving AI-native builders official integration surfaces beyond just docs. However, this is all first-party vendor documentation with no independent corroboration or SDK versioning/language-coverage details (e.g. only JS snippet shown, no Python/other language SDKs). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of SDK usage, multi-language SDK coverage, and evidence of SDK stability/versioning beyond the JS snippet.

   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “await initForeloopFeedback({ apiKey: "flpk_YOUR_WRITE_ONLY_KEY", reporterName: signedInUser?.email, });”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”
   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [probe] “official CLI documented at https://foreloop.com/install”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO ships an official CLI (@yylo/cli) and open MIT-licensed repo, but there is no evidence of an SDK (client library/API) to build against — OpenAPI/spec probes and llms.txt/docs-md endpoints all return 404, and no SDK docs are mentioned anywhere in the pack.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/docs/yylo.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   The evidence pack documents MCP connectivity, CLI, and feedback widget integrations, but nowhere mentions webhooks or event subscriptions that an AI-native user could subscribe to; no push/callback mechanism is described.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   No evidence of any webhook subscription mechanism; YYLO documents Slack/GitHub integrations pulling into kanban but nothing about outbound event webhooks, and API/openapi probes returned 404s.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed5/10

   Foreloop's agent reads submitted feedback/reports and proposes intentions and tasks from that data (foreloop-docs-12, foreloop-docs-4), which is a form of AI-generated suggestion from collected data, but this is limited to feedback-to-task triage rather than broader analytics or insight generation across product data. Missing for 10: evidence of AI summarizing trends/patterns across historical data, dashboards or reports surfacing insights beyond individual feedback items, and independent corroboration of insight quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”
   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customers point at the element. The widget adds the page, its metadata, and an optional screenshot, so the model fixes the right thing.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is an orchestration/CLI tool for running coding agents, workflows, and task ledgers; it launches subagents to perform tasks but nothing in the evidence describes it generating analytic insights or suggestions from a user's own data. Merge/validation explicitly avoids invoking models (yylo-gh-6), and no docs mention dashboards, analytics, or AI-generated insight surfacing.

   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed5/10

   Foreloop supports background-style automation via its CLI (usable from cron or other schedulers) and agents that autonomously claim and work tasks in a repo, but it explicitly gates all agent actions behind a mandatory human approval step ('Nothing runs until a person approves a contract'), meaning true unattended autonomy is limited. Missing for 10: concrete documentation of scheduled/recurring automation setups, evidence of fully unattended runs without approval gating, and details on monitoring/alerting for background tasks.

   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed7/10

   Docs describe multiple mechanisms for autonomous, repeated execution — `yy loop` for repeating shell commands, run-until-completion scripts that iterate until kanban work is done, a workflow-runner for chained multi-step automations, a bounded parallel-runner for concurrent fan-out, and integrations that pull Slack/GitHub work into a kanban queue and post results back. This supports background-style autonomous task execution, and sessions can be resumed via `yy continue SESSION_ID` rather than reconstructed from a terminal. However, there's no evidence of a persistent scheduler/cron-like trigger or a hosted background service — everything appears CLI/session-driven, and there is no independent or hands-on confirmation that these loops truly run unattended over long periods. Missing for 10: evidence of scheduled/triggered automations independent of an active session, and third-party corroboration of long-running unattended execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “`yy loop` repeats arbitrary shell commands sequentially.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bounded concurrent fan-out for independent kanban tasks, data items, or complete commands—with structured evidence for every item.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Continue a captured session with `yy continue SESSION_ID`; do not reconstruct work from tmux scrollback.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Choose Workflow Runner when a step consumes `{{ steps.<id>.response }}`, a generated file, or a session from an earlier step.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's documented model relies on external agents (Claude Code or Codex) running on the user's own machine and connecting via MCP to claim tasks — there is no built-in AI assistant shipped inside Foreloop itself that a user delegates tasks to directly.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed4/10

   YYLO's CLI lets a user delegate a task to an AI agent via `--subagent claude` and manage it through kanban/ledger workflows, so task delegation to an AI is documented, but the AI capability is an external subagent (e.g., Claude) invoked by the orchestrator rather than an assistant built into YYLO itself. missing for 10: evidence of an assistant embedded in the product (not requiring an external model/agent), and any first-party assistant UI/API rather than orchestration of third-party agents.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed5/10

   Foreloop lets users describe problems in plain language (e.g., "Users can't tell which invoices are overdue") to kick off an intention that an agent turns into tasks, showing some natural-language entry point, but its actual operating surface is a structured CLI (with --json flags) and an MCP interface for agents, not a general natural-language command interface for the product as a whole. Missing for 10: evidence of NL commands controlling arbitrary product actions (not just initial feedback/intention creation), and any hands-on/independent confirmation of this NL flow working.

   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's interface is a structured CLI (yylo/yy commands with explicit flags like --task, --subagent) rather than a natural-language command interface; the --task string is passed through to a subagent, not parsed as an operator instruction to YYLO itself. No evidence shows a chat-like or NL command surface for driving YYLO's own operations (init, start, finish, ledger, merge, etc.).

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows CLI docs, MCP endpoint info, and install snippets, but nowhere describes an interactive API reference (e.g., Swagger/OpenAPI explorer, try-it-now console) with runnable examples.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is a CLI orchestrator for coding agents, not an API product; there is no evidence of an interactive API reference, and explicit probes for openapi.json/swagger.json and llms.txt all return 404, indicating no such reference exists.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/docs/yylo.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Evidence shows Foreloop exposes an MCP endpoint and CLI with --json output, but there is no mention of a downloadable OpenAPI spec or any machine-readable API specification document for its REST/API surface.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Explicit probes for llms.txt, docs-md, and OpenAPI/swagger endpoints all returned 404, and no evidence shows any downloadable machine-readable API spec; YYLO is a CLI orchestrator without a documented API surface to spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/docs/yylo.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed3/10

   The docs mention a stability guarantee for CLI `--json` output ('has a stable shape. Additive changes only') and the MCP/API endpoint path includes a 'v1' segment, implying some versioning discipline, but there is no explicit documented deprecation policy, versioning scheme, or migration guidance for the API itself. missing for 10: explicit API version numbering scheme, documented deprecation timeline/process, changelog or migration guides, evidence beyond CLI JSON stability.

   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “--json works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   No evidence of any versioned API contract or documented deprecation policy; the product is a CLI orchestrator with a version like 0.2.1rc6, but no API versioning scheme or deprecation guarantees are mentioned, and openapi/llms.txt probes returned 404.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://yylo.dev/openapi.json, https://yylo.dev/swagger.json, https://yylo.dev/api/openapi.json, htt…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://yylo.dev/docs/yylo.md”
   • [claimed-docs] “The 0.2.1rc6 channel adds ID-first general Records and typed task, wiki, workflow, and artifact profiles.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs describe per-task workflows (claim one task, agent does the work, opens one PR) and a CLI/MCP interface, but nothing in the evidence describes performing an operation across many items/tasks simultaneously (e.g., batch approve, bulk edit, multi-task claim). The axis is plausible for a CLI/automation tool but no evidence of bulk operation support exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”
   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO✓fullprobed8/10

   YYLO's parallel-runner explicitly supports 'bounded concurrent fan-out for independent kanban tasks, data items, or complete commands—with structured evidence for every item,' and run-until-completion repeats iterations until all kanban work is done, directly enabling bulk operations across many items with automated evidence capture. This is corroborated by a live public CLI (npm registry, MIT-licensed source), though there's no independent hands-on report of large-scale fan-out in practice. Missing for 10: independent/third-party validation of bulk-scale runs and concrete concurrency limits or throughput numbers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bounded concurrent fan-out for independent kanban tasks, data items, or complete commands—with structured evidence for every item.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Continue a captured session with `yy continue SESSION_ID`; do not reconstruct work from tmux scrollback.”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs describe human-approved task workflows (agents claim tasks, but 'nothing runs until a person approves a contract'), not a rules engine for automatic event-triggered actions; the closest mention is CLI usability from cron, which is not evidence of a native rules/trigger system. missing for 10: any documented rule-definition syntax, event-trigger configuration, or automation-without-approval capability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed5/10

   YYLO's integrations pull Slack messages and GitHub issues into its kanban system and return responses to source threads, which is a form of event-triggered automation, and run-until-completion/workflow-runner allow chained/looping actions. However there's no evidence of a general user-defined rule engine (conditions + custom triggers) — the event handling is limited to specific hardcoded integrations rather than an open rule-definition system. Missing for 10: a documented rules/conditions DSL, support for arbitrary custom event sources/triggers, and evidence of user-authored trigger logic beyond the built-in Slack/GitHub integrations.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Choose Workflow Runner when a step consumes `{{ steps.<id>.response }}`, a generated file, or a session from an earlier step.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed3/10

   The only relevant evidence is a single line noting the CLI can be run 'from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron,' implying users could wire up their own cron-based scheduling — but Foreloop itself documents no native recurring-job/workflow scheduler, retry policy, or schedule management UI. Missing for 10: a first-party scheduling feature, documented recurring-workflow configuration, and evidence of built-in cron/interval management within the product.

   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed5/10

   YYLO supports repeatable workflows (YAML-saved contracts, `yy loop` shell repetition, run-until-completion looping, workflow-runner chaining) which cover automation-depth, but there is no evidence of a scheduler, cron-like trigger, or time-based recurring job execution — workflows appear to be manually invoked or run-to-completion rather than scheduled on a recurring basis. missing for 10: cron/schedule syntax or trigger mechanism, evidence of unattended recurring execution (e.g., daily/hourly runs), and independent confirmation of scheduling in production use.

   • [claimed-docs] “`yy loop` repeats arbitrary shell commands sequentially.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Save the same contract as YAML for a reusable workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Choose Workflow Runner when a step consumes `{{ steps.<id>.response }}`, a generated file, or a session from an earlier step.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userVersion, review, and roll back my automations

   weight 1 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed4/10

   Foreloop's workflow requires human approval before any agent-driven change runs (foreloop-docs-7) and changes are delivered as GitHub pull requests (foreloop-docs-3, foreloop-docs-15), which inherently gives code-level versioning and review via git. However, there is no documentation of versioning, reviewing, or rolling back the automations/tasks/loops themselves (as opposed to the resulting code diffs) — no rollback command, task history, or automation-versioning feature is evidenced. Missing for 10: explicit automation/task versioning, a documented rollback mechanism for tasks or loops, and audit/history views beyond the live agent status list.

   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed5/10

   YYLO ledger provides task versioning-like constructs (immutable task source, worktree branching, candidate composition, expected-old ref protection for merges) and workflow YAML contracts can be saved/reused, giving some review/rollback semantics via git-based merge protections. However there is no explicit 'automation version history', diff/review UI, or a documented rollback command for automations themselves beyond git branch/worktree mechanics. missing for 10: dedicated automation versioning/history view, explicit rollback command for a run/automation (not just git ref protection), review workflow UI, and independent/hands-on confirmation of these rollback flows.

   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Save the same contract as YAML for a reusable workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The 0.2.1rc6 channel adds ID-first general Records and typed task, wiki, workflow, and artifact profiles.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

End to end feature delivery

1. ai-native userHave an agent automatically generate and run tests to validate its own code changes before proposing them

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence describes Foreloop's agents generating or running tests to validate code changes before proposing them; the docs describe task claiming, PR opening, and human approval gates but never mention automated test generation/execution as a validation step.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   The evidence explicitly states that tests and semantic reviews are 'explicit project checks outside merge' and that YYLO's merge step 'launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, and maintains no validation cache' (yylo-gh-6). While `yy loop` can repeat arbitrary shell commands, there is no evidence of an agent autonomously generating tests or validating its own changes before proposing them.

   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “`yy loop` repeats arbitrary shell commands sequentially.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerHave an agent autonomously diagnose and fix a reported bug

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed7/10

   Foreloop's documented workflow directly supports this: a bug report captured via the feedback widget (with page, metadata, screenshot) becomes an intention/task that an agent (Claude Code or Codex) claims, works on in a repo checkout, and resolves by opening a PR, without the reporter needing to know which files change. Human approval gates task initiation but the diagnosis-and-fix work itself is agent-driven end to end. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence that agents actually diagnose root causes correctly, and more detail on how the agent investigates ambiguous bugs beyond the general task pipeline description.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customers point at the element. The widget adds the page, its metadata, and an optional screenshot, so the model fixes the right thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed5/10

   YYLO orchestrates coding agents through task worktrees, kanban-driven work items, and iteration loops (run-until-completion, subagent tasking) that could be pointed at a bug-fix task, and it supports ingesting GitHub issues into kanban as a trigger. However there is no evidence of autonomous bug diagnosis (root-causing, log/trace analysis) as a distinct capability — the docs describe generic task/workflow orchestration and merge/validation boundaries rather than an end-to-end 'diagnose then fix' agent behavior. missing for 10: explicit diagnosis/root-cause capability, an end-to-end bug-fix case study or hands-on validation, evidence the agent itself (vs. the orchestrator) performs debugging reasoning.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. product-managerGo from a mockup or design to a working implementation without an engineering handoff

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed6/10

   Foreloop lets a non-engineer describe a need in plain language (e.g. "Users can't tell which invoices are overdue") or flag a page via a feedback widget with screenshot, and an agent turns that into tasks and a PR without the PM needing to specify files — this covers a 'no engineering handoff' description-to-implementation flow. However, the evidence never shows ingesting an actual mockup/design file (e.g. Figma) as the starting artifact, and a human still must approve the contract before code changes run, so it's not a fully autonomous design-to-code path. Missing for 10: direct mockup/design-file import as an input, evidence of end-to-end completion without any review gate, and a demonstrated design-to-code case study.

   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customers point at the element. The widget adds the page, its metadata, and an optional screenshot, so the model fixes the right thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's evidence describes a CLI orchestrator for coding agents (task/worktree/merge/ledger workflows) aimed at developers and project operators, with no mention of ingesting mockups/designs or enabling a non-technical PM to go from a design to working code without engineering involvement.

   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. developerHave an agent implement a requested feature end-to-end, including writing tests

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed6/10

   Foreloop orchestrates tasks and lets an agent (Claude Code/Codex) claim a task, do the work, and open a PR in the user's repo, which covers end-to-end feature implementation via an external coding agent — but Foreloop itself doesn't write code or tests; it delegates that entirely to the connected agent, and there's no explicit mention of test-writing behavior or verification. missing for 10: explicit evidence that generated PRs include tests, independent/hands-on confirmation of successful end-to-end feature delivery, and detail on how test coverage is verified before approval.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed5/10

   YYLO documents an end-to-end task loop (yylo init --task ... --subagent claude, worktree creation, commit-and-queue candidate flow) showing an agent can implement a described feature autonomously, but the evidence explicitly states 'tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge' — meaning YYLO's own agent loop does not itself guarantee test-writing as part of implementation, only that separate check scripts exist for validation. missing for 10: explicit evidence the invoked subagent writes/adds tests as part of a task, and any example showing test-authoring within the init/finish workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Environment setup

1. developerHave an agent automatically clone the repo, install dependencies, and configure its own working environment

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed4/10

   Foreloop's docs describe the developer running an agent 'in a checkout of your repository on your own machine' and using `foreloop init` to install a task-executor skill into that existing checkout — implying the human, not the agent, does the initial clone/setup, with the agent only claiming and working tasks afterward. There's no documentation of the agent autonomously cloning the repo, installing dependencies, or provisioning its own environment from scratch. Missing for 10: evidence of agent-initiated repo cloning, dependency installation steps, and autonomous environment configuration (e.g., a sandboxed or cloud checkout flow) rather than reliance on a pre-existing local checkout.

   • [claimed-docs] “foreloop init installs the task-executor skill into the checkout, which is what lets an agent working in that directory pick up the project'…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialprobed7/10

   Docs and GitHub README describe `task start`/`yy init` hydrating a dedicated worktree from a protected base SHA and completing 'configured dependency hydration' before reporting WORKING, which covers automated environment setup and dependency install; the CLI is confirmed live on npm and the repo public. Missing for 10: explicit description of cloning an arbitrary remote repo (vs. hydrating a pre-defined workspace), and independent/hands-on confirmation that dependency install works end-to-end.

   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [github] “A successful run prints the installed YYLO version, initializes `.juno_task/`, then emits a watch receipt with `"state":"COMPLETED"`, `"exit…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Interactive takeover

1. developerTake over an in-progress agent task in my editor, terminal, or browser to finish or redirect the work

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop~partialclaimed4/10

   Foreloop lets agents run locally in a checkout and claim/report tasks, and humans can approve contracts or view agent status via a dashboard row per worker, but there's no evidence of a live handoff mechanism to pause, take over, or redirect an in-progress task from editor/terminal/browser mid-execution. missing for 10: explicit takeover/interrupt UX, editor-integrated control of a running agent, terminal command to seize an active task, and any hands-on confirmation of mid-task redirection.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed4/10

   YYLO offers terminal-based session continuation (`yy continue SESSION_ID`) that lets a developer pick back up captured agent work rather than reconstructing it from scrollback, and task start/finish flows expose worktree/branch state that could be inspected or redirected from the CLI. However, there is no evidence of any editor integration or browser UI for taking over tasks — YYLO is documented purely as a CLI/orchestrator tool. Missing for 10: editor plugin/extension support, browser-based task takeover UI, and explicit interactive 'redirect mid-task' semantics beyond resuming a session.

   • [claimed-docs] “Continue a captured session with `yy continue SESSION_ID`; do not reconstruct work from tmux scrollback.”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerSend follow-up instructions to an active agent session to steer its work without restarting

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   The evidence describes agents claiming tasks, opening PRs, and reporting status, plus approval gates and skill-writing to correct recurring mistakes — but nothing describes sending live follow-up/steering instructions to an already-running agent session mid-task without restarting it.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's docs describe task lifecycle (init/start/preflight/finish) and resuming a captured session via `yy continue SESSION_ID`, but there is no evidence of sending new instructions to an already-running agent session to redirect its work mid-flight; `continue` appears to resume/reattach rather than inject steering input. missing for 10: any documented mechanism for mid-session instruction injection or steering, evidence that an active agent process accepts new prompts without restart.

   • [claimed-docs] “Continue a captured session with `yy continue SESSION_ID`; do not reconstruct work from tmux scrollback.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Sandbox execution

1. developerHave an agent safely execute code and install dependencies inside an isolated sandbox

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs explicitly describe agents running 'in a checkout of your repository on your own machine' (foreloop-docs-3), with no mention of sandboxing, containerization, or isolated execution environments for code/dependency installation. Missing for 10: any documentation of sandbox/container isolation, dependency install safety, or resource/network restrictions during agent execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's docs describe git-worktree/branch isolation for tasks and merge safety, but none of the evidence mentions a sandboxed execution environment (container/VM) for running agent code or installing dependencies safely. Worktree isolation protects git state, not runtime/process isolation.

   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Approval controls

1. developerConfigure an agent to auto-approve all its actions instead of confirming each one

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs explicitly state that human approval of a contract is a deliberate, mandatory gate before any agent action runs ('Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate'), with no mention of a setting to bypass or auto-approve this gate. This indicates the product does not offer an auto-approve configuration, so the story's capability is unsupported.

   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   The evidence describes YYLO's orchestration architecture (task worktrees, ledger, merge protections) but nothing addresses a configurable auto-approve/no-confirmation mode for agent actions; in fact merge land explicitly requires checks and human-oversight-style gating rather than blanket auto-approval. Missing for 10: any documented auto-approve flag/setting, evidence of confirmation prompts being bypassable, or explicit human-oversight configuration options.

   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. product-managerApprove key agent decisions from my phone while agents continue working

   weight 1 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed5/10

   Foreloop explicitly markets phone-based approval of 'big calls' and documents that no agent work runs until a human approves a contract, which matches the core ask. However, evidence is limited to marketing taglines with no detail on the mobile UI/notification flow, how approvals interact with agents continuing to work in parallel, or independent corroboration. Missing for 10: concrete mobile-app/notification workflow details, evidence of multi-agent concurrent operation while awaiting approval, and third-party confirmation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is documented purely as a CLI/terminal orchestrator (yylo/yy commands, ledger, worktrees, merge gating) with no mention of any mobile app, phone notification, or remote-approval interface for product managers. The axis is plausible for an agent-orchestration tool but no evidence supports it.

   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. engineering-leadSet tiered autonomy levels controlling what an agent can do without manual confirmation

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop documents a single approval gate before any agent work starts ('Nothing runs until a person approves a contract') and lets you approve from your phone, but there is no evidence of configurable tiered autonomy levels (e.g., auto-approving certain task types while requiring confirmation for others).

   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Evidence shows preflight/read-only checks, merge protections, and validation boundaries, but there is no mention of configurable tiered autonomy levels or a settings mechanism letting an engineering-lead define graduated confirmation thresholds for agent actions. missing for 10: explicit autonomy-level configuration, tiered permission settings, evidence of user-controlled confirmation thresholds.

   ⚑ flag

Visibility monitoring

1. developerWatch what a running agent is doing in real time, including its current status

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed6/10

   The docs describe a Development/Agents view listing each worker's agent identity, checkout name, current task, and last message — a real-time-ish status view (foreloop-docs-8). However, there's no evidence of live streaming updates, logs, or granular in-progress activity beyond a status line, and no independent/hands-on confirmation of real-time refresh behavior. missing for 10: evidence of live/streaming updates or detailed activity logs, independent confirmation of real-time refresh, granularity beyond a single status line per agent.

   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed4/10

   The GitHub docs mention a successful run ending in a 'watch receipt' with a state field (e.g. COMPLETED, exit_code, log_bytes), implying some status-tracking mechanism exists, and 'task start' reports a WORKING state before completion. However there is no dedicated 'watch' command, live dashboard, or streaming log evidence showing real-time observation of an in-progress agent's actions. missing for 10: explicit real-time streaming/monitoring command or UI, documentation of live status polling during execution, independent confirmation of watch behavior.

   • [github] “A successful run prints the installed YYLO version, initializes `.juno_task/`, then emits a watch receipt with `"state":"COMPLETED"`, `"exit…”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Continue a captured session with `yy continue SESSION_ID`; do not reconstruct work from tmux scrollback.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerGet notified when an agent completes a task or needs my input

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed3/10

   Foreloop provides a dashboard showing agent status ('last thing it said') and mentions approving 'big calls from your phone', implying some notification/approval flow, but there is no explicit documentation of push/email/Slack notifications when a task completes or needs input. missing for 10: explicit notification channel (email/Slack/push) documentation, confirmation of real-time alerts rather than manual dashboard polling, evidence of notification content for 'needs input' events.

   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed5/10

   YYLO emits watch receipts with a COMPLETED state/exit_code after a run finishes, and its Slack/GitHub integrations can return completed responses to the originating thread, giving developers a way to learn a task finished. However there's no evidence of a proactive notification for when an agent 'needs input' mid-task, nor any push/alert channel beyond polling receipts or the source-thread reply. Missing for 10: explicit 'needs input' alerting, a dedicated notification/webhook system, and independent confirmation the integration loop works end-to-end.

   • [github] “A successful run prints the installed YYLO version, initializes `.juno_task/`, then emits a watch receipt with `"state":"COMPLETED"`, `"exit…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Natural language task intake

1. developerDescribe a feature or bug in plain language and have it automatically turned into a scoped implementation task

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs describe plain-language input ('Users can't tell which invoices are overdue') turning into scoped, approvable tasks via 'intentions' that an agent fills in and proposes as tasks, gated by human approval before an agent acts on the repo. This directly matches intent-to-spec workflow with first-party documentation across multiple pages. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of the resulting task's scoping quality and no example of the full generated task artifact.

   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed6/10

   YYLO's CLI lets a developer pass a plain-language task string (e.g. `yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome"` or `yy ledger create "Validate recovery"`) which is then hydrated into a dedicated branch/worktree and handed to a subagent (yylo-docs-1, yylo-docs-2, yylo-gh-4, yylo-docs-11). This covers the 'turned into a scoped implementation task' half of the story, but there's no evidence of NLP-based scoping/decomposition logic — the description appears passed through largely as-is rather than analyzed/refined into a structured spec. Missing for 10: evidence of automatic task decomposition or requirement extraction from free-text input, and independent/hands-on confirmation that vague feature/bug descriptions produce well-scoped tasks.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. product-managerConvert user feedback submissions into structured tasks with proposed scope

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs show a feedback-collection widget that captures user submissions, and an agent-driven 'intention' workflow that reads the submission, fills in an intention, and proposes tasks (foreloop-docs-12), with human approval gating execution (foreloop-docs-7). This directly matches converting feedback into structured tasks with proposed scope, though evidence is entirely vendor docs with no independent/hands-on corroboration of output quality or scope structure. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of the feedback-to-task pipeline, and concrete example of the 'proposed scope' structure/fields.

   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Customers point at the element. The widget adds the page, its metadata, and an optional screenshot, so the model fixes the right thing.”
   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialprobed4/10

   YYLO can ingest external feedback (Slack messages, GitHub issues) directly into its kanban/ledger as structured tasks (yylo-docs-10), and a dedicated `feedback-yylo` CLI binary is confirmed live on npm (yylo-probe-rt-1), suggesting a feedback-to-task pathway exists. However, there is no documented mechanism for generating a 'proposed scope' alongside the task — no scope estimation, sizing, or planning artifact is described anywhere in the docs or GitHub evidence. Missing for 10: explicit scope-proposal output tied to feedback conversion, documentation of what the feedback-yylo binary actually produces, and any PM-facing evidence of structured scoping fields.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Plan approval

1. developerReview and approve an agent's implementation plan before any code changes are made

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs explicitly describe a 'contract' approval gate before any agent touches the repository ('Nothing runs until a person approves a contract... an agent is about to change your repository'), and mention approving 'big calls' from a phone, indicating a review/approve workflow prior to code changes. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of the approval UI showing the actual implementation plan content and evidence of what happens if a plan is rejected/revised.

   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Evidence describes YYLO's task lifecycle (init, start, preflight read-only, finish queuing a candidate, merge land) but nothing indicates the agent produces an implementation plan that a developer reviews and approves before any code is written — preflight/checks occur on already-produced work, not a pre-code plan gate.

   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadApprove a task's scope and contract before an agent is allowed to modify the repository

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed8/10

   Foreloop's docs explicitly state approval of a contract is a mandatory gate before any agent touches the repository ('Nothing runs until a person approves a contract... an agent is about to change your repository'), and agents only claim 'approved tasks' from the repo. This directly matches the engineering-lead approval-gate story, reinforced by mobile approval flow. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification that the gate is enforced in practice (not just documented) and detail on what 'scope and contract' specifically contains.

   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Approve the big calls from your phone.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed4/10

   YYLO documents a task/contract concept (YAML contracts, ledger tasks) and isolates agent work in dedicated branches/worktrees with a read-only preflight before any commit is queued (yylo-docs-2, yylo-docs-4, yylo-gh-4), which implies some spec-first gating. However there is no documented human approval/sign-off step where an engineering-lead explicitly reviews and approves scope/contract before the agent is permitted to start modifying the repo—task start appears automatic once invoked. Missing for 10: explicit lead-approval gate/workflow, evidence of a review UI or command requiring human sign-off, and confirmation that agent modification is blocked pending that approval.

   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”
   • [claimed-docs] “Save the same contract as YAML for a reusable workflow.”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ticket driven tasking

1. developerAssign a coding task to an agent directly from an existing issue or ticket

   weight 3 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's workflow starts from user feedback reports or free-text intentions that get turned into tasks an agent claims (foreloop-docs-4, foreloop-docs-12), but there is no evidence of importing or linking an existing GitHub issue/Jira ticket as the task source for an agent to pick up.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed6/10

   YYLO integrations pull GitHub issues into its kanban ledger and return completed responses to the source thread, and ledger tasks can then be started with a subagent via task start or yylo init, supporting the flow of turning an issue into an agent task. Missing for 10: a single documented command that directly converts one specific issue into an agent task in one step, and hands-on confirmation the GitHub-issue import works end-to-end.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “yy ledger create "Validate recovery" --status todo --tags auth yy ledger ready --sort asc yy ledger get TASK_ID”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence of a bulk data export feature or open-format export of projects/tasks/intentions for migration away from Foreloop; the closest hints (--json CLI output, MCP API access) are for programmatic access, not a documented full-data export/leave capability.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialprobed4/10

   Workflow contracts can be saved as YAML (yylo-docs-4) and the CLI/ledger source is fully open-source under MIT (yylo-probe-rt-2), suggesting no vendor lock-in, but there is no documented single 'export all data' command covering ledger records, task history, sessions, and artifacts in open formats. Missing for 10: an explicit data-export command/feature, documentation of export formats for ledger/kanban/session data, and confirmation that all state (not just workflow YAML) is portable.

   • [claimed-docs] “Save the same contract as YAML for a reusable workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The 0.2.1rc6 channel adds ID-first general Records and typed task, wiki, workflow, and artifact profiles.”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence of an open-source license or public source code repository; Foreloop is presented as a closed SaaS product with a CLI/widget/MCP server, but nothing indicates the source is available under an open license.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO✓fullprobed8/10

   The GitHub repo is public and licensed under MIT, confirmed by a runtime probe reading the LICENSE file directly, and the repo (yylo-dev/yylo) is documented as the CLI orchestrator's source. missing for 10: no independent third-party audit or community commentary confirming completeness of the published source beyond the license file check.

   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSelf-host the core product

   weight 3 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   All evidence describes Foreloop as a hosted SaaS (with a CLI/MCP endpoint at foreloop.com/api) that agents connect to remotely; there is no mention of a self-hostable core server, on-prem deployment, or open-source release. missing for 10: any documentation of a self-hosted deployment option, container/server image, or license permitting self-hosting.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO✓fullprobed8/10

   YYLO is an open-source, MIT-licensed CLI orchestrator (installable via npm, source on GitHub) that runs locally against a user's own repo/agents, so self-hosting the core product is inherently satisfied — confirmed by the public npm registry listing and the MIT LICENSE in the public repo. missing for 10: no dedicated self-hosting/deployment guide (e.g. server install, Docker, or persistent-service setup instructions) and no independent third-party report of someone self-hosting it in production.

   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Enterprise licensing

1. engineering-leadLicense an enterprise deployment with SSO and commercial support for organization-wide rollout

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions enterprise licensing, SSO, or commercial support tiers; all citations focus on CLI usage, MCP integration, and agent workflows. This is a plausible axis for a SaaS product like Foreloop (organizations often need SSO/enterprise support), so absence of evidence yields 'none' rather than 'na'.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's evidence pack shows only an open-source CLI orchestrator (MIT-licensed, npm package) with no mention of enterprise licensing tiers, SSO integration, or commercial support offerings; there is no pricing/plans page or enterprise sales material in evidence. missing for 10: enterprise/SSO licensing tier, commercial support plans, organization-wide deployment documentation.

   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yylo-dev/yylo/HEAD/LICENSE | head -3` returns 'MIT License /…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Model flexibility

1. engineering-leadBring my own LLM or API key so agents run on the model of my choice

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   The docs describe running third-party agents (Claude Code or Codex) locally against Foreloop's task API, but there's no evidence Foreloop lets a user configure or supply their own LLM/API key for Foreloop's own model usage (e.g., intention generation, feedback triage). Missing for 10: any documentation of model/provider selection, API key configuration UI, or support for alternate LLM backends.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Evidence shows a `--subagent claude` CLI flag implying some agent selection, but there is no documentation of configuring API keys, choosing alternate LLM providers, or any pricing/billing control for engineering leads. Missing for 10: explicit BYO-API-key setup, multi-provider/model configuration docs, and any pricing-limits guidance.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence pack items mention data retention policies, deletion controls, data export, or privacy settings for user/feedback data collected by Foreloop; all evidence focuses on agent workflows, CLI usage, and MCP integration.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's evidence covers task orchestration, worktrees, ledgers, and merges, but nothing addresses data retention policies, storage duration, or user-controlled deletion of tasks/sessions/records. No docs mention exporting, purging, or deleting stored data or session logs.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions telemetry, usage tracking, analytics collection, or an opt-out mechanism for Foreloop; the docs cover CLI usage, agent workflows, and feedback widgets but never address data collection or privacy controls.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions telemetry, usage tracking, analytics collection, or an opt-out mechanism for YYLO; the docs and GitHub description focus entirely on task orchestration features.

   ⚑ flag

Knowledge context

1. developerAdd a context file describing my codebase conventions so agents generate more relevant plans and code

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed4/10

   Foreloop's docs describe a 'skill' mechanism ('Write a skill when you notice yourself giving an agent the same correction twice') and an installed task-executor skill in the checkout, which loosely maps to encoding project-specific conventions for agents, but there's no explicit documentation of a dedicated context file (e.g., conventions.md) for describing codebase style/conventions. Missing for 10: explicit context-file feature, guidance on structuring codebase conventions, evidence that agents consume such a file specifically for improving plan/code relevance.

   • [claimed-docs] “foreloop init installs the task-executor skill into the checkout, which is what lets an agent working in that directory pick up the project'…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Write a skill when you notice yourself giving an agent the same correction twice.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers task orchestration, kanban ledgers, merge protections, and workflow runners, but nowhere describes a context/conventions file that agents read to generate more relevant plans or code. No mention of AGENTS.md, project instructions, or codebase-convention configuration exists in the docs or GitHub items provided.

   ⚑ flag

Project management integration

1. product-managerConnect issue trackers like Jira, Linear, ClickUp, or Monday.com so agents can manage tickets directly

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's evidence covers GitHub integration, its own task/loop tracking, MCP server, and feedback widgets, but there is no mention of connecting to Jira, Linear, ClickUp, or Monday.com at all — Foreloop appears to use its own internal issue/task system rather than integrating external issue trackers.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   The integrations doc only mentions bringing Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban (yylo-docs-10); there is no mention of Jira, Linear, ClickUp, or Monday.com anywhere in the evidence pack. Missing for 10: any documented connector or API integration for Jira, Linear, ClickUp, or Monday.com.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Version control integration

1. developerConnect a GitHub repository so an agent can access the code and open pull requests against it

   weight 3 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly describe connecting GitHub so Foreloop can read code and agents can open PRs against it, with a full workflow (agent claims task in a checkout, does work, opens a PR from the user's GitHub account, gated by human approval). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of the GitHub connection flow and no screenshots or third-party confirmation that PRs are actually opened successfully.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “foreloop init installs the task-executor skill into the checkout, which is what lets an agent working in that directory pick up the project'…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Evidence shows YYLO operates on local git worktrees/branches and has an internal 'merge land' step, and can pull GitHub issues into its kanban, but there is no evidence of connecting a GitHub repository as a remote and having the agent open pull requests against it — the merge feature explicitly stays local/internal with no GitHub PR API integration mentioned.

   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerGrant an agent access to my repositories with a one-click install, without complex setup

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs confirm connecting GitHub gives Foreloop read/PR access to repos (foreloop-docs-15) and that agents run against a checkout, but achieving this requires installing a global CLI, running foreloop init, configuring MCP with an API key, and running an agent locally — multiple manual steps rather than a true one-click flow. missing for 10: explicit one-click OAuth install flow, evidence of a simple GitHub App install button, independent confirmation of setup simplicity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “npm i -g foreloop # installs globally, so the CLI works in any directory”
   • [claimed-docs] “foreloop init installs the task-executor skill into the checkout, which is what lets an agent working in that directory pick up the project'…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else”
   • [claimed-docs] “Foreloop speaks MCP at /api/app/public/v1/mcp over streamable HTTP. An MCP client needs that URL and an API key and nothing else.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is documented as a CLI orchestrator requiring `npm install -g @yylo/cli` plus explicit `yylo init`/`task start` workflows that freeze SHAs, create worktrees, and hydrate dependencies — this is CLI-based setup, not a one-click repo-access grant. No evidence describes a GitHub App-style one-click install or OAuth flow for repo access. Missing for 10: any one-click install/authorization mechanism, evidence of simplified non-CLI onboarding, or a hosted install button.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ci remediation

1. engineering-leadHave failed CI workflows automatically diagnosed and fixed with a proposed pull request

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's documented workflow is task/intention-based (feedback → task → agent → PR), with no evidence of CI pipeline integration, failed-build detection, or automated diagnosis-and-fix triggered by CI failures. The axis is plausible for an agent-driven PR tool, but nothing in the evidence pack shows Foreloop watching or reacting to CI status.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is a CLI orchestrator for coding agents/workflows with kanban, ledger, and merge tooling, but nothing in the evidence pack mentions CI workflow failure detection, diagnosis, or auto-generating a fix PR from a failing CI run. Merge/land explicitly excludes running tests or validation ('Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge'), which is the opposite of an integrated CI-fix loop.

   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerTrigger an agent from CI/CD pipelines to fix a broken build or failing test

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs describe agents claiming human-approved tasks and opening PRs from a local checkout, with a CLI usable from "anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron" (foreloop-docs-16), but there is no evidence of CI/CD pipeline integration or of the agent being triggered specifically to fix broken builds or failing tests — its workflow centers on approved feature/task work, not automated CI failure remediation.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO is documented as a CLI orchestrator with kanban tasks, workflow/parallel runners, and Slack/GitHub-issue integrations, but nothing in the evidence describes triggering it from a CI/CD pipeline or having it react to a failing build/test. Since it's a scriptable CLI, this axis plausibly applies, but there is no documented CI hook, GitHub Actions example, or build-failure-triggered workflow.

   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Diff review

1. developerConfigure an agent to automatically open a pull request when its task completes

   weight 2 · round to Foreloop
   Foreloop✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs clearly describe the agent workflow: it claims a task, does the work, and opens a pull request from the user's GitHub account, with GitHub connection enabling PR creation, gated by human approval of the contract before work starts. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation that PRs are reliably opened on task completion, and no detail on configuring PR-specific settings (e.g., target branch, draft PRs).

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connecting GitHub is how Foreloop reads your code, and how an agent opens a pull request against it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's docs describe task branches, worktrees, and an internal 'merge land' step that composes a candidate directly, explicitly stating merge 'launches no models, chooses no reviewers'—there is no mention anywhere of opening a GitHub pull request on task completion, only importing issues into kanban and returning responses to source threads. No CLI flag, workflow step, or integration doc references PR creation.

   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. developerReview a diff of an agent's changes and approve it before it becomes a pull request

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's 'approval' gate (foreloop-docs-7) is a pre-work contract approval, not a diff review after the agent finishes changes — the agent then 'opens a pull request from your GitHub account' directly (foreloop-docs-3), with no documented step where a person reviews the diff before the PR is created. No evidence describes a diff-preview/approve-before-PR workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   Docs describe worktrees, candidate branches, and a 'merge land' step, but nowhere is there evidence of a diff-review UI or an explicit developer approval gate before a pull request is opened; in fact merge is described as launching 'no models, no reviewers' and reviews are called 'explicit project checks outside merge', with no PR-creation flow documented at all.

   • [github] “`task start` freezes the protected target SHA, creates a dedicated branch/worktree, and completes configured dependency hydration before rep…”
   • [github] “`merge land` selects one immutable task source, composes in a private detached candidate, and uses Git expected-old ref protection. A moved …”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Start hydrates an exact-base task worktree. Preflight is read-only, finish queues the committed candidate”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Pr review automation

1. ai-native userHave incoming issues automatically triaged with severity suggested and routed to the right owner

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs describe turning user feedback into intentions/tasks that agents pick up and claim (foreloop-docs-12, foreloop-docs-4), but there is no evidence of automatic severity classification or routing to a specific human owner — tasks are self-claimed by agents rather than triaged and assigned. missing for 10: severity scoring, owner/routing logic, any triage workflow evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “"Users can't tell which invoices are overdue" is enough to start; you do not need to know which files change.”
   • [claimed-docs] “An intention starts from the report, and its agent reads the submission, fills in the intention, and proposes the tasks”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's integrations feature only pulls GitHub issues/Slack messages into a kanban board and returns responses to the source thread (yylo-docs-10); there is no evidence of automated severity classification or owner-based routing logic anywhere in the pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bring Slack messages or GitHub issues into kanban and return completed responses to their source thread.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Readiness checks

1. engineering-leadAutomatically fix failing agent-readiness criteria in my repository

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Foreloop—none0/10

   Foreloop's docs describe a task/feedback pipeline where agents claim approved tasks and open PRs, but nothing in the evidence pack mentions detecting or automatically remediating 'agent-readiness criteria' (e.g., AGENTS.md, tool-permission manifests, readiness scoring) in a repository. Missing for 10: any readiness-criteria scanning/grading feature, evidence of automatic detection of failing criteria, and evidence of automated fixes tied to such criteria.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO—none0/10

   YYLO's diagnostic tool (`doctor workspace`) explicitly never fetches or changes the workspace, and merge/tests are described as explicit checks with no automated remediation; there is no documented feature that automatically fixes failing agent-readiness criteria.

   • [github] “`doctor workspace` is intentionally nonzero when it finds an actionable topology problem; it never fetches or changes the workspace.”
   • [github] “Tests and semantic reviews are explicit project checks outside merge. Merge launches no models, chooses no reviewers, schedules no suites, a…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. engineering-leadRun a readiness report that evaluates how ready my repository is for autonomous agents

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes a 'readiness report' or any repository-readiness scoring/assessment feature for autonomous agents; Foreloop's docs cover task claiming, MCP connectivity, feedback widgets, and approval gates, but nothing about evaluating repo readiness.

   ⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed4/10

   YYLO ships a `doctor workspace` check that flags actionable topology problems without mutating the repo, and its GitHub description references 'release-readiness boundaries,' which gesture at repo-readiness diagnostics, but there is no documented dedicated report scoring or evaluating overall repository readiness for autonomous agents. missing for 10: a named readiness-report command/output, criteria for 'agent readiness' beyond topology checks, and any sample report artifact.

   • [github] “`doctor workspace` is intentionally nonzero when it finds an actionable topology problem; it never fetches or changes the workspace.”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Concurrent execution

1. engineering-leadRun many agent tasks concurrently to scale delivery throughput

   weight 3 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed4/10

   The docs show that multiple agent workers can each claim tasks and run in parallel checkouts, with a dashboard listing one row per worker (foreloop-docs-8), implying some capacity for concurrent agent execution across a team. However, there is no explicit product feature for orchestrating, scaling, or managing many concurrent tasks at once, no throughput/scale claims, and no evidence of built-in concurrency limits or fleet management tooling. missing for 10: explicit support/documentation for running many agents simultaneously at scale, concurrency controls, throughput metrics, or a scheduler/queue for parallel task dispatch.

   • [claimed-docs] “You run an agent — Claude Code or Codex — in a checkout of your repository on your own machine. That agent asks Foreloop for approved tasks …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Development, under Agents, lists one row per worker: which agent it is running as, the name that checkout gave itself, the task it holds, an…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialclaimed6/10

   YYLO documents a 'bounded concurrent fan-out' parallel-runner for independent kanban tasks with structured evidence per item, plus run-until-completion looping, which supports running multiple agent tasks concurrently. However, evidence lacks details on concurrency limits, scaling numbers, resource isolation at scale, or independent/hands-on validation of throughput gains. missing for 10: concrete concurrency limits/benchmarks, independent third-party validation of parallel scaling, evidence of large-scale (10s-100s of tasks) usage in production.

   • [claimed-docs] “Bounded concurrent fan-out for independent kanban tasks, data items, or complete commands—with structured evidence for every item.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Repeat bounded YYLO iterations until no open kanban work remains.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Continue a captured session with `yy continue SESSION_ID`; do not reconstruct work from tmux scrollback.”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Headless automation

1. developerRun an agent headlessly inside CI/CD pipelines and shell scripts

   weight 2 · round to YYLO
   Foreloop~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs mention the CLI is invocable from 'anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron' and support scriptable --json output, suggesting headless invocation is possible (foreloop-docs-16, foreloop-docs-9). However, other docs state that 'nothing runs until a person approves a contract' (foreloop-docs-7), implying a human-in-the-loop gate that complicates fully unattended CI/CD execution, and there is no explicit CI/CD pipeline example or corroboration. Missing for 10: explicit CI/CD/pipeline example, evidence of non-interactive approval flow, independent confirmation of headless operation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Projects, loops, intentions, stories and tasks from a terminal — and from anything that can run one, including coding agents and cron.”
   • [claimed-docs] “`--json` works on any command and has a stable shape. Additive changes only.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Nothing runs until a person approves a contract. Approval is the only gate, and the gate is deliberate: an agent is about to change your rep…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   YYLO~partialprobed6/10

   YYLO is a CLI-first orchestrator with commands (init, task start, ledger, loop, workflow-runner, parallel-runner) that are inherently scriptable and non-interactive, and its runtime bins (yylo, yy, ypl) are published on npm confirming CLI availability. However, there's no explicit CI/CD documentation, no exit-code/error-handling guarantance for pipeline use beyond doctor workspace, and no CI examples (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, etc.) or headless/no-TTY confirmation. missing for 10: explicit CI/CD pipeline examples or docs, confirmed non-interactive/headless mode guarantees, exit-code contract documentation for scripting, independent hands-on CI usage reports.

   • [claimed-docs] “npm install -g @yylo/cli@0.2.2 yylo init --task "Describe one verifiable outcome" --subagent claude”
   • [claimed-docs] “`yy loop` repeats arbitrary shell commands sequentially.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Bounded concurrent fan-out for independent kanban tasks, data items, or complete commands—with structured evidence for every item.”
   • [github] “`doctor workspace` is intentionally nonzero when it finds an actionable topology problem; it never fetches or changes the workspace.”
   • [github] “YYLO is a command-line orchestrator for coding agents, repeatable workflows, and receipt-backed repository changes. It is for developers who…”
   • [probe] “PROBE runtime (recorded 2026-09-14): `npm view @yylo/cli name version bin` — the official CLI is live on the public npm registry (@yylo/cli …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag