OpenGAP
A Git-native CLI standard for defining, validating, and exporting portable AI agents.
- Source repo
- open-gitagent/opengap
- Stars
- ★ 2.9k
- Last updated
- 2mo ago
- License
- MIT
- Primary language
- TypeScript
- FA score
- 51/100 · Major gaps
At a glance
- Works with
- Universal · cross-platformCodex · Claude Code · OpenAI API
- You'll need
- Typical use
- An engineering team that wants to keep a code-review agent in Git and run opengap validate in CI on every change.
- Main limitation
- Only agent.yaml is documented as having a strict schema; the quality and completeness of the other convention-based files remain a team responsibility.
- Source review
- 51/100 · Major gaps
What does this agent do, and when should you use it?
OpenGAP, or Git Agent Protocol, is a Git-native standard for agent definitions plus its reference CLI. A minimal agent consists of an agent.yaml manifest and a SOUL.md identity file, with optional rules, skills, tool schemas, workflows, memory, hooks, compliance artifacts, and recursive sub-agents. Its CLI scaffolds templates, validates definitions, displays metadata, imports selected formats, and exports targets including system prompts, Claude Code files, and OpenAI Agents SDK Python code. It captures the identity layer—prompts, rules, roles, model preferences, and tool schemas—while orchestration graphs, live tool execution, memory I/O, and iterative loops remain the responsibility of the destination runtime.
After installation, the opengap CLI (with gitagent retained as a compatibility alias) can scaffold minimal, standard, full, and llm-wiki definitions through opengap init --template. opengap validate checks a definition against the specification, while opengap validate --compliance checks regulatory and segregation-of-duties configuration; opengap audit produces a compliance checklist report. opengap export --format <fmt> turns repository definitions such as agent.yaml and SOUL.md into adapter-specific output, while opengap import --from <fmt> <path> supports claude, cursor, crewai, and opencode imports, and opengap run runs a definition from a Git repository or local directory through an adapter. YAML files in workflows/ can describe deterministic skill:, agent:, and tool: steps with depends_on ordering, templated inputs, conditions, prompts, and failure-notification settings.
- An engineering team that wants to keep a code-review agent in Git and run opengap validate in CI on every change.
- An agent owner who needs one reviewed set of identity files and tool schemas exported to Claude Code, OpenAI Agents SDK, or a generic system prompt.
- A financial-services team that needs to declare maker/checker conflicts, human supervision, recordkeeping, and audit controls in agent configuration.
- A platform team that wants to reuse a base agent, skills, or sub-agent definitions through extends and dependencies.
- A developer migrating the identity layer of a Claude, Cursor, CrewAI, or OpenCode agent into a versioned repository.
How do you install or deploy this agent?
Prerequisites are Node.js >= 18, npm, and Git. Install globally:
npm i -g @open-gitagent/opengapUse opengap after installation; gitagent is installed as a backward-compatible alias. No API credential is documented as a prerequisite for creating, validating, or exporting an agent definition.
How do you use this agent?
Create and inspect a first definition inside a Git repository:
opengap init --template standard
opengap validate
opengap info
opengap export --format system-promptKeep agent.yaml and SOUL.md for the minimum valid definition. To run a definition directly:
opengap run ./my-agent --adapter lyzrTo keep the agent definition separate from the target workspace:
opengap run --dir ./agents/reviewer --workspace ~/code/my-app --adapter claude -p "Review this repository"What are this agent's strengths and limitations?
- Uses commits, branches, diffs, tags, and pull requests as the lifecycle for agent definitions, enabling rollback and line-level auditability.
- Separates manifests, identity, hard rules, duties, skills, tools, and workflows into reviewable repository assets.
- Provides documented init, validate, audit, import, export, run, and skills commands alongside a broad adapter list.
- Includes explicit financial-compliance and segregation-of-duties structures, including role conflicts, required handoffs, and strict or advisory enforcement.
- Only agent.yaml is documented as having a strict schema; the quality and completeness of the other convention-based files remain a team responsibility.
- Exports do not carry over runtime orchestration, live tool execution, memory I/O, or iterative loops, so destination-runtime work is still required.
- The CLI requires Node.js >= 18, npm, Git, and local filesystem access; resolving Git dependencies and running from remote repositories also involves network access.
- The supplied documentation lists adapters but does not establish feature parity, authentication requirements, or production guarantees for each adapter.
How does this agent compare with similar options?
Relative to runtime frameworks named in the documentation—such as Claude Code, OpenAI Agents SDK, CrewAI, and LangGraph—OpenGAP focuses on extracting and versioning the identity layer, rules, roles, and tool schemas rather than replacing runtime orchestration or execution.
Key facts side by side with the most closely related agents.
| Agent | Source review | Stars | Updated | Language | Full support on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenGAP This agent | 51 · Major gaps | ★ 2.9k | 2mo ago | TypeScript | Codex · Claude Code · OpenAI API |
| DACA Agentic AI Learning Stack | 38 · Major gaps | ★ 4.4k | 11mo ago | Jupyter Notebook | OpenAI API |
| Agency Swarm | 45 · Major gaps | ★ 4.6k | 1d ago | Python | OpenAI API |
| Gitagent | 44 · Major gaps | ★ 702 | 1mo ago | Rust | OpenAI API · Claude API |
How does FollowAgents rate this agent?
Why each dimension lost points
Evidence shows: permission controls (SOD roles), user confirmation (human-in-the-loop), data flow transparency (git diff/blame), sensitive data handling (.env and .gitignore), dependency security (npm dependencies), external effects (git operations), rollback (git versioning), and source attribution (git blame). However, these are documented, not verified by code, and the permission model may be overly complex without clear least privilege. Deductions: lack of execution evidence, potential over-permissioning.
Evidence shows: self-consistent spec (agent.yaml, SOUL.md), clear dependency list, but failure messages not detailed. Deductions: insufficient failure handling documentation, dependency availability unverified.
Evidence shows: targets multiple audiences (developers, compliance), defines capability boundaries (skills, tools), triggers (workflows), environment fit (multiple adapters). Deductions: trigger precision and boundary definitions are brief.
Evidence shows: clear information architecture (directory structure), install notes (npm install), naming stability (opengap/gitagent alias), rich examples (examples/), MIT license, version number, maintenance responsibility (author). Deductions: known limitations not explicit, changelog missing, maintenance responsibility only author name.
Evidence shows: usable outputs (multiple export formats), high marginal value (solves framework fragmentation), cost-benefit not quantified. Deductions: no data for cost-benefit.
Evidence shows: concrete examples and patterns, but lack independent verification, facts vs inferences not clearly separated. Deductions: claims are assertions without test results.
- Compliance claims (FINRA, SEC) are unverified and may be marketing assertions.
- Permission model (SOD) may be overly complex and could violate least privilege in practice.
- Dependency security not audited, potential known vulnerabilities.
- Publisher identity unverified, maintenance responsibility unclear.