{
  "prompt_name": "issue-triage",
  "category": "dev",
  "date": "2026-03-16",
  "generated_text": "## Issue Triage \u2014 2026-03-16\n\n### 1) Linux embedding failures in Ollama plugin\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Embeddings fail on Linux environments \u2014 `elizaos-plugins/plugin-ollama#17`\n- **Current Status:** Open; community-reported; investigation pending/ongoing\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **High** (Linux is a common dev/prod target for self-hosting)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **Yes** (breaks embeddings-dependent features: retrieval, memory, semantic search)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **High** (self-hosted \u201cit doesn\u2019t work on Linux\u201d perception)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** Bug\n  - **Component Affected:** Model Integration / Plugin System (`plugin-ollama`)\n  - **Complexity:** Moderate effort (env-specific; may involve native libs, model server config, or file permissions)\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Linux diagnostics, Ollama runtime behavior, embeddings pipeline, Node/TS plugin debugging\n  - **Dependencies:** Repro steps + environment matrix (distro, kernel, Ollama version); confirm whether issue is model-specific\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **3**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P1**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Add an issue template comment requesting: distro, CPU/GPU, Ollama version, model name, plugin version, logs.\n  2. Stand up CI-like repro matrix (Ubuntu LTS at minimum) and add a minimal embeddings smoke test.\n  3. Determine failure class: request format, endpoint mismatch, timeouts, path/permissions, or binary incompat.\n  4. Patch + release plugin version; document known-good versions and required Ollama settings.\n- **Potential Assignees:** `plugin-ollama` maintainer(s); support from **Odilitime** (framework/plugin coordination)\n\n---\n\n### 2) Missing \u201cproduction-grade\u201d error handling patterns (agents fail ungracefully)\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Standardize graceful error handling & recovery for production agents \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-01` (needs GitHub issue)\n- **Current Status:** Reported as a top production barrier in Discord; not yet tracked as a concrete GitHub issue\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **Critical** (impacts nearly all production deployments)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **Partial** (core works, but brittle under real-world failures)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **High** (\u201cdemo-only\u201d perception)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** UX / Bug (reliability)\n  - **Component Affected:** Core Framework (runtime orchestration, tool/plugin invocation, retries)\n  - **Complexity:** Complex solution (requires conventions + possibly framework hooks)\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Runtime reliability, TS/Node, agent loop design, plugin boundary contracts, observability\n  - **Dependencies:** Decide baseline policy: retry/backoff, circuit breakers, typed error taxonomy, user-safe messaging\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **4**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P1**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Create GitHub issue with concrete acceptance criteria (examples: tool timeout, model rate-limit, plugin crash).\n  2. Define a shared error taxonomy (transient vs permanent) and default retry/backoff behavior.\n  3. Add structured error events + \u201creceipt\u201d logging at the framework boundary (tool call start/end/fail).\n  4. Provide a \u201cproduction agent template\u201d showcasing safe fallbacks and user-facing error messaging.\n- **Potential Assignees:** **Odilitime** (core), **Caesar \u2694\ufe0f** (product requirements/polish), plus a core runtime contributor\n\n---\n\n### 3) Lack of context persistence across sessions (state continuity not guaranteed)\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Conversation/context persistence across sessions \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-02` (needs GitHub issue)\n- **Current Status:** Identified as a key adoption blocker; not mapped to a single tracked issue in provided data\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **High**\n  - **Functional Impact:** **Partial** (agents function, but cannot be trusted to \u201cremember\u201d reliably)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **High** (breaks \u201cautonomous agent\u201d expectations)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** Feature Request / Reliability\n  - **Component Affected:** Core Framework (memory, storage, session management); possibly DB layer\n  - **Complexity:** Architectural change (storage semantics + identity/session keys + data retention)\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Storage/DB design, identity/session modeling, backward compatibility, migration strategy\n  - **Dependencies:** Align with ongoing DB refactor work (`elizaos/eliza#6509` referenced in weekly summary)\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **5**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P1**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Create GitHub issue tying requirements to DB refactor milestones (what must persist, how to scope, retention).\n  2. Define \u201csession identity\u201d: user id, channel id (Discord/WhatsApp/Gmail), agent id, and encryption needs.\n  3. Implement minimal persistence MVP: restore last N turns + tool outcomes + agent state snapshot.\n  4. Add tests: restart mid-conversation; ensure deterministic restoration behavior.\n- **Potential Assignees:** **Odilitime** (core/DB direction), a DB-focused contributor; input from **Caesar \u2694\ufe0f** (production requirements)\n\n---\n\n### 4) Localization gaps (Arabic RTL layout redesign called out as required polish)\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Internationalization + RTL (Arabic) UI readiness \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-03` (needs GitHub issue)\n- **Current Status:** Raised as a concrete requirement for \u201centerprise trust\u201d; no linked GitHub issue in provided data\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **Medium** (region-specific, but important for expansion)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **No** (not blocking core execution)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **Medium/High** (polish signal; enterprise readiness)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** UX\n  - **Component Affected:** GUI (dashboard/admin UI) + any templated UIs\n  - **Complexity:** Moderate effort (layout mirroring, typography, component audit)\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Frontend i18n, RTL CSS/layout, UI QA\n  - **Dependencies:** Identify which UI surface is \u201cofficial\u201d for elizaOS (dashboard/admin) and its i18n framework\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **3**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P2**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Create GitHub issue with UI inventory and RTL acceptance checklist (bidirectional text, alignment, icons, charts).\n  2. Add i18n scaffolding + locale switch; implement Arabic RTL as first \u201chard mode\u201d locale.\n  3. Add screenshot-based regression tests (or at minimum a QA checklist) for RTL layouts.\n- **Potential Assignees:** Frontend/UI maintainer; **Caesar \u2694\ufe0f** for acceptance criteria\n\n---\n\n### 5) Token migration transparency gaps (completion rates + unmigrated token fate) driving scam risk\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Publish ai16z \u2192 elizaOS migration stats + policy for unmigrated tokens \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-04` (needs GitHub issue / docs task)\n- **Current Status:** Open questions repeatedly raised; migration confirmed closed; scam warnings circulating\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **High** (affects any holders who missed migration + community trust)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **No** (not a software runtime blocker)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **High** (trust, legitimacy, scam surface area)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** Documentation / Security (user safety)\n  - **Component Affected:** Documentation site + announcements; possibly governance process\n  - **Complexity:** Simple fix (content), Moderate effort if on-chain analytics needed\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** On-chain/token analytics, technical writing, community comms\n  - **Dependencies:** Source-of-truth data: snapshot block, migration contract addresses, final accounting policy decision\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **2**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P1**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Publish a canonical doc page: migration closed, official links, and explicit \u201cno late migration\u201d statement.\n  2. Add statistics: % migrated, remaining supply (as of date), and what happens to unmigrated tokens (burn/treasury/etc.).\n  3. Add a \u201cScam Prevention\u201d banner with examples of common scam patterns and how to verify official resources.\n- **Potential Assignees:** **Odilitime** (official comms/docs direction), support from community mods (e.g., **sb**) for scam messaging\n\n---\n\n### 6) DeFi agent security guardrails not yet available as first-class elizaOS plugin (x402Guard)\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Track integration/release plan for x402Guard (spend limits, whitelists, session keys, audit log) \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-05`\n- **Current Status:** Announced; targeted \u201cwithin weeks\u201d; needs a tracked milestone and integration contract\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **Medium/High** (high for DeFi builders; lower for general users)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **Partial** (agents can run today, but without strong transaction safety boundaries)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **High** for DeFi positioning (security expectations are unforgiving)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** Security / Feature Request\n  - **Component Affected:** Plugin System + Web3 integrations (Base/Solana); signing/session key flows\n  - **Complexity:** Complex solution (crypto security + policy engine + audit logging + UX)\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Rust (proxy), blockchain transaction validation, key management (EIP-7702 session keys), plugin interface design\n  - **Dependencies:** Define how agents route signing requests through proxy; policy schema; testnets; threat model\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **4**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P2** (elevate to P1 if elizaOS is actively marketing DeFi autonomy as core)\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Create a tracking issue with scope: MVP chains (Base/Solana), policy primitives, audit log guarantees.\n  2. Define plugin interface contract: request/response schema, failure modes, logging hooks.\n  3. Recruit early testers (DeFi agent builders) and run adversarial test scenarios (prompt injection \u2192 tx attempt).\n  4. Add documentation: \u201cHow to run an agent with enforced spend limits + contract whitelist.\u201d\n- **Potential Assignees:** **dzik pasnik** (author/maintainer), support from **Odilitime** (plugin registry + integration)\n\n---\n\n### 7) Clarify \u201cCan I use Eliza to develop Solana dApps?\u201d (positioning + docs)\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Solana dApp development guidance/positioning \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-06`\n- **Current Status:** Asked in Discord; unanswered; likely a docs gap\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **Medium** (new builder onboarding question)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **No**\n  - **Brand Impact:** **Medium** (uncertainty slows adoption)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** Documentation\n  - **Component Affected:** Docs / Developer onboarding\n  - **Complexity:** Simple fix\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Solana ecosystem familiarity, elizaOS plugin capabilities, clear scoping language\n  - **Dependencies:** Confirm current Solana support surface (SAID Protocol, plugins, wallet tooling)\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **1**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P3**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Add a docs FAQ: what elizaOS can/can\u2019t do for Solana dApps (agent integration vs writing full on-chain programs).\n  2. Provide pointers: SAID identity, relevant plugins, example \u201cagent interacts with Solana program\u201d template.\n- **Potential Assignees:** Docs maintainer; review by **Odilitime**\n\n---\n\n### 8) Define prediction accuracy threshold/quality gates for prediction-market agents (Milady integration)\n- **Issue Title & ID:** Prediction-market agent quality gates (accuracy threshold, calibration, rollback rules) \u2014 `TRIAGE-NEW-2026-03-16-07`\n- **Current Status:** Open question; no target threshold defined\n- **Impact Assessment:**\n  - **User Impact:** **Low/Medium** (depends on how many users run prediction automation)\n  - **Functional Impact:** **Partial** (system exists, but without a safety/quality policy)\n  - **Brand Impact:** **Medium** (wrong predictions + automated actions can harm trust)\n- **Technical Classification:**\n  - **Issue Category:** Feature Request / UX (safety policy)\n  - **Component Affected:** Agent logic layer (decisioning), integrations (Kalshi/Polymarket/etc.)\n  - **Complexity:** Moderate effort\n- **Resource Requirements:**\n  - **Required Expertise:** Evaluation methodology, statistics/calibration, product risk controls\n  - **Dependencies:** Access to historical data + definition of \u201caccuracy\u201d per market type\n  - **Estimated Effort (1-5):** **3**\n- **Recommended Priority:** **P3**\n- **Specific Actionable Next Steps:**\n  1. Define minimal policy: confidence threshold + max stake + human-in-the-loop toggle.\n  2. Add evaluation harness with backtests and reporting.\n- **Potential Assignees:** **ElizaBAO** (integration context), **Caesar \u2694\ufe0f** (product risk framing)\n\n---\n\n## Conclusion\n\n### 1) Top highest-priority issues to address immediately (next 1\u20132 weeks)\n1. **`plugin-ollama#17` Linux embeddings failure (P1)** \u2014 unblock core embeddings workflows for self-hosters.\n2. **Graceful error handling & recovery standard (P1)** \u2014 reduce \u201cdemo-only\u201d brittleness across all agents.\n3. **Context persistence across sessions (P1)** \u2014 foundational for autonomous, long-running agents.\n4. **Migration transparency + scam-prevention docs (P1)** \u2014 protect users and project trust.\n5. **x402Guard tracking + integration contract (P2, consider P1 for DeFi push)** \u2014 establish credible DeFi safety boundaries.\n6. **RTL/i18n readiness (P2)** \u2014 polish requirement for enterprise trust in key locales.\n7. **Solana dApp guidance FAQ (P3)** \u2014 improve builder onboarding.\n8. **Prediction accuracy/quality gates (P3)** \u2014 reduce risk for automated market actions.\n\n### 2) Patterns/themes indicating deeper architectural problems\n- **Production reliability is the dominant gap**: multiple discussions converge on trust signals\u2014errors, persistence, and recoverability\u2014suggesting the framework needs stronger **operational semantics** (what happens when tools/models fail, how state survives restarts, how outcomes are logged).\n- **Security boundaries are becoming mandatory** for autonomous agents (especially DeFi): there\u2019s a clear need for first-class patterns for **policy enforcement, key/session management, and immutable audit trails**.\n- **Ecosystem maturity depends on \u201cit just works\u201d across environments** (Linux embeddings): cross-platform test coverage and compatibility guarantees are becoming as important as features.\n\n### 3) Process improvements to prevent similar issues\n- **Add production-readiness checklists** to new integrations/plugins: error taxonomy, retries/timeouts, structured logs/receipts, and restart/persistence behavior.\n- **Introduce environment matrix smoke tests** for high-usage plugins (Linux/macOS/Windows; minimal \u201cembeddings + chat + tool call\u201d tests).\n- **Create a \u201cSecurity & Safety\u201d review lane** for agent-wallet or agent-execution features (policy engine expectations, audit logging, session key handling).\n- **Convert recurring Discord blockers into GitHub issues within 24\u201348 hours** with clear acceptance criteria, owners, and milestones (prevents \u201cknown but untracked\u201d stagnation).",
  "source_references": [
    "2026-03-16\n---\n2026-03-15.md\n---\n# elizaOS Discord - 2026-03-15\n\n## Overall Discussion Highlights\n\n### Production Readiness & Enterprise AI Agents\n\nThe primary technical focus centered on bridging the gap between AI agent demonstrations and production-ready systems. Caesar \u2694\ufe0f initiated a critical discussion about the evolution of AI development, emphasizing that the bottleneck has shifted from code capability to user trust and polish. Key production barriers identified include:\n\n- **UI Trust Signals**: Interfaces need to resemble enterprise software to inspire confidence\n- **Error Handling**: Systems must gracefully handle failures beyond raw AI output\n- **Context Persistence**: Maintaining conversation state across sessions\n- **Localization**: Proper internationalization, specifically Arabic RTL layout redesign\n\nCaesar \u2694\ufe0f shared insights from building an AI COO for SMEs, noting that technical functionality alone doesn't drive adoption\u2014users need confidence to leave agents running autonomously.\n\n### DeFi Agent Security Infrastructure\n\nA detailed technical discussion emerged around **x402Guard**, an infrastructure layer designed to secure autonomous DeFi agents against vulnerabilities like prompt injection and unauthorized transactions. The system provides:\n\n**Security Model:**\n- Per-step transaction evaluation (not full chain validation)\n- Layered limit systems combining permanent guardrail rules with temporary session keys\n- Immutable audit logging for all transaction attempts\n\n**Constraint Enforcement:**\n- Maximum transaction amounts\n- Daily spending caps\n- Contract whitelists\n- Token restrictions\n\n**Example Use Case:** A treasury management agent configured with a $500 daily limit and specific contract whitelist (Uniswap, Aave) creates a physically enforced spending boundary. Each transaction request is validated against these rules in real-time, with all attempts logged immutably regardless of pass/fail status.\n\n### Community & Administrative Updates\n\nOdilitime performed channel maintenance, unbanning 33coded from the \ud83d\udcac-discussion channel. Inhuman Resources confirmed this was the primary user requiring reinstatement, noting others were \"more deserving\" of their bans.\n\n### Market Observations\n\nCasual observations about ElizaOS token price movements relative to Bitcoin were noted by community members, though no substantive analysis was provided.\n\n## Key Questions & Answers\n\n**Q: How does x402Guard handle multi-step DeFi strategies where the agent needs to approve intermediate steps like swap \u2192 deposit \u2192 stake? Does it evaluate the full transaction chain before signing, or per-step?**  \n**A:** Per-step evaluation. Each payment request hits the proxy and gets checked against the agent's rules. If step 3 would blow the daily limit, it gets blocked. Every attempt lands in an immutable audit log. *(answered by dzik pasnik)*\n\n**Q: Does the user set limits per session, or globally for x402Guard?**  \n**A:** Limits are layered - Guardrail rules are permanent policy per agent (daily cap, contract whitelist), while Session keys are temporary (e.g., \"valid 2 hours, max $100\"). *(answered by dzik pasnik)*\n\n**Q: Did 33coded get kicked from here?**  \n**A:** Confirmed and subsequently unbanned. *(answered by Odilitime)*\n\n**Q: Who else do I need to unban?**  \n**A:** That was it, others were more deserving of bans. *(answered by Inhuman Resources)*\n\n### Unanswered Questions\n\n- Can I use Eliza to develop Solana dApps? *(asked by KingRon)*\n- What's your solana addy? *(asked by Odilitime)*\n- For elizaOS builders, what's the #1 polish gap you see between \"demo magic\" and \"production ready\"? *(asked by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f)*\n\n## Community Help & Collaboration\n\n**Odilitime \u2192 33coded**  \nContext: User was banned from channel  \nResolution: Successfully unbanned the user\n\n**Inhuman Resources \u2192 Odilitime**  \nContext: Determining who else needed unbanning  \nResolution: Confirmed 33coded was the only one requiring unban\n\n**dzik pasnik \u2192 Caesar \u2694\ufe0f**  \nContext: Understanding x402Guard's transaction validation architecture for multi-step DeFi operations and limit configuration  \nResolution: Provided comprehensive explanation of per-step validation model with layered limits (permanent guardrail rules + temporary session keys), immutable audit logging, and concrete treasury management example with $500 daily limit\n\n## Action Items\n\n### Feature\n\n- Clarify whether Eliza can be used to develop Solana dApps *(mentioned by KingRon)*\n- Investigate x402Guard infrastructure layer for production DeFi agent security with per-step transaction validation and layered limit systems *(mentioned by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f, dzik pasnik)*\n\n### Documentation\n\n- Document best practices for agent production readiness including UI trust signals, error handling, context persistence, and localization (particularly RTL layout) *(mentioned by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f)*\n\n### Technical\n\n- Follow up on x402Guard implementation details via direct message *(mentioned by dzik pasnik)*\n---\n2026-03-14.md\n---\n# elizaOS Discord - 2026-03-14\n\n## Overall Discussion Highlights\n\n### Security & Infrastructure\n\n**x402Guard Security Proxy for DeFi Agents**\n\ndzik pasnik introduced a critical security solution for elizaOS agents operating in DeFi environments. The x402Guard proxy addresses a fundamental vulnerability where agents with wallet access could execute harmful transactions. The system implements:\n- Non-custodial spend limits\n- Contract whitelisting\n- EIP-7702 session keys as an intermediary layer between agents and blockchain\n- Support for Base and Solana networks\n- Built in Rust for performance and reliability\n\nThe project will be released as an open-source elizaOS plugin within weeks, with early testing targeted at DeFi agent developers.\n\n### Prediction Markets & Data Aggregation\n\n**Milady Prediction Market Integration**\n\nElizaBAO announced a comprehensive prediction market system for Milady, integrating multiple platforms:\n- dflow with Kalshi\n- Jupiter with Polymarket\n- predictdotfun\n- Limitless\n\nThe implementation aggregates real-world data sources and enables on-chain execution based on probabilities. Caesar highlighted this as underrated utility, noting that most agents focus on entertainment and social features rather than actionable data aggregation. The discussion raised questions about prediction accuracy thresholds, though specific targets remain undefined.\n\n### Market Adoption & Product-Market Fit\n\n**OpenClaw Phenomenon in China**\n\nDorianD reported significant market developments demonstrating genuine product-market fit for OpenClaw:\n- Mac Mini computers selling out across China due to OpenClaw demand\n- Users purchasing dedicated hardware specifically to run the AI tool\n- Phenomenon branded as \"raising a lobster\" (referencing OpenClaw's mascot)\n- Industry experts recommending dedicated computers due to OpenClaw's software design\n- Stock surges for Hong Kong-listed MiniMax and Zhipu AI after launching OpenClaw tools\n\nThis represents a rare example of AI software driving hardware sales and demonstrating clear market demand.\n\n### Plugin Development & Agent Capabilities\n\n**Memelord Plugin Release**\n\nMeme Broker released an elizaOS plugin integrating Memelord.com for automated meme generation. The plugin is available on GitHub with a live demonstration through the Memelordicus agent on X/Twitter, expanding the creative capabilities of elizaOS agents.\n\n**skill.md Implementation & Workflows-as-a-Service**\n\nlightningprox implemented Odilitime's skill.md recommendation for agent discovery, deploying it on lightningprox.com and solanaprox.com. Additionally launched Workflows-as-a-Service on AIProx, enabling users to:\n- Chain agents into scheduled pipelines\n- Pay-per-execution pricing model\n- Full execution receipts for transparency\n\n### Token Economics & Migration\n\n**ai16z to ElizaOS Migration Questions**\n\nCryptologos raised important questions about the token migration from ai16z to ElizaOS at a 1:6 ratio:\n- Migration completion rates remain undocumented\n- Fate of unmigrated tokens unclear (burn vs. redistribution)\n- Need for transparency on token distribution\n\n**Milady Token Utility**\n\nMartin \u5948\u7279\uff08\u7834\u4ea7\u7248\uff09 inquired about Milady token purpose. Odilitime clarified they function as meme currency with trading fees supporting development, representing a straightforward tokenomics model.\n\n### Development Philosophy\n\n**Software Commoditization Discussion**\n\nOdilitime shared perspectives on modern software development:\n- Software value approaching zero due to commoditization\n- Product polishing before market adoption as key differentiator\n- Team collaboration being 10x faster than solo development\n- Skepticism about minimal human intervention approaches\n\n## Key Questions & Answers\n\n**Q: What problem does x402Guard solve for elizaOS agents?**\nA: Prevents agents with wallet access from executing harmful or malicious transactions by enforcing spend limits, contract whitelists, and session keys between agent and blockchain (answered by dzik pasnik)\n\n**Q: Which blockchains does x402Guard currently support?**\nA: Base and Solana (answered by dzik pasnik)\n\n**Q: When will x402Guard be released?**\nA: In a few weeks as an open-source elizaOS plugin once demo is ready (answered by dzik pasnik)\n\n**Q: What does the Memelord plugin do?**\nA: Allows elizaOS agents to create memes using Memelord.com (answered by Meme Broker)\n\n**Q: What is Workflows-as-a-Service on AIProx?**\nA: Service that chains agents into scheduled pipelines with pay-per-execution pricing and full receipts on every run (answered by lightningprox)\n\n**Q: What purpose do milady tokens serve, or are they simply meme currency?**\nA: Just a meme currency, trading fees support development (answered by Odilitime)\n\n**Q: What prediction resources are available for Milady?**\nA: ElizaBAO implemented dflow with Kalshi, Jupiter with Polymarket, predictdotfun, and Limitless into Milady prediction system (answered by ElizaBAO)\n\n### Unanswered Questions\n\n- What's the prediction accuracy threshold being targeted for Milady?\n- What percentage of ai16z coins successfully migrated to ElizaOS?\n- What will happen to unmigrated ElizaOS tokens from ai16z holders?\n\n## Community Help & Collaboration\n\n**Odilitime \u2192 lightningprox**\nContext: Implementation guidance for agent discovery\nResolution: lightningprox successfully deployed skill.md on lightningprox.com and solanaprox.com following Odilitime's advice, demonstrating effective knowledge transfer within the community\n\n**Odilitime \u2192 Martin \u5948\u7279\uff08\u7834\u4ea7\u7248\uff09**\nContext: Question about Milady token utility and purpose\nResolution: Clarified tokens are meme currency with trading fees supporting development, providing transparency on tokenomics\n\n## Action Items\n\n### Technical\n\n- **Determine prediction accuracy threshold for Milady prediction market system** (Mentioned by: Caesar \u2694\ufe0f)\n- **Seek early testers for x402Guard among DeFi agent developers building on elizaOS** (Mentioned by: dzik pasnik)\n- **Monitor traffic metrics for skill.md implementations on lightningprox.com and solanaprox.com** (Mentioned by: Odilitime)\n\n### Documentation\n\n- **Document ai16z to ElizaOS migration completion rates and token distribution** (Mentioned by: Cryptologos)\n- **Clarify fate of unmigrated ElizaOS tokens from ai16z holders** (Mentioned by: Cryptologos)\n\n### Feature\n\n- **Release x402Guard as open-source elizaOS plugin for non-custodial DeFi agent security with spend limits and contract whitelists** (Mentioned by: dzik pasnik)\n---\n2026-03-13.md\n---\n# elizaOS Discord - 2026-03-13\n\n## Overall Discussion Highlights\n\n### Token Migration & Community Support\n\nThe primary discussion centered around the AI16Z to elizaOS token migration process. A community member who missed the migration deadline sought assistance, leading to clarification that the migration window has officially closed. The community emphasized vigilance against potential scams targeting users seeking late migration options.\n\n### Technical Infrastructure\n\nA brief technical note was shared regarding cron triggers being used for agent wake-up functionality in the elizaOS system, indicating automated scheduling mechanisms are in place for agent management.\n\n### Channel Management\n\nModerators actively redirected off-topic discussions (specifically Solana-related content) to appropriate channels, maintaining focus in technical discussion areas.\n\n## Key Questions & Answers\n\n**Q: I have not migrated my AI16Z to elizaOS. Please help my migration.**  \n**A:** Migration is closed. Users were warned about potential scams when seeking alternative migration paths.  \n*Asked by: abz | Answered by: sb*\n\n**Q: Is it impossible for now?**  \n**A:** Confirmed that no legitimate migration path exists at this time, with emphasis on avoiding scam attempts.  \n*Asked by: abz | Answered by: sb*\n\n## Community Help & Collaboration\n\n**Token Migration Assistance**\n- **Helper:** sb\n- **Helpee:** abz\n- **Context:** User missed the AI16Z to elizaOS token migration deadline and sought help\n- **Resolution:** Provided clear information that the migration window is closed and issued warnings about potential scams targeting late migrators\n\n**Channel Moderation**\n- **Moderator:** Odilitime\n- **Action:** Redirected off-topic Solana discussion to appropriate channel, maintaining discussion quality\n\n## Action Items\n\n### Community Awareness\n- **Scam Prevention:** Community members should remain vigilant about scam attempts targeting users who missed the token migration deadline *(mentioned by sb)*\n\n---\n\n*Note: Discussion activity was relatively light on this date, with most channels showing minimal technical development conversations. The primary focus was on community support and clarification of migration policies.*\n---\n2026-03-15.json\n---\nelizaosDailySummary\n---\nDaily Report - 2026-03-15\n---\nElizaOS Community Discussions - March 15, 2026\n---\nCommunity members engaged in casual conversation in the discussion channel. Topics included questions about milady tokens, humorous exchanges about Inhumane Resources accepting corporate bribes, and a discussion about unbanning user 33coded. Odilitime asked who else needed to be unbanned and later confirmed the unban. Members also discussed market conditions, with one user noting that BTC was up while ElizaOS was down, questioning whether market conditions were still being blamed. Another user asked if Eliza could be used to develop Solana dApps.\n---\nhttps://discord.com/channels/1253563208833433701/1253563209462448241\n---\nhttps://cdn.elizaos.news/elizaos-media/embed-thumbnail-1482566713164693616_24e1972f.png\n---\nhttps://cdn.elizaos.news/elizaos-media/embed-video-1482566713164693616_7ab6768a.mp4\n---\nIn the coders channel, agenticcaesar and Odilitime discussed the shift from code-focused to polish-focused development for autonomous agents. The conversation emphasized that the main challenge is no longer whether AI can write code, but whether users will trust it to run their business. Key adoption barriers identified include UI trust signals, error handling, context persistence, and bilingual polish. The discussion highlighted that winning agents will be those humans feel safe turning on and walking away from. A detailed technical discussion followed about x402Guard, an infrastructure layer for DeFi agents that handles transaction security. The system evaluates transactions per-step rather than full chain, with layered limits including permanent guardrail rules per agent, temporary session keys, and specific daily caps and contract whitelists. For example, a treasury agent could be set with a 500 dollar daily limit and allowed contracts list, physically preventing it from exceeding those parameters.\n---\nhttps://discord.com/channels/1253563208833433701/1300025221834739744\n---\nhttps://cdn.elizaos.news/posters/1773623675478-72c0um.jpg\n---\ndiscordrawdata\n---\n2026-03-15.md\n---\n## ElizaOS Community Discussions - March 15, 2026\n\n### Community Discussion Channel\n\n- Community members engaged in casual conversation covering various topics\n- Odilitime confirmed the unbanning of user 33coded after community discussion\n- Members discussed market conditions, noting BTC was up while ElizaOS was down\n- A user inquired about using Eliza to develop Solana dApps\n\n### Coders Channel - Development Focus Shift\n\n- agenticcaesar and Odilitime discussed the transition from code-focused to polish-focused development for autonomous agents\n- Identified that the main challenge has shifted from AI's ability to write code to building user trust for business operations\n- Key adoption barriers were identified: UI trust signals, error handling, context persistence, and bilingual polish\n- Emphasized that successful agents will be those that humans feel safe operating autonomously\n\n### Technical Discussion - x402Guard Infrastructure\n\n- Detailed technical discussion covered x402Guard, an infrastructure layer for DeFi agents handling transaction security\n- The system evaluates transactions per-step rather than full chain\n- Implemented layered limits including:\n  - Permanent guardrail rules per agent\n  - Temporary session keys\n  - Specific daily caps and contract whitelists\n- Example implementation: treasury agent configured with 500 dollar daily limit and allowed contracts list, with physical prevention of parameter exceedance\n---\n2026-03-15.json\n---\nelizaOS\n---\nelizaOS Discord - 2026-03-15\n---\n1253563209462448241\n---\n\ud83d\udcac-discussion\n---\n# Discord Channel Analysis: \ud83d\udcac-discussion\n\n## 1. Summary\n\nThis chat segment contains minimal technical discussion. The primary substantive exchange involved KingRon asking whether Eliza can be used to develop Solana dApps, though no technical answer was provided. Odilitime performed administrative actions, unbanning 33coded from the channel and offering to unban others. Inhuman Resources confirmed that 33coded was the main person needing unbanning, noting others were \"more deserving\" of their bans.\n\nThe conversation was predominantly casual banter and greetings, with gby making observations about ElizaOS token price movements relative to Bitcoin. No concrete technical solutions, implementations, or architectural decisions were discussed. No code examples, debugging sessions, or problem-solving activities occurred during this segment.\n\n## 2. FAQ\n\nQ: What's your solana addy? (asked by Odilitime) A: Unanswered\n\nQ: Did 33coded get kicked from here? (asked by Odilitime) A: Confirmed and subsequently unbanned (answered by Odilitime)\n\nQ: Who else do I need to unban? (asked by Odilitime) A: That was it, others were more deserving of bans (answered by Inhuman Resources)\n\nQ: Can I use Eliza to develop Solana dApps? (asked by KingRon) A: Unanswered\n\nQ: What's aolana? (asked by Inhuman Resources) A: Solana (answered by KingRon)\n\n## 3. Help Interactions\n\nHelper: Odilitime | Helpee: 33coded | Context: User was banned from channel | Resolution: Successfully unbanned the user\n\nHelper: Inhuman Resources | Helpee: Odilitime | Context: Determining who else needed unbanning | Resolution: Confirmed 33coded was the only one requiring unban\n\n## 4. Action Items\n\nType: Feature | Description: Clarify whether Eliza can be used to develop Solana dApps | Mentioned By: KingRon\n---\n1300025221834739744\n---\n\ud83d\udcac-coders\n---\n# Discord Channel Analysis: \ud83d\udcac-coders\n\n## 1. Summary\n\nThe discussion centered on production-readiness challenges for autonomous AI agents, particularly in DeFi and business applications. Caesar \u2694\ufe0f emphasized that the critical shift in AI development is from code capability to user trust and polish. Key production barriers identified include: UI trust signals that resemble enterprise software, graceful error handling beyond raw AI output, context persistence across conversations, and proper localization (specifically Arabic RTL layout redesign).\n\nCaesar \u2694\ufe0f highlighted lessons from building an AI COO for SMEs, noting that technical functionality alone doesn't drive adoption\u2014users need to feel safe leaving agents running autonomously. The conversation evolved into a technical deep-dive on x402Guard, an infrastructure layer for securing DeFi agents against vulnerabilities like prompt injection and unauthorized transactions.\n\ndzik pasnik provided detailed technical specifications for x402Guard's security model: per-step transaction evaluation (not full chain), layered limit systems combining permanent guardrail rules with temporary session keys, and immutable audit logging. The system enforces constraints including maximum transaction amounts, daily spending caps, contract whitelists, and token restrictions. For example, a treasury management agent could be configured with a $500 daily limit and specific contract whitelist (Uniswap, Aave), creating a physically enforced spending boundary. Each transaction request is validated against these rules in real-time, with all attempts logged immutably regardless of pass/fail status.\n\n## 2. FAQ\n\nQ: For elizaOS builders, what's the #1 polish gap you see between \"demo magic\" and \"production ready\"? (asked by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f) A: Unanswered\n\nQ: How does x402Guard handle multi-step DeFi strategies where the agent needs to approve intermediate steps like swap \u2192 deposit \u2192 stake? Does it evaluate the full transaction chain before signing, or per-step? (asked by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f) A: Per-step evaluation. Each payment request hits the proxy and gets checked against the agent's rules. If step 3 would blow the daily limit, it gets blocked. Every attempt lands in an immutable audit log. (answered by dzik pasnik)\n\nQ: Does the user set limits per session, or globally for x402Guard? (asked by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f) A: Limits are layered - Guardrail rules are permanent policy per agent (daily cap, contract whitelist), while Session keys are temporary (e.g., \"valid 2 hours, max $100\"). (answered by dzik pasnik)\n\n## 3. Help Interactions\n\nHelper: dzik pasnik | Helpee: Caesar \u2694\ufe0f | Context: Understanding x402Guard's transaction validation architecture for multi-step DeFi operations and limit configuration | Resolution: Explained per-step validation model with layered limits (permanent guardrail rules + temporary session keys), immutable audit logging, and provided concrete treasury management example with $500 daily limit\n\n## 4. Action Items\n\nType: Feature | Description: Investigate x402Guard infrastructure layer for production DeFi agent security with per-step transaction validation and layered limit systems | Mentioned By: Caesar \u2694\ufe0f, dzik pasnik\n\nType: Documentation | Description: Document best practices for agent production readiness including UI trust signals, error handling, context persistence, and localization (particularly RTL layout) | Mentioned By: Caesar \u2694\ufe0f\n\nType: Technical | Description: Follow up on x402Guard implementation details via direct message | Mentioned By: dzik pasnik\n---\n2026-03-15.md\n---\n# elizaOS Discord - 2026-03-15\n\n## Overall Discussion Highlights\n\n### Production Readiness & Enterprise AI Agents\n\nThe primary technical focus centered on bridging the gap between AI agent demonstrations and production-ready systems. Caesar \u2694\ufe0f initiated a critical discussion about the evolution of AI development, emphasizing that the bottleneck has shifted from code capability to user trust and polish. Key production barriers identified include:\n\n- **UI Trust Signals**: Interfaces need to resemble enterprise software to inspire confidence\n- **Error Handling**: Systems must gracefully handle failures beyond raw AI output\n- **Context Persistence**: Maintaining conversation state across sessions\n- **Localization**: Proper internationalization, specifically Arabic RTL layout redesign\n\nCaesar \u2694\ufe0f shared insights from building an AI COO for SMEs, noting that technical functionality alone doesn't drive adoption\u2014users need confidence to leave agents running autonomously.\n\n### DeFi Agent Security Infrastructure\n\nA detailed technical discussion emerged around **x402Guard**, an infrastructure layer designed to secure autonomous DeFi agents against vulnerabilities like prompt injection and unauthorized transactions. The system provides:\n\n**Security Model:**\n- Per-step transaction evaluation (not full chain validation)\n- Layered limit systems combining permanent guardrail rules with temporary session keys\n- Immutable audit logging for all transaction attempts\n\n**Constraint Enforcement:**\n- Maximum transaction amounts\n- Daily spending caps\n- Contract whitelists\n- Token restrictions\n\n**Example Use Case:** A treasury management agent configured with a $500 daily limit and specific contract whitelist (Uniswap, Aave) creates a physically enforced spending boundary. Each transaction request is validated against these rules in real-time, with all attempts logged immutably regardless of pass/fail status.\n\n### Community & Administrative Updates\n\nOdilitime performed channel maintenance, unbanning 33coded from the \ud83d\udcac-discussion channel. Inhuman Resources confirmed this was the primary user requiring reinstatement, noting others were \"more deserving\" of their bans.\n\n### Market Observations\n\nCasual observations about ElizaOS token price movements relative to Bitcoin were noted by community members, though no substantive analysis was provided.\n\n## Key Questions & Answers\n\n**Q: How does x402Guard handle multi-step DeFi strategies where the agent needs to approve intermediate steps like swap \u2192 deposit \u2192 stake? Does it evaluate the full transaction chain before signing, or per-step?**  \n**A:** Per-step evaluation. Each payment request hits the proxy and gets checked against the agent's rules. If step 3 would blow the daily limit, it gets blocked. Every attempt lands in an immutable audit log. *(answered by dzik pasnik)*\n\n**Q: Does the user set limits per session, or globally for x402Guard?**  \n**A:** Limits are layered - Guardrail rules are permanent policy per agent (daily cap, contract whitelist), while Session keys are temporary (e.g., \"valid 2 hours, max $100\"). *(answered by dzik pasnik)*\n\n**Q: Did 33coded get kicked from here?**  \n**A:** Confirmed and subsequently unbanned. *(answered by Odilitime)*\n\n**Q: Who else do I need to unban?**  \n**A:** That was it, others were more deserving of bans. *(answered by Inhuman Resources)*\n\n### Unanswered Questions\n\n- Can I use Eliza to develop Solana dApps? *(asked by KingRon)*\n- What's your solana addy? *(asked by Odilitime)*\n- For elizaOS builders, what's the #1 polish gap you see between \"demo magic\" and \"production ready\"? *(asked by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f)*\n\n## Community Help & Collaboration\n\n**Odilitime \u2192 33coded**  \nContext: User was banned from channel  \nResolution: Successfully unbanned the user\n\n**Inhuman Resources \u2192 Odilitime**  \nContext: Determining who else needed unbanning  \nResolution: Confirmed 33coded was the only one requiring unban\n\n**dzik pasnik \u2192 Caesar \u2694\ufe0f**  \nContext: Understanding x402Guard's transaction validation architecture for multi-step DeFi operations and limit configuration  \nResolution: Provided comprehensive explanation of per-step validation model with layered limits (permanent guardrail rules + temporary session keys), immutable audit logging, and concrete treasury management example with $500 daily limit\n\n## Action Items\n\n### Feature\n\n- Clarify whether Eliza can be used to develop Solana dApps *(mentioned by KingRon)*\n- Investigate x402Guard infrastructure layer for production DeFi agent security with per-step transaction validation and layered limit systems *(mentioned by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f, dzik pasnik)*\n\n### Documentation\n\n- Document best practices for agent production readiness including UI trust signals, error handling, context persistence, and localization (particularly RTL layout) *(mentioned by Caesar \u2694\ufe0f)*\n\n### Technical\n\n- Follow up on x402Guard implementation details via direct message *(mentioned by dzik pasnik)*\n---\n2026-03-16.md\n---\nFile not found\n---\n2026-02-15.md\n---\n# Overall Project Weekly Summary (Feb 15 - 21, 2026)\n\nThis week, ElizaOS entered a high-velocity phase as it prepared for its official beta launch. The team successfully cleared a massive backlog of technical hurdles while simultaneously expanding the framework's reach into everyday communication tools like WhatsApp and Gmail. By combining core infrastructure upgrades with new decentralized identity features, the project is positioning itself as a robust, secure, and highly adaptable home for the next generation of AI agents.\n\n## Executive Summary\nElizaOS shifted its focus toward a major beta release, prioritizing user onboarding and platform stability. The project achieved significant milestones by integrating popular messaging and productivity apps and launching new on-chain identity tools for agents on the Solana blockchain.\n\n### Key Strategic Initiatives & Outcomes\n\n**Preparing for the Beta Launch and Beyond**\n*Goal: To ensure the platform is stable, user-friendly, and ready for its first 100 official testers.*\n*   The team cleared dozens of functional blockers in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza), including fixing dashboard bugs and removing restrictive text limits to improve the user experience.\n*   A new \"Profile Plugin\" was proposed in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza) to automatically build user profiles from social media, making it easier for new users to get started immediately.\n*   Efforts are underway in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza) to refine the AI's personality, aiming for a more direct and engaging conversational style for the launch.\n\n**Expanding Agent Reach and Utility**\n*Goal: To allow AI agents to work across more platforms and handle more complex tasks.*\n*   Major integrations were finalized for WhatsApp, Gmail, and the N8N workflow engine in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza), allowing agents to communicate and automate tasks where users already work.\n*   The [elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow) repository added a new \"control panel\" (REST API), giving developers a way to manage complex workflows directly without needing to use natural language.\n*   The plugin registry in [elizaos-plugins/registry](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry) saw a surge in new tools, particularly for Web3 and financial data exchanges.\n\n**Strengthening Security and Decentralization**\n*Goal: To give agents a verifiable identity and ensure the system remains secure as it grows.*\n*   The project introduced the SAID Protocol in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza) and [elizaos-plugins/registry](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry), which gives agents a \"digital passport\" on the Solana blockchain for secure, verifiable actions.\n*   A security audit was completed for the Model Context Protocol in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza), ensuring that as agents share information, they do so safely.\n\n**Improving System Health and Maintenance**\n*Goal: To keep the project's \"engine\" running smoothly and make it easier for community members to contribute.*\n*   A major database overhaul was started in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza) to make the system faster and more reliable for the long term.\n*   Critical fixes to the automated review system in [elizaos-plugins/registry](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry) ensured that outside contributors can have their work checked and merged more quickly.\n*   Routine but essential security updates were performed across the documentation site in [elizaos/elizaos.github.io](https://github.com/elizaos/elizaos.github.io) to keep the project's public face secure.\n\n### Cross-Repository Coordination\n*   **Unified Identity Standards**: The implementation of the SAID Protocol required synchronized work between the core framework [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza) and the [elizaos-plugins/registry](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry) to ensure agents can use their new on-chain identities across all plugins.\n*   **Workflow Automation**: The N8N workflow integration involved coordinated updates in the core repository [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza) and the specific [elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow) repo to provide a seamless experience for managing complex AI tasks.\n*   **Automated Maintenance**: The team successfully fixed \"Renovate\" (an automated update tool) in [elizaos/eliza](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza), which now helps keep dependencies across the entire ecosystem up to date automatically.\n\n## Repository Spotlights\n\n### elizaos/eliza\n*   Initiated a major database refactor ([#6509](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/pull/6509)) to improve long-term system architecture.\n*   Integrated the SAID Protocol for on-chain Solana identity ([#6510](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/pull/6510)), enabling verifiable agent signatures.\n*   Finalized major integrations for WhatsApp ([#6401](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/issues/6401)), Gmail ([#6404](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/issues/6404)), and N8N ([#6429](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/issues/6429)).\n*   Resolved critical automated update issues ([#6488](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/issues/6488)) and enabled multi-language dependency management ([#6506](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/pull/6506), [#6507](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/pull/6507)).\n*   Added support for the Opus 4.5 model ([#6368](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/issues/6368)) and Chain-of-Thought reasoning ([#6294](https://github.com/elizaos/eliza/issues/6294)).\n\n### elizaos-plugins/registry\n*   Expanded the ecosystem with new plugins including `@elizaos/plugin-said` ([#264](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry/pull/264)) and several exchange-related tools ([#261](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry/pull/261), [#262](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry/pull/262)).\n*   Fixed a high-priority issue where the automated review system was blocking new contributions ([#259](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry/issues/259)).\n*   Improved support for external contributors by fixing the review process for forked repositories ([#260](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/registry/pull/260)).\n\n### elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow\n*   Launched a comprehensive REST API for direct workflow management and monitoring ([#16](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow/pull/16)).\n*   Fixed a critical bug in how the AI handles workflow properties, ensuring stability even when the AI provides incomplete data ([#18](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/plugin-n8n-workflow/pull/18)).\n\n### elizaos-plugins/plugin-ollama\n*   Identified and began investigating a community-reported issue regarding embedding failures on Linux environments ([#17](https://github.com/elizaos-plugins/plugin-ollama/issues/17)).\n\n### elizaos/elizaos.github.io\n*   Maintained project health through routine dependency synchronization and version updates ([#242](https://github.com/elizaos/elizaos.github.io/pull/242)).\n---\n2026-02-01.md\n---\nNo activity recorded for 2026-02-01.\n---\n2026-03-16T08:50:53.924819+00:00Z\n---\n2026-03-16\n---\nelizaOS/knowledge\n---\nelizaOS\n---\nknowledge\n---\nai_news_elizaos_discord_md_2026-03-15\n---\nai_news_elizaos_discord_md_2026-03-14\n---\nai_news_elizaos_discord_md_2026-03-13\n---\nai_news_elizaos_daily_json_2026-03-15\n---\nai_news_elizaos_daily_md_2026-03-15\n---\nai_news_elizaos_daily_discord_json_2026-03-15\n---\nai_news_elizaos_daily_discord_md_2026-03-15\n---\ngithub_summaries_week_latest_2026-02-15.md\n---\ngithub_summaries_month_latest_2026-02-01.md\n---\ngithub_summaries_daily_2026-03-16"
  ]
}