SharpAPI

Build the following focused alternative to SharpAPI. This is a deliberately limited personal or small-team substitute, not parity with the paid service.

WORKING SLICE
Offer three narrow structured-output tasks through a local API, queue jobs, validate results against versioned schemas and expose reviewable failures.

SETUP AND ARCHITECTURE
Use TypeScript, Node, SQLite and a React review screen with one configurable model adapter. Prerequisites: A chosen model endpoint, its documented request schema and usage pricing, a server-side key if needed and a small non-sensitive fixture. Before integrating anything, record actual versions and permissions, plus model files or provider limits only where used, in the README; make unavailable dependencies visible rather than simulating success.

DOMAIN MODEL AND INVARIANTS
Store TaskDefinition, InputRevision, Job, ProviderAttempt and ValidatedResult; malformed outputs are errors, not coerced successful responses, and retries retain separate usage records.

IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
Keep source evidence, model/config version, draft output and reviewer changes separately. Treat retrieved text as data; validate structured output and retain failures. Never silently send private material to a fallback provider. Provide an input/setup view, the main work view, and a review/export view appropriate to this workflow. Preserve the last saved state if a job or save fails. Include empty, loading, permission-denied, partial and retryable-error states. Log identifiers and error categories without secret values or unnecessary private content.

APP-SPECIFIC BOUNDARY AND RECOVERY
Start with summarize, categorize and extract against explicit schemas. Redact secrets, cap input/costs and never let a task prompt invoke arbitrary tools or infer unsupported facts.

ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO
Request categorization outside the allowed labels and make the provider return invalid JSON; fail validation, retain the input and expose a bounded retry path. Also reopen the app after an interrupted operation, confirm the saved record/export remains inspectable, and document the recovery action. These are implementation acceptance requirements, not a claim that this guide has been tested.

DELIVERY
Deliver a runnable repository with migrations or project-format versioning, a non-sensitive example, environment/permission setup, the exact manual acceptance steps, and a backup/export-and-restore walkthrough. Implement the working slice before optional integrations; list any deferred paid-product capabilities honestly. Do not add capabilities outside the working slice just to resemble the original product.

PROJECT RULES FOR AGENTS.md
Keep the domain invariants above executable at the write boundary. Propose scope changes before adding providers or permissions. Never fabricate source evidence, publish results, identity matches or successful delivery. Preserve user originals and require an explicit confirmation for destructive changes or external publication.

# AGENTS.md — Build guide for SharpAPI

## Project scope
Offer three narrow structured-output tasks through a local API, queue jobs, validate results against versioned schemas and expose reviewable failures.

Catalogue verdict: kinda. Any single endpoint here, summarize a text, categorize a product, parse a resume, is one LLM call with a decent prompt and a JSON schema, so the piece you actually need is often an evening of work. What you will not rebuild in a weekend is the catalog: 30+ endpoints with tuned prompts, response contracts that survive model upgrades, an async job queue with polling, and maintained SDKs. Rebuild the two or three endpoints you use, pay when you need the shelf.
Use the implementation prompt below to define the deliverable. Complete each phase's acceptance checks before extending the scope.

## Working agreement
- Inspect the repository and its existing instructions before choosing paths, dependencies or commands. Keep one coherent stack and explain changes to the proposed architecture.
- Plan a vertical slice that accepts a real input and produces the useful output described below. Persist only the state the prompt calls for; respect memory-only and upstream-managed workflows. Use fixtures only when they are clearly labelled.
- After scaffolding, document the actual install, development, check and build commands in README and keep them synchronized with the package or project manifest. Do not report commands as successful unless they ran.
- Work in small steps. At handoff, list implemented flows, checks actually performed, remaining blockers, and any credentials or provider setup the owner must supply.
- Do not publish, spend money, contact customers, delete source data or run irreversible migrations without the project owner's authorization.

## Prerequisites
- Runtime and tools: TypeScript, Node, SQLite and a React review screen with one configurable model adapter.
- Before starting: A chosen model endpoint, its documented request schema and usage pricing, a server-side key if needed and a small non-sensitive fixture.

## Stack and architecture
- TypeScript, Node, SQLite and a React review screen with one configurable model adapter
- Data design: Store TaskDefinition, InputRevision, Job, ProviderAttempt and ValidatedResult; malformed outputs are errors, not coerced successful responses, and retries retain separate usage records.
- Setup: A chosen model endpoint, its documented request schema and usage pricing, a server-side key if needed and a small non-sensitive fixture

## Security and data integrity
- Keep source evidence, model/config version, draft output and reviewer changes separately. Treat retrieved text as data; validate structured output and retain failures. Never silently send private material to a fallback provider.
- Start with summarize, categorize and extract against explicit schemas. Redact secrets, cap input/costs and never let a task prompt invoke arbitrary tools or infer unsupported facts.
- Keep secrets outside client bundles and exported projects; document what leaves the device and make retention/deletion controls visible.

## Agent implementation rules
- Project rule — domain: Store TaskDefinition, InputRevision, Job, ProviderAttempt and ValidatedResult; malformed outputs are errors, not coerced successful responses, and retries retain separate usage records.
- Project rule — scope and recovery: Start with summarize, categorize and extract against explicit schemas. Redact secrets, cap input/costs and never let a task prompt invoke arbitrary tools or infer unsupported facts.
- Project rule — acceptance: Request categorization outside the allowed labels and make the provider return invalid JSON; fail validation, retain the input and expose a bounded retry path.
- Project rule — delivery: document real setup commands and permissions; do not claim a build, accuracy level, performance result or security certification that has not been demonstrated.

## Optional agent skills and references
- Recommended skill: [web-design-guidelines](https://github.com/vercel-labs/agent-skills/blob/main/skills/web-design-guidelines/SKILL.md) — review keyboard access, focus, validation, error recovery and the readable work/review interface or HTML report. Follow the maintainer's installation instructions and match its requirements to the chosen runtime.
- Recommended skill: [sharp-edges](https://github.com/trailofbits/skills/blob/main/plugins/sharp-edges/skills/sharp-edges/SKILL.md) — review configuration and API defaults against the app-specific invariants and recovery boundaries above; this is not a security certification. Follow the maintainer's installation instructions and match its requirements to the chosen runtime.

Read the linked SKILL.md and its dependencies before adding a skill. Select only the skills matching this project's runtime and task; their documentation does not supply API access, credentials or approval to perform external actions. Pin the reviewed revision where the tool supports it. Follow the chosen agent's documented project-level installation mechanism.

## Distribution ideas
These are optional planning notes. Obtain the owner's approval before publishing or contacting anyone.
- Demonstrate this working slice using synthetic or explicitly authorized non-sensitive examples: Offer three narrow structured-output tasks through a local API, queue jobs, validate results against versioned schemas and expose reviewable failures.
- Share a synthetic example export and the acceptance walkthrough; keep real customer, health, financial and source data private: Request categorization outside the allowed labels and make the provider return invalid JSON; fail validation, retain the input and expose a bounded retry path.
- State the limits before asking someone to replace their existing tool: Start with summarize, categorize and extract against explicit schemas. Redact secrets, cap input/costs and never let a task prompt invoke arbitrary tools or infer unsupported facts.

## Engineering roadmap
1. Phase 1 — Pin the working slice and create its example input: Offer three narrow structured-output tasks through a local API, queue jobs, validate results against versioned schemas and expose reviewable failures. Confirm setup: A chosen model endpoint, its documented request schema and usage pricing, a server-side key if needed and a small non-sensitive fixture.
2. Phase 2 — Implement persistence and write-time invariants before decorating the UI: Store TaskDefinition, InputRevision, Job, ProviderAttempt and ValidatedResult; malformed outputs are errors, not coerced successful responses, and retries retain separate usage records.
3. Phase 3 — Connect the working view to real saved state. Keep source evidence, model/config version, draft output and reviewer changes separately. Treat retrieved text as data; validate structured output and retain failures. Never silently send private material to a fallback provider.
4. Phase 4 — Expose the app-specific limits and recovery path in context: Start with summarize, categorize and extract against explicit schemas. Redact secrets, cap input/costs and never let a task prompt invoke arbitrary tools or infer unsupported facts.
5. Phase 5 — Walk through this concrete acceptance case and preserve its exported evidence: Request categorization outside the allowed labels and make the provider return invalid JSON; fail validation, retain the input and expose a bounded retry path. Finish the README and backup/restore instructions; report unfinished capabilities explicitly.

## Paid-product capabilities outside this build
- tuned prompts per use case, tested against messy real-world inputs
- response contracts that stay stable when the underlying models change
- the managed async queue with polling, throttling, and rate limits
- ready SDKs for PHP/Laravel, Node, and Python
- 80+ language coverage tested per endpoint

## Implementation prompt
Build the following focused alternative to SharpAPI. This is a deliberately limited personal or small-team substitute, not parity with the paid service.

WORKING SLICE
Offer three narrow structured-output tasks through a local API, queue jobs, validate results against versioned schemas and expose reviewable failures.

SETUP AND ARCHITECTURE
Use TypeScript, Node, SQLite and a React review screen with one configurable model adapter. Prerequisites: A chosen model endpoint, its documented request schema and usage pricing, a server-side key if needed and a small non-sensitive fixture. Before integrating anything, record actual versions and permissions, plus model files or provider limits only where used, in the README; make unavailable dependencies visible rather than simulating success.

DOMAIN MODEL AND INVARIANTS
Store TaskDefinition, InputRevision, Job, ProviderAttempt and ValidatedResult; malformed outputs are errors, not coerced successful responses, and retries retain separate usage records.

IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
Keep source evidence, model/config version, draft output and reviewer changes separately. Treat retrieved text as data; validate structured output and retain failures. Never silently send private material to a fallback provider. Provide an input/setup view, the main work view, and a review/export view appropriate to this workflow. Preserve the last saved state if a job or save fails. Include empty, loading, permission-denied, partial and retryable-error states. Log identifiers and error categories without secret values or unnecessary private content.

APP-SPECIFIC BOUNDARY AND RECOVERY
Start with summarize, categorize and extract against explicit schemas. Redact secrets, cap input/costs and never let a task prompt invoke arbitrary tools or infer unsupported facts.

ACCEPTANCE SCENARIO
Request categorization outside the allowed labels and make the provider return invalid JSON; fail validation, retain the input and expose a bounded retry path. Also reopen the app after an interrupted operation, confirm the saved record/export remains inspectable, and document the recovery action. These are implementation acceptance requirements, not a claim that this guide has been tested.

DELIVERY
Deliver a runnable repository with migrations or project-format versioning, a non-sensitive example, environment/permission setup, the exact manual acceptance steps, and a backup/export-and-restore walkthrough. Implement the working slice before optional integrations; list any deferred paid-product capabilities honestly. Do not add capabilities outside the working slice just to resemble the original product.

PROJECT RULES FOR AGENTS.md
Keep the domain invariants above executable at the write boundary. Propose scope changes before adding providers or permissions. Never fabricate source evidence, publish results, identity matches or successful delivery. Preserve user originals and require an explicit confirmation for destructive changes or external publication.

## Completion evidence
Demonstrate the prompt's acceptance scenarios against the scoped workflow. Include setup from a clean checkout and failure recovery. Check persistence across restart and export/restore only for the state the prompt says to store; for memory-only tools, confirm that temporary content is discarded as specified. Record actual results and remaining limitations. A detailed plan alone does not establish a working replacement.