The vision of unifying Copilot/Cursor/Roo/Cline/etc. under a common configuration and best-practice layer is compelling, and I like the direction toward reusable templates and memory.
That said, I think the project might be aiming a bit too directly at the highest level of complexity — the full integration of vibe-driven rules across assistants — without first grounding things in foundational concepts. Personally, I’d love to see a clearer breakdown of stages, such as:
1. Formal concepts of LLM-driven project management, akin to how we reason about conventional PM tools/processes.
2. Abstractions and interfaces to build structured rules/prompts (in the broad sense) that can be versioned, composed, and reasoned about.
3. Configuration management to deploy/adapt those rules across specific environments (LLMs, IDEs, agents).
Laying that groundwork could make the ambitious cross-assistant unification feel more achievable and less brittle.
Still, kudos — I think we need more of this kind of experimentation and discussion in the open.
That said, I think the project might be aiming a bit too directly at the highest level of complexity — the full integration of vibe-driven rules across assistants — without first grounding things in foundational concepts. Personally, I’d love to see a clearer breakdown of stages, such as:
1. Formal concepts of LLM-driven project management, akin to how we reason about conventional PM tools/processes.
2. Abstractions and interfaces to build structured rules/prompts (in the broad sense) that can be versioned, composed, and reasoned about.
3. Configuration management to deploy/adapt those rules across specific environments (LLMs, IDEs, agents).
Laying that groundwork could make the ambitious cross-assistant unification feel more achievable and less brittle.
Still, kudos — I think we need more of this kind of experimentation and discussion in the open.