Build1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Six vendors agreed on where a plugin's components live. The two specifications that define what those components do sit outside the project, and outside its steering committee.
The Engineer · Build desk

Compiled by The EngineerSomething wrong?How this is made
Vercel released Agent Plugins 1.0.0 earlier this month with core maintainers from AWS, Cursor, Microsoft and OpenAI, and Google announced the same day that it was joining them [1]. The format settles where a plugin's files sit and says almost nothing about what those files do, so teams treating it as a portability guarantee are buying a floor.
Mechanically it is small, which is the point. A plugin is a directory with a plugin.json manifest at its root, skills in skills/ with one subdirectory per skill, and MCP servers declared in mcp.json [2]. Those locations are fixed, and the manifest cannot relocate them or declare components inline [3]. The manifest itself requires exactly two fields, $schema and name, with everything else optional [4]. Jonathan Hefner of Vercel, the project's Lead Core Maintainer, wrote that the format is intentionally small and leaves installation, distribution, policy, user experience and client-specific capabilities to each client [5], and that for client implementers it defines a small, deterministic contract for discovery, validation and loading [6].
The delegation is explicit in the text. Section 7.1 names the Agent Skills specification as the source of truth for the SKILL.md format, frontmatter fields and directory layout, leaving Agent Plugins to govern only how skills are discovered inside a plugin, and section 7.2 does the same for MCP wire behaviour and lifecycle [7]. The New Stack notes that a specification could have constrained those contracts by defining a profile, mandating a subset or prohibiting optional features, and that Agent Plugins declines to [8]. Its own documentation calls the result a small interoperability floor, and Google's post describes v1 as a package format and nothing more [9].
Both delegated specifications came out of Anthropic [10]. Anthropic donated MCP to the Agentic AI Foundation, a Linux Foundation-directed fund, on 9 December 2025, and published Agent Skills as an open standard nine days later, now developed in the open at agentskills.io [11], which puts the Agent Skills release on 18 December 2025 [12]. The governance differs: MCP has an independent foundation as steward, Agent Skills does not have a comparable legal one [13]. The Technical Steering Committee is Clare Liguori of Amazon, Roshan Sadanani of Cursor, Harald Kirschner of Microsoft, Gav Verma of OpenAI and Hefner of Vercel [14]. That is zero Anthropic seats out of five [15]. The New Stack reports that no primary source explains the absence [16].
The conformance language shows what "compatible" actually buys. Section 11.1 requires a conformant client to support at least one component type, skills or MCP servers [17], so a skills-only client and an MCP-only client are both conformant while sharing no component support at all [18]. Pavan Madduri, a senior cloud platform engineer at Grainger, told The New Stack the spec "solves the easy problem, not the difficult problem," because a plugin running in six clients is an extra point of failure for permissions, and the specification defers governance, installation policy and permissions management to the client [19]. His formulation: write once, run anywhere becomes compromise once, run everywhere [20].
Two files to watch. The charter names MAINTAINERS as the roster of record, and as of The New Stack's reporting it still lists five people and no Google, despite Google saying it is joining as a Core Maintainer represented by Kevin Hou [21]. The charter also states that governance roles are held by individuals rather than organisations, that no seats are reserved, and that no single vendor may hold a majority of Core Maintainer seats [22], which is worth rereading once the roster changes. The other thing to track is whether Agent Skills acquires a steward with the standing MCP now has [13].
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Vercel released Agent Plugins 1.0.0 earlier this month with core maintainers from AWS, Cursor, Microsoft and OpenAI; Google announced the same day that it was joining them.
Section 7.1 of the spec states the Agent Skills specification is the source of truth for the SKILL.md format, frontmatter fields and directory layout, with Agent Plugins governing only how skills are discovered inside a plugin; section 7.2 does the same for MCP wire behaviour and lifecycle.
A specification can constrain implementations of another specification by defining a profile, mandating a subset, or prohibiting optional features; Agent Plugins declines to, treating Agent Skills and MCP as separately governed contracts and standardising addresses instead.
Section 11.1 lists the minimum for a conformant client, including that a client must support at least one component type: skills or MCP servers.
Pavan Madduri, senior cloud platform engineer at Grainger, told The New Stack that Agent Plugins "solves the easy problem, not the difficult problem," that a plugin running in six different client applications is an additional point of failure for permissions management, and that the specification defers governance, installation policy and permissions management to the client application.
Madduri said that the minute something becomes write once, run anywhere for agents, it automatically becomes compromise once, run everywhere.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Strong document-level evidence, single publisher
The cluster's factual core is drawn directly from primary artefacts that are quoted or reproduced: the manifest schema and required fields, the fixed directory tree, spec sections 7.1, 7.2, 11.1 and 11.2, the Technical Charter's governance language, the named steering committee roster and the state of the MAINTAINERS file. Vercel's own framing is quoted from its blog. What limits the score is that both items come from one publisher, no Anthropic or Google statement is reproduced beyond a short quote, and the reason for Anthropic's absence is explicitly unestablished.
Broad vendor backing, no usage metrics
Adoption signals are real but structural rather than quantitative: a 1.0.0 release with core maintainers from AWS, Cursor, Microsoft and OpenAI plus a Google join in progress, launch coverage naming GitHub as well, and a compatible clients page listing nine clients (VS Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, ChatGPT, Codex, Kiro, Hermes Agent, OpenClaw, Grok Bot) that each support Agent Skills plus MCP, a list already grown past the launch-week six. Missing entirely are plugin counts, download or install figures, and any enterprise deployment account, and the Google seat is not yet reflected in the roster of record.
Vocabulary promises more than the spec delivers
The project's own materials are modest: documentation calls the result a small interoperability floor and Google's post calls v1 a package format and nothing more, so there is little vendor overreach to discount. The gap comes from the surrounding vocabulary and framing. 'Portable', 'compatible' and 'shared plugin standard' imply that a conformant client will run your plugin, while section 11.1 lets a client conform by supporting only skills or only MCP servers, and behaviour remains governed by specifications the project does not control. That is a modest positive gap, not a hollow claim: nine listed clients currently support both component types.
Vendor-initiated standard with disclosed commercial stakes
Incentive load is high and visible. Vercel initiated the proposal and the core specifications and its own staffer holds the Lead Core Maintainer seat; the backers are the largest agent-client vendors, each of whom benefits from plugins flowing into their client; Google's same-day announcement precedes its appearance in the roster of record. The charter's individual-role and no-single-vendor-majority provisions are themselves a response to capture risk. On the critical side, the launch item's outside voices are commercially interested (a code-tooling CTO and a model-hosting founder alongside the enterprise engineer critic), and Anthropic, whose specifications supply the behaviour, sits outside the governance body for reasons no primary source explains.
Spec facts solid, motives and uptake thin
Confidence is high on the mechanical and governance facts, which are quoted from the specification, charter and MAINTAINERS file and partly corroborated by the second item's account of the release and Vercel's framing. It is materially lower on the interpretive spine of the story: Anthropic's reasons are unexplained, Google's seat is unresolved, the interoperability fragility is derived rather than observed in any shipping client, and there is no quantitative adoption or security evidence. A single publisher supplies all of it.
build
Grok 4.6 lands in Copilot two days after launch, and the model picker becomes a procurement problem1 distinct publisher
build
Microsoft's new build tools repriced themselves, and the citizen developer is the line item1 distinct publisher
product
Teleport puts the developer's Linux desktop inside the audit trail, and takes the SSH keys with it1 distinct publisher
product
A 2x LLM bill is not a bug report: token spend is an observability problem1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
2 articles · August 17, 2026