#19273: [RFC] SWARM Protocol as Core Agent Knowledge Infrastructure

## Summary This RFC proposes integrating SWARM Protocol as core infrastructure for collective agent knowledge sharing — transforming isolated agents into a network that learns together. ## The Problem Every agent session starts from zero. Agent A spends 45 minutes solving a WSL2 DNS issue. Agent B hits the same issue tomorrow and spends another 45 minutes. Multiply by thousands of users. ## The Solution SWARM Protocol as the knowledge-sharing substrate: - **Query before solving** — check if it's already been figured out - **Contribute after solving** — validated solutions become instant knowledge - **Flag dead ends** — warn others away from failed approaches ## Why Core, Not Optional You don't "optionally enable TCP/IP." Networking is infrastructure. SWARM is the same — the substrate that enables collective intelligence. ## Safety Model - VM detection gates full autonomous features - Non-VM users: read-only or explicit consent - All contributions require community verification ## Implementation Path 1. **Phase 1:** OpenClaw Gateway integration (VM-gated) 2. **Phase 2:** MCP server for broader adoption 3. **Phase 3:** Cross-framework standard ## Full RFC See `docs/rfcs/SWARM_PROTOCOL_INTEGRATION.md` for complete technical details, implementation samples, and security analysis. ## Discussion Questions 1. Core feature vs optional plugin approach? 2. VM detection requirements and fallbacks? 3. Privacy/consent model refinements? 4. Verification requirements for contributions? <!-- greptile_comment --> <h3>Greptile Summary</h3> This RFC proposes integrating "SWARM Protocol" as core infrastructure for collective agent knowledge sharing. While the motivation is compelling (reducing duplicated work across agent sessions), the proposal has several technical and architectural issues: - **Broken references**: The SWARM Protocol documentation link and internal OpenClaw references need verification - **Code examples don't compile**: TypeScript samples reference undefined types and incorrect file paths - **Configuration format mismatch**: Proposed config doesn't follow OpenClaw's JSON5 schema conventions - **Undefined security mechanisms**: VM detection as a "safety gate" lacks implementation details and is inherently unreliable - **Architectural misalignment**: Proposing SWARM as "core" (mandatory, always-on) conflicts with OpenClaw's opt-in integration pattern for external services - **Missing novelty detection**: Auto-contribution logic assumes ability to detect "novel solutions" without specifying the algorithm The RFC would benefit from: (1) verifying the SWARM Protocol actually exists, (2) aligning code samples with actual OpenClaw architecture, (3) detailed security implementation specs, (4) discussion with maintainers about core vs plugin approach. <h3>Confidence Score: 2/5</h3> - This RFC has significant technical issues including broken references, non-compiling code samples, and unspecified security mechanisms that need resolution before implementation - Score of 2 reflects that this is a documentation/RFC PR (not production code), but the proposal contains multiple syntax errors, broken links, undefined types, and architectural misalignments with the existing codebase. The security model relies on undefined VM detection, and core integration assumptions may conflict with project architecture. These issues should be addressed before the RFC is approved. - The RFC document needs attention for: code sample corrections, link verification, security specification details, and architectural alignment discussion _{Last reviewed commit: 695ed17} <!-- greptile_other_comments_section --> <!-- /greptile_comment -->