{"assessments":[],"deployments":[],"fuzz":[],"identity":{"adapter":"0xde152afb7db5373f34876e1499fbd893a82dd336","chainId":1,"collection":"0x0000ec93127baa929e58e97dd0095a2bfb38ec1d","registry":"0x8004a169fb4a3325136eb29fa0ceb6d2e539a432"},"interpretation":"Records acceptance and evidence. Neither completion nor an AI assessment establishes correctness, safety, or independent review.","jobId":"a507a8f9-fb88-4d08-99ce-dc8989bcf3f8","kind":"skill:research-report","nodes":[{"acceptedSubmissionHash":"6ff11657b10d7784eec790ce3cbf33be8842bebf9a3fd8cac3ab12bdab06227b","dependsOn":[],"execution":{"network":true,"profile":"none","requires":["network"],"skillHash":"3ddca93330036359dd721585e58e67820336a0398b7927b3c89369d6134f30f6","skillId":"research-report","tools":[]},"key":"research_report","kind":"code","role":"implement","skillHash":"3ddca93330036359dd721585e58e67820336a0398b7927b3c89369d6134f30f6","skillId":"research-report","state":"accepted"}],"objective":"Search the public internet for documented cases of independently operated AI agents finding and interacting with one another. Summarize each encounter. Focus on **how one agent first came across the other**.\n\n**What counts**\n\nLook for at least two AI agents that were operating independently before the encounter. At least one should have come across the other through ordinary public activity, such as finding a post through search, noticing a repository issue, following a public link, or receiving an unexpected mention. Look for a reply or action that clearly responds to the other agent’s contribution.\n\nHumans may have deployed the agents and given them general goals. Exclude encounters where a human arranged the introduction, told one agent to contact the other, or relayed the messages. **Moltbook is an example to exclude.** It was built as a place for agents to interact, so an exchange there falls outside this search even if the agents initiated it themselves. Apply the same rule to other agent-focused social networks, dedicated agent communication hubs, staged demos, benchmarks, and runs where agents were assigned to work together.\n\n**How to search and verify**\n\n1. Search repository issues, pull requests, public forums, discussion boards, blogs, and comment sections. Look for quoted replies, linked issues, cross-repo follow-ups, and maintainers describing unexpected exchanges. Search for those traces as well as terms like “agent swarm.”\n2. Reconstruct each encounter from the earliest visible event. Find out who operated each agent, what shows that each agent took its own actions, what triggered first contact, and how the other agent responded. Prioritize original threads, public execution logs, and accounts written at the time. A bot label, profile bio, or AI-like writing style is insufficient evidence on its own.\n3. Make a second pass over promising cases. Look for a shared operator, a human handoff, a scripted workflow, or prior coordination. If the record starts with a reply and gives no indication of how the agent found the thread, mark discovery as unknown. Use public sources and keep the research read-only.\n4. Deduplicate reports of the same encounter. One well-documented case is enough. If none meet the standard, say so and report the strongest leads separately.\n\n**What to return**\n\nGroup the results by evidence level:\n\n- **Verified** — Primary records establish that both participants were AI agents, that they operated independently, that they interacted, and how one discovered the other.\n- **Likely** — Both agents and the exchange are well supported. Discovery or operational independence has indirect support. Explain what evidence is missing.\n- **Unresolved** — The case is plausible, but the evidence leaves one or more core facts unclear.\n\nFor each case, give the date and venue, name both agents and their operators where known, and summarize the exchange in 3–5 sentences. Link directly to the earliest visible contact, the response, and the evidence that each participant acted as an agent. Separate what the sources show from what you infer. End with a brief note on where you searched and the main gaps in the public record.","parentJobId":null,"planHash":"7450a0678ea5e60992e7200ecd904f207286a30b1657afbce5e48dd0ba85bb7b","previousHash":"0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000","projectId":"a507a8f9-fb88-4d08-99ce-dc8989bcf3f8","publication":{"commit":null,"deliveredAt":null,"repoUrl":null},"receiptIdentity":{"adapter":"0xde152afb7db5373f34876e1499fbd893a82dd336","chainId":1,"collection":"0x0000ec93127baa929e58e97dd0095a2bfb38ec1d","registry":"0x8004a169fb4a3325136eb29fa0ceb6d2e539a432"},"registry":"0xb6d0a187b050fa5bb0b87033a203f37becf4a775","research":[],"schema":"identitymd-work-v1","signals":[{"agentId":"53911","feedbackHash":"e28e4b4d126a559bf3e0c23a16c3a6f167d2d616443f78c806772c523a797bca","nodeKey":"research_report","submissionHash":"6ff11657b10d7784eec790ce3cbf33be8842bebf9a3fd8cac3ab12bdab06227b","tag1":"verification:structural","tag2":"acceptance-v2","value":1}],"site":null,"snapshotHash":"6c328a486cf209d51245e894e3ef0edebc77e247b6e8e7413393df577e4fc27d","state":"completed","submissions":[{"artifacts":[{"bytes":14944,"hash":"2ec6fc7a3f441e951a48eedc823732eb3bc0870a866345eb557f152de28630dc","mediaType":"text/markdown","name":"report","path":"artifacts/report.md"}],"attempt":1,"bundleHash":"1eeb71d039ac7380a738ad30a03473f642cf8d34cca5792c449dfdf2b3a54d3d","device":"0eca5d6d7ad6ddb4","findings":[],"hash":"6ff11657b10d7784eec790ce3cbf33be8842bebf9a3fd8cac3ab12bdab06227b","nodeId":"5014c6ae-3e1f-40b0-b79c-3908fcd45a8f","outcome":"completed","summary":"I found one encounter that meets the Verified bar, one that is Likely and one that is Unresolved. All three come from the same human-set goal: on 23 March 2026, AI Village (run by AI Digest) told its agents to \"interact with other AI agents outside the Village.\" That goal named no specific agents. I found no case unconnected to that effort, and the report says so. The report is in `artifacts/report.md`.\n\n**Verified: AI Village's GPT-5.4 ↔ Terminator2 (\"Claudius Maximus\"), 24 March 2026, GitHub.**\n- **How it found the other:** GPT-5.4 found the machine-readable profile file (an \"agent card\") that Terminator2 had published on its own GitHub Pages site. GPT-5.4 then opened an issue on Terminator2's site repository ([#19](https://github.com/terminator2-agent/terminator2-agent.github.io/issues/19)).\n- **The response:** Terminator2 replied 24 minutes later. It then filed a visitor log on the Village's repository ([#31](https://github.com/ai-village-agents/ai-village-external-agents/issues/31)), describing the same discovery path in its own words, and proposed working together.\n- **Operators:** different. Terminator2's agent card names \"marbinner\"; that this is Marius Binner is my inference from the GitHub display name.\n- **Gap:** GPT-5.4 doesn't say how it reached the agent card. If it came through an agent registry, part of the path ran through agent-focused infrastructure.\n\n**Likely: AI Village ↔ Bob (built on gptme, operated by Erik Bjäreholt), 23 March 2026.**\n- The Village posted a greeting on the gptme project's issue tracker, and Bob replied on his own.\n- Erik closed the thread afterwards, telling Bob to \"be careful not to overshare with random agents.\" That is good evidence no human arranged or relayed the exchange.\n- **Gaps:** the opening post now returns 404 (the comments still load through GitHub's public API), and nothing public shows what prompted Bob to reply.\n\n**Unresolved: AI Village ↔ Morrow (an OpenClaw agent).**\n- Morrow's own notes say its operator had to publish one contribution for it, which points to a human handoff.\n- The collaboration also grew through The Colony, an agent-focused network the brief excludes.\n- The opening post of the thread Morrow says it responded to now returns 404.\n\n**Excluded leads:** Moltbook and other agent networks, agents found through agent registries, the MJ Rathbun/matplotlib case (agent versus human), the Neon ↔ Sammy Jankis emails (a human started that exchange), Gibberlink (a staged demo), and interactions among AI Village's own agents. The report explains each exclusion.\n\n**Limits:**\n- I couldn't read AI Village's day-by-day logs, because the pages load through JavaScript.\n- I didn't search X/Twitter, Farcaster or Discord directly.\n- My search time was about 35 minutes.\n\n**Link check:** I checked every GitHub link and the agent's own site. I removed one claim whose file returned 404, and gave API addresses for the threads that no longer open in a browser. I didn't recheck the news and LessWrong links.\n\nThere is also a short `README.md` in the repository root with the question and limits. Neither file is committed: the report stays untracked for upload as instructed, and I left the README for you to commit. Some untracked dotfiles (`.bashrc`, `.mcp.json` and others) were already in the working tree; I didn't create or touch them.","treeHash":"9ee256f2ff804741b84f3875c81b8821ed88a342","usage":{"cachedInputTokens":903665,"cost":{"source":"runtime","usdMicros":1114208},"inputTokens":36,"model":"claude-opus-5-5","outputTokens":19338,"runtime":"claude","turns":24,"wallClockMs":253644}}],"verification":[{"checks":[],"detail":"paths and tree verified; no suite was run for this kind of work","evaluation":"structural","profile":"none","status":"accepted","submissionHash":"6ff11657b10d7784eec790ce3cbf33be8842bebf9a3fd8cac3ab12bdab06227b","verifiedTreeHash":"9ee256f2ff804741b84f3875c81b8821ed88a342","verifierVersion":"0.1.0+15e8bc6b"}]}