Agent-Native Calendar
Agent-Native Google Calendar - manage events, sync, and public booking
作者提供的说明(英文原文)
Deployment-readiness checks for document-QA and extraction AI: grounding, extraction, CI gate.
这三项永远不会合并成一个分数:意见、测量和人气是不同的东西。
我们还没有为它写通俗的介绍。下面是我们从注册中心读取到的事实。
选择你使用的 AI 应用,然后复制设置。
你需要
你用的是哪个应用?
在上方选择你的应用。我们会记住它,下次按钮会显示“安装到 …”。
打开 Claude Desktop → Settings → Developer → Edit Config,把下面的内容粘贴到 claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"groundwork": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@pharmatools/groundwork",
"mcp"
]
}
}
}在终端中运行这条命令
claude mcp add groundwork -- npx -y @pharmatools/groundwork mcp粘贴到项目中的 .cursor/mcp.json,或 ~/.cursor/mcp.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"groundwork": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@pharmatools/groundwork",
"mcp"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
粘贴到项目中的 .vscode/mcp.json
{
"servers": {
"groundwork": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@pharmatools/groundwork",
"mcp"
]
}
}
}浏览器会先询问是否打开应用,然后应用会显示设置并请你确认。密钥的值会留空,由你自己填写。
这个服务器在你的电脑上运行,而 ChatGPT 只能连接互联网上的服务器。请选择其他应用。
你的选择通过 Cookie 保存在这台设备上,无需账户。
这些设置是根据作者在注册中心的条目生成的。如果 README 的写法不同,请以 README 为准。
它在你的电脑上运行;安装后,工具列表会显示在你的 AI 应用中。
我们检查的是任何人都能看到的信息;我们没有阅读代码。不适用的检查项不计入总数。 · 检查于 2026年11月6日
注册名称已通过 GitHub 账户 nickjlamb 验证,该账户拥有此仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
我们还没有从 GitHub 读取这个仓库
它在你的电脑上运行,没有互联网端点
在你的电脑上运行,改用本地设置
它在你的电脑上运行;我们只能读取互联网端点的工具列表
与注册中心里这个分类中所有活跃的服务器比较。只有当发布者拥有该仓库时,星标数才计入。
它在 1 项适用的基础检查中通过了 1 项。我们没有阅读代码。在添加密钥或令牌之前,请先看看这个服务器要求哪些权限,并使用只具备所需权限的密钥。
注册中心没有列出必需的密钥,不过有些服务器会在首次使用时要求你登录。
它在你的电脑上运行。你的 AI 应用会在需要时启动它,数据不会经过作者的服务器(除非它自己调用在线服务)。
GitHub 仓库最后更新于–,最新版本(0.4.1)于39天前进入注册中心。
支持 MCP 的应用,例如 Claude Desktop、Claude Code、Cursor 和 VS Code。你的电脑上还需要有 Node.js。
同一分类中有:Agent-Native Calendar, Excel MCP Server, MCP Server for Excel
同一分类中其他作者的服务器,按星标数排序。
如何看卡片:★ GitHub 星标i三大支柱:评价 · 检查 · 使用情况i更新 = 最新版本发布到注册中心的时间i
Agent-Native Google Calendar - manage events, sync, and public booking
Create and edit Excel files with AI: charts, PivotTables, formulas. No Excel needed.
Excel automation for AI - Sheets, Power Query, DAX, VBA, Tables, Ranges and more. Windows only.
按原文从作者的仓库复制。PopNx MCP 没有审查或背书其内容。HTML、图片和脚本已被移除。链接会离开本站。
Deployment-readiness harnesses for AI deployment patterns.
Redaction · evals from your real failures · a CI gate that fails fabrication
Website · Getting started · Examples · Roadmap · Contributing · Changelog
You have a prototype: your documents, a model, useful output. What you don't have is the apparatus that makes it responsible to ship — a privacy pre-step, an evaluation built from your own failures, and a gate that stops a quiet prompt tweak from deploying a system that fabricates. That apparatus usually requires an ML engineer. Groundwork scaffolds it instead.
Groundwork's units are deployment patterns, not products — think Terraform modules for trustworthy AI deployments. groundwork init scaffolds the whole harness for a pattern:
| Archetype | The pattern | Status |
|---|---|---|
document-qa | documents → retrieval → grounded answers → human review | ✅ shipped |
extraction | documents → structured fields → schema validation → human review | ✅ shipped |
| research synthesis | questions → evidence → synthesis → human review | planned — see the roadmap |
Every check is deterministic: same inputs, same result, every time — no LLM judge, and no API key for the checks themselves.
git clone https://github.com/nickjlamb/groundwork.git && cd groundwork
npm install && npm run build npm run demo # document QA: the whole loop passes, fully offline npm run demo:break # the system starts fabricating — watch the gate go red
✗ GROUNDING demo-savings: ungrounded number "14" — not in the provided context ✗ GROUNDING demo-unanswerable-appeals: unanswerable question — the answer did not abstain
The same loop for structured extraction:
npm run demo:extraction # documents → fields, every check green
npm run demo:extraction:break # a guessed date of birth, a dropped field — red, by name
✗ EXTRACTION demo-referral: SCHEMA: /referral_date must be string ✗ EXTRACTION demo-referral: FABRICATED field "date_of_birth": document does not state it (got "12 April 1988")
That red build is the product: a fabricated figure, a guessed field, or a failed abstention becomes a CI failure, not a user complaint.
Ready for your own system?
npm install -D @pharmatools/groundwork
npx groundwork init # document QA npx groundwork init extraction # structured extraction
| You edit | Groundwork runs | The gate enforces |
|---|---|---|
adapter.mjs — one file: answer() for document QA, extract() for extraction | Redaction pre-step (Redacta) — identifiers become labelled tokens locally, before anything is sent | check --baseline freezes a good run as the floor |
datasets/cases/*.json — gold cases from real questions and real documents, labelled by hand | The archetype's eval (OpenGATE) — document QA: anchored facts · numbers trace to context · abstention. Extraction: schema validity · field accuracy vs gold · no fabricated fields | check --ci in the scaffolded GitHub Action fails any PR below it |
groundwork.config.json — archetype, redaction, eval, and gate settings | Cost profiling — measured token usage, savings in leverage order (caching → batching → trimming → routing) | A human still reviews high-stakes outputs — the gate is a floor, not a certification |
For extraction, one schema choice does most of the safety work: nullability is the abstention contract. A field the system must always find is non-nullable; a field the document may not state is nullable, and the system returns null for it — unknown → null, never guessed. A guessed value in a null-gold field fails by name: FABRICATED field "date_of_birth": document does not state it.
| Example | What it shows | Run |
|---|---|---|
demo/ | Document QA: the full loop on a tiny local system — and the gate catching fabrication by name. Zero network. | npm run demo / npm run demo:break |
demo-extraction/ | Structured extraction: schema validation, field accuracy, and the gate naming a guessed date of birth and a dropped required field. Zero network. | npm run demo:extraction / npm run demo:extraction:break |
examples/claude-doc-qa/ | A real Claude-backed system: answer-from-document-only prompting, prompt caching, key-gated evals, measured usage feeding groundwork cost — plus a mock API so the whole loop runs offline in CI. | npm run example:mock (offline) / npm run example:check (live) |
examples/claude-extraction/ | Claude filling a schema from fictional referral letters: unknown → null in the prompt contract, the schema as the cached prefix, and the gate catching a guessed date of birth — plus a mock API for offline CI. | npm run example:extraction:mock (offline) / npm run example:extraction:check (live) |
groundwork init [archetype] scaffold the harness for a pattern (document-qa, extraction)
groundwork check redaction self-test + the archetype's eval groundwork check --baseline freeze this run as the regression floor groundwork check --ci exit non-zero on failure or regression vs baseline groundwork cost measured token usage + savings, in leverage order
Two ways to learn it: docs/GETTING-STARTED.md is the reference walkthrough (about half an hour), and the course covers the same ground as checkpoint-driven lessons — including the sabotage test, where you deliberately break your own system to prove the gate catches it, and a lesson on the extraction archetype. The scaffolded playbook (GROUNDWORK.md) lives inside your repo, where your team will actually read it.
The same checks ship as an MCP server (groundwork-mcp, stdio) so Claude Code, Cowork, or Claude Desktop can run them conversationally — check_readiness on a repo, check_answer_grounding on a single answer, check_extraction on a single record (no repo needed), scaffold_harness, cost_summary:
{ "mcpServers": { "groundwork": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "@pharmatools/groundwork", "mcp"] } } }
There's also an Agent Skill (skills/groundwork-readiness/) that teaches an agent to run the gate and report results honestly — including refusing to present a green check as a safety certification.
Groundwork is a strong floor, not a guarantee. Deterministic checks catch the failures that can be caught deterministically; they cannot certify an AI system safe. For high-stakes outputs — anything touching health, money, legal standing, or safety — a human must review before the output reaches the person it affects. Extraction raises the stakes quietly: the record feeds decisions, so a wrong field is a wrong decision. The scaffolded playbook says this too, on purpose.
MIT. Everything init scaffolds into your repo is MIT-0 — yours, no attribution needed.