Live data from Hacker News

Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

mintlify.com

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascinating. My thinking was that this is an upgrade over a bash script because you can prompt the AI to check it, clear installs with you, or otherwise investigate safety before installing in a way that isn't natural with *.sh. Does that make any amount of sense or am I just crazy?

Bash scripts give you visibility into what they are going to do by virtue of being machine instructions in a determimistic language. MD files you pipe to matrix multiplication has a much lower chance of being explainable.

Yeah, someone else was pointing that the bash scripts are guaranteed to do the same thing on every system which I think is in the same vein as your feedback. It's for sure a downside of the markdown that I need to explain the docs behind the proposal.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Claude kind of has your best interests at heart. That is such a wild thing to say. Unless this whole thing is satire...

Wait, but being serious. You can prompt the ai when you feed it this file to ask "do you see anything nefarious" or "follow these instructions, but make sure you ask me every time you install something because i want to check the safety" in a way that you can't when you pipe a script into bash. Does that make any sense or am I just off my rocker?

[flagged]

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#44
post #69

[stub for offtopicness] Since the article has been changed to tone down its provocative opener, which clearly had a kicking-the-anthill effect, I'm moving those original reactions to this subthread.

> "Installing software is a task which should be left to AI." So, after teaching people to outsource their reasoning to an LLM, LLMs are now actively coaching folks to use LLMs for tasks for which it makes no sense at all.

Why? One of the major day-to-day benefits of LLMs is that they can deal with all the bullshit of modern computing for you.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#45
Great, I can now combine the potential maliciousness of a script with the potential vulnerabilities of an AI Agent!

Jokes aside, this seems like a really wierd thing to leave to agents; I'm sure its definitely useful but how exactly is this more secure, a bad actor could just prompt inject claude (an issue I'm not sure can ever be fixed with our current model of LLMs).

And surely this is significantly slower than a script, claude can take 10-20 seconds to check the node version; if not longer with human approval for each command, a script could do that in miliseconds.

Sure it could help it work on more environments, but stuff is pretty well standardised and we have containers.

I think this part in the FAQ wraps it up neatly:

""" What about security? Isn't this just curl | bash with extra steps? This is a fair concern. A few things make install.md different:

    Human-readable by design. Users can review the instructions before execution. Unlike obfuscated scripts, the intent is clear.

    Step-by-step approval. LLMs in agentic contexts can be configured to request approval before running commands. Users see each action and can reject it.

    No hidden behavior. install.md describes outcomes in natural language. Malicious intent is harder to hide than in a shell script.
Install.md doesn't eliminate trust requirements. Users should only use install.md files from sources they trust—same as any installation method. """

So it is just curl with extra steps; scripts aren't obfuscated, you can read them; if they are obfuscated then they aren't going to use a Install.md and you (the user) should really think thrice before installing.

Step by step approval also sorta betrays the inital bit about leaving installing stuff to ai and wasting time reading instructions.

Malicious intent is harder to hide, but really if you have any doubt in your mind about an authors potential malefeasance you shouldn't be running it, wrapping claude around this doesn't make it any safer really when possible exploits and malware are likely baked into the software you are trying to install, not the install.

tldr; why not just have @grok is this script safe?

Ten more glorious years to installer.sh

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Installing software is a task which should be left to AI." So, after teaching people to outsource their reasoning to an LLM, LLMs are now actively coaching folks to use LLMs for tasks for which it makes no sense at all.

Why? One of the major day-to-day benefits of LLMs is that they can deal with all the bullshit of modern computing for you.

It's probably making more bullshit and sloppier bullshit at that

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#48
I don't love the concept, but I do wonder if it could be improved by using a skill that packages and install script, and context for troubleshooting. That way you have the benefits of using an install script, and at least a way to provide pointers for those unfamiliar with the underlying tooling.

Re: Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

#50
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has to be a joke right? > Installing software is a task which should be left to AI. Absolutely I don't think so. This is a very bad idea. $ curl | bash was bad enough. But $ curl -fsSL | claude looks even worse. What could possibly go wrong?

fascinating. i personally (biased bc i work at Mintlify) think a markdown file makes more sense than a bash script because at least Claude kind of has your best interests at heart.

I try to have my brain have my best interests at heart, personally.
Post reply on HN