Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Install.md: A standard for LLM-executable installation

mintlify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 124 posts

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

#21

Post by skeptrune »

themikesanto wrote: post #18
dang wrote: 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.

I would think that the common bash scripts we already have would provide an agent better context for installation than a markdown file, and even better, they already work without an LLM. This is a "solution" looking for a problem.

I can definitely see where you're coming from and agree to a large extent. I was asking myself that question a lot when thinking about this.

What pushed me over the edge was actually feeding bash install scripts into agents and seeing them not perform well. It does work, but a lot worse than this install.md thing.

In the docs for the proposal I wrote the following:

>install.md files are direct commands, not just documentation. The format is structured to trigger immediate autonomous execution.[1]

[1]: https://www.installmd.org/

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

#22

Post by roywiggins »

dang wrote: 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.

Appropriately, I think this was probably drafted by AI too:

> How does install.md work with my existing CLI or scripts?

> install.md doesn't replace your existing tools—it works with them. Your install.md can instruct the LLM to run your CLI, execute your scripts, or follow your existing setup process. Think of it as a layer that guides the LLM to use whatever tools you've already built.

(It doesn't X — it Ys. Think of it as a Z that Ws. this is LLM speak! I don't know why they lean on these constructions to the exclusion of all else, but they demonstrably do. The repo README was also committed by Claude Code. As much as I like some of the code that Claude produces, its Readmes suck)

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

#23

Post by JoshPurtell »

At some point in the future (if not already), claude will install malware less often on average. Just like waymos crash less frequently.

Once you accept that installation will be automated, standardized formats make a lot of sense. Big q is will this particular format, which seems solid, get adopted - probably mostly a timing question

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

#24

Post by skeptrune »

oftenwrong wrote: post #10

What is the benefit of having this be a standard? Can't an agent follow a guide just as easily in document with similar content in a different structure?

Primarily this being a predictable location for agents. AI not having to fetch the sitemap or llms.txt and then a bunch of subsequent queries saves a lot of time and tokens. There's an advantages section[1] within the proposal docs.

[1]: https://www.installmd.org/#advantages

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

#25

Post by 12_throw_away »

dang wrote: 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.

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

#26

Post by skeptrune »

themikesanto wrote: post #20
skeptrune wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can do the same thing with any install script you might come across today.

True, that's a fair point. Do you think there's any merit to the idea that the UX of asking about a markdown file is more natural than a bash script?

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

#27

Post by skeptrune »

constantcrying wrote: post #19
skeptrune wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Most of the largest trends in "how to deploy software" revolve around making things predictable and consistent. The idea of abandoning this in favor of making a LLM do the work seems absurd. At least the bash script can be replicated exactly across ma…

Yeah, I'm going to add that as one of the downsides to the docs. The stochastic nature of the markdown vs. a script is for sure a reason to not adopt this.

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

#28

Post by vimda »

skeptrune wrote: post #17
vimda wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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?

Time and time again, be it "hallucination", prompt injection, or just plain randomness, LLMs have proven themselves woefully insufficient at best when presented with and asked to work with untrusted documents. This simply changes the attack vector rather than solving a real problem

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

#29

Post by skeptrune »

roywiggins wrote: post #22
dang wrote: 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.

Appropriately, I think this was probably drafted by AI too: > How does install.md work with my existing CLI or scripts? > install.md doesn't replace your existing tools—it works with them. Your install.md can instruct the LLM to run your CLI, execute your scripts, or follow your existing setup process. Think of it as a layer that guides the LLM to use whatever tools you've already built. (It doesn't X — it Ys.…

Yeah, removing that line right now. Went too fast and some this copy is definitely low quality :(. Incredibly ironic for me to say that AI needs more supervision while working at the company proposing this haha.

Any other feedback you have about the general idea?

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

#30

Post by wrigby »

dang wrote: 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.

Or just, I don’t know… package your software?
Post reply on HN