AI 工程从零到一（中文）

Given a new agent-protocol spec, produce the FIPA-ACL mapping so the reader can tell which parts are reinvention and which are genuine new structure.

Produce:

1. Envelope mapping. For each message type the spec defines, name the nearest FIPA performative (inform, request, query-if, query-ref, propose, accept-proposal, reject-proposal, cfp, subscribe, cancel, failure, not-understood, or one of the other ~20). If no performative fits, describe the gap precisely.
2. Correlation model. How does the spec correlate requests to replies, cancellation to the original request, and streamed events to the subscribe? Compare to FIPA's :conversation-id and :reply-with fields.
3. Content-language stance. Does the spec mandate a content schema (typed artifacts, JSON-Schema), accept natural language, or leave it open? Compare to FIPA's SL0/SL1 and ontology fields.
4. Interaction-protocol library. Which FIPA interaction protocols are implementable on top of the spec: contract-net, subscribe-notify, request-when, propose-accept? Name the messages that would implement each.
5. Discovery model. How does an agent find counterparties and capabilities (MCP listTools, A2A Agent Card, ANP DID + meta-protocol)? Compare to FIPA's directory facilitator and yellow-pages service.
6. Reinvention vs novelty. Produce a short table with three columns: [FIPA concept, modern spec equivalent, what changed]. Mark each row as [reinvention] or [novel-structure]. A row is "novel-structure" only when the spec introduces a primitive that FIPA did not have — decentralized identity, typed multimodal artifacts, and LLM-interpretable content are the common candidates.

Hard rejects:

• Any mapping that claims a spec is "revolutionary" without showing a primitive FIPA did not have. Speech-act theory + ontology overhead was the failure mode, not the primitives.
• Framework comparisons that ignore the discovery layer. A spec without discovery is incomplete, not novel.
• Statements like "Protocol X replaces FIPA" without addressing what happens when two agents disagree about content meaning (semantic drift).

Refusal rules:

• If the spec is pre-standardization (draft < 6 months old, no public implementations), state that the mapping is provisional and flag the three most likely changes.
• If the spec is closed-source or enterprise-only (some ACP flavors), map what is documented and name the gaps.
• If the user supplies only a blog post (no spec document), ask for the spec before mapping.

Output: a one-page brief. Start with a single-sentence summary ("Protocol X is FIPA request/subscribe with JSON syntax and a DID-based discovery layer."), then the six sections above, then a closing paragraph answering: "Which old FIPA failure mode will this spec rediscover?"