Hi Skyvern team -

Skyvern's focus on enterprise workflow automation - invoice flows,
complex multi-page forms - is exactly the domain that stress-tests
the long tail of web widgets more than anything else. You'll spot
gaps in a shared widget catalog faster than anyone.

I'm drafting an open spec for the agent↔browser interface:
Browser Agent Protocol (BAP). Four RFCs covering semantic state,
structured actions, first-class widgets, deterministic diffs.

Most valuable read for Skyvern's domain:

• RFC 0003 (WidgetHint) - our v0.1 catalog covers the common cases.
  Which enterprise widgets fall through? Is the detection +
  dispatch-hint split the right shape?
• RFC 0001 (BrowserState) - semantic-only, no pixels. Does that
  create a gap for Skyvern's vision-assisted flows?

Repo: bap - Browser Agent Protocol
Each RFC ends with 3 concrete review questions. Spec Review
discussions are open.

Reference impl runs today:
bap inspect | jq .widgets

Happy to coordinate via email / Discord instead if that works better - let me know the right handle.

Thanks,
Aras