SUSE Edge Image Builder MCP by eminguez

Description

Based on my other hackweek project, SUSE Edge Image Builder's Json Schema I would like to build also a MCP to be able to generate EIB config files the AI way.

Realistically I don't think I'll be able to have something consumable at the end of this hackweek but at least I would like to start exploring MCPs, the difference between an API and MCP, etc.

Goals

• Familiarize myself with MCPs
• Unrealistic: Have an MCP that can generate an EIB config file

Resources

• https://hackweek.opensuse.org/25/projects/suse-edge-image-builder-json-schema
• Anything else :)

---

"what is it" file and directory analysis via MCP and local LLM, for console and KDE by rsimai

Description

Users sometimes wonder what files or directories they find on their local PC are good for. If they can't determine from the filename or metadata, there should an easy way to quickly analyze the content and at least guess the meaning. An LLM could help with that, through the use of a filesystem MCP and to-text-converters for typical file types. Ideally this is integrated into the desktop environment but works as well from a console. All data is processed locally or "on premise", no artifacts remain or leave the system.

Goals

• The user can run a command from the console, to check on a file or directory
• The filemanager contains the "analyze" feature within the context menu
• The local LLM could serve for other use cases where privacy matters

TBD

• Find or write capable one-shot and interactive MCP client
• Find or write simple+secure file access MCP server
• Create local LLM service with appropriate footprint, containerized
• Shell command with options
• KDE integration (Dolphin)
• Package
• Document

Resources

---

Is SUSE Trending? Popularity and Developer Sentiment Insight Using Native AI Capabilities by terezacerna

Description

This project aims to explore the popularity and developer sentiment around SUSE and its technologies compared to Red Hat and their technologies. Using publicly available data sources, I will analyze search trends, developer preferences, repository activity, and media presence. The final outcome will be an interactive Power BI dashboard that provides insights into how SUSE is perceived and discussed across the web and among developers.

Goals

1. Assess the popularity of SUSE products and brand compared to Red Hat using Google Trends.
2. Analyze developer satisfaction and usage trends from the Stack Overflow Developer Survey.
3. Use the GitHub API to compare SUSE and Red Hat repositories in terms of stars, forks, contributors, and issue activity.
4. Perform sentiment analysis on GitHub issue comments to measure community tone and engagement using built-in Copilot capabilities.
5. Perform sentiment analysis on Reddit comments related to SUSE technologies using built-in Copilot capabilities.
6. Use Gnews.io to track and compare the volume of news articles mentioning SUSE and Red Hat technologies.
7. Test the integration of Copilot (AI) within Power BI for enhanced data analysis and visualization.
8. Deliver a comprehensive Power BI report summarizing findings and insights.
9. Test the full potential of Power BI, including its AI features and native language Q&A.

Resources

1. Google Trends: Web scraping for search popularity data
2. Stack Overflow Developer Survey: For technology popularity and satisfaction comparison
3. GitHub API: For repository data (stars, forks, contributors, issues, comments).
4. Gnews.io API: For article volume and mentions analysis.
5. Reddit: SUSE related topics with comments.

---

Background Coding Agent by mmanno

Description

I had only bad experiences with AI one-shots. However, monitoring agent work closely and interfering often did result in productivity gains.

Now, other companies are using agents in pipelines. That makes sense to me, just like CI, we want to offload work to pipelines: Our engineering teams are consistently slowed down by "toil": low-impact, repetitive maintenance tasks. A simple linter rule change, a dependency bump, rebasing patch-sets on top of newer releases or API deprecation requires dozens of manual PRs, draining time from feature development.

So far we have been writing deterministic, script-based automation for these tasks. And it turns out to be a common trap. These scripts are brittle, complex, and become a massive maintenance burden themselves.

Can we make prompts and workflows smart enough to succeed at background coding?

Goals

We will build a platform that allows engineers to execute complex code transformations using prompts.

By automating this toil, we accelerate large-scale migrations and allow teams to focus on high-value work.

Our platform will consist of three main components:

• "Change" Definition: Engineers will define a transformation as a simple, declarative manifest:
  
  • The target repositories.
    
  • A wrapper to run a "coding agent", e.g., "gemini-cli".
    
  • The task as a natural language prompt.
    
• "Change" Management Service: A central service that orchestrates the jobs. It will receive Change definitions and be responsible for the job lifecycle.
  
• Execution Runners: We could use existing sandboxed CI runners (like GitHub/GitLab runners) to execute each job or spawn a container.

MVP

• Define the Change manifest format.
  
• Build the core Management Service that can accept and queue a Change.
• Connect management service and runners, dynamically dispatch jobs to runners.
• Create a basic runner script that can run a hard-coded prompt against a test repo and open a PR.
  

Stretch Goals:

• Multi-layered approach, Workflow Agents trigger Coding Agents:
  
  1. Workflow Agent: Gather information about the task interactively from the user.
     
  2. Coding Agent: Once the interactive agent has refined the task into a clear prompt, it hands this prompt off to the "coding agent." This background agent is responsible for executing the task and producing the actual pull request.
     
• Use MCP:
  
  1. Workflow Agent gathers context information from Slack, Github, etc.
     
  2. Workflow Agent triggers a Coding Agent.
     
• Create a "Standard Task" library with reliable prompts.
  1. Rebasing rancher-monitoring to a new version of kube-prom-stack
     
  2. Update charts to use new images
     
  3. Apply changes to comply with a new linter
     
  4. Bump complex Go dependencies, like k8s modules
     
  5. Backport pull requests to other branches
• Add “review agents” that review the generated PR.
  

See also

---

Gemini-Powered Socratic Bug Evaluation and Management Assistant by rtsvetkov

Description

To build a tool or system that takes a raw bug report (including error messages and context) and uses a large language model (LLM) to generate a series of structured, Socratic-style questions designed to guide a the integration and development toward the root cause, rather than just providing a direct, potentially incorrect fix.

Goals

Set up a Python environment

Set the environment and get a Gemini API key. 2. Collect 5-10 realistic bug reports (from open-source projects, personal projects, or public forums like Stack Overflow—include the error message and the initial context).

Build the Dialogue Loop

1. Write a basic Python script using the Gemini API.
2. Implement a simple conversational loop: User Input (Bug) -> AI Output (Question) -> User Input (Answer to AI's question) -> AI Output (Next Question). Code Implementation

Socratic Strategy Implementation

1. Refine the logic to ensure the questions follow a Socratic path (e.g., from symptom-> context -> assumptions -> root cause).
2. Implement Function Calling (an advanced feature of the Gemini API) to suggest specific actions to the user, like "Run a ping test" or "Check the database logs."

Resources

---