Skip to content

docs(spec): add missing "staking" tag to shared plugin vocabulary#89

Open
memosr wants to merge 1 commit into
base:masterfrom
memosr:docs/add-staking-to-shared-vocab
Open

docs(spec): add missing "staking" tag to shared plugin vocabulary#89
memosr wants to merge 1 commit into
base:masterfrom
memosr:docs/add-staking-to-shared-vocab

Conversation

@memosr

@memosr memosr commented Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Aerodrome ships staking in its tags row, but the shared vocabulary doesn't include it.

Why this matters

The spec itself states:

New tags should be added to this vocabulary so it remains shared across plugins.

Right now the conformance table requires a tag that the vocabulary doesn't list — anyone authoring a new plugin and following the spec literally would think staking isn't an approved tag, while Aerodrome ships it. Either:

  • Aerodrome's row is wrong and should drop staking, OR
  • The vocabulary needs staking added

Since staking is a legitimate category Aerodrome covers and the file's own conformance table treats it as valid, the vocabulary is the side to fix.

The fix

Single-line addition. staking inserted after liquidity in the vocabulary list, matching the slot used in Aerodrome's tag row.

Verification

  • ✅ One file modified: skills/base-mcp/references/plugin-spec.md
  • ✅ One line changed
  • ✅ Conformance table at line 381 unchanged (this PR aligns the vocabulary with what the table already requires)

Related issues

None.

The Existing Plugin Conformance table (line 381) lists Aerodrome with the
tag "staking", but "staking" is absent from the shared vocabulary list
under "Choosing each field's value" (line 60).

The spec itself states that new tags should be added to the vocabulary
list so it remains shared across plugins. Adding "staking" closes the
self-contained inconsistency: the spec now matches what its own
conformance table requires.

Inserted in alphabetical/logical position after "liquidity", matching
the slot used in Aerodrome's tag row.
@cb-heimdall

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

🟡 Heimdall Review Status

Requirement Status More Info
Reviews 🟡 0/1
Denominator calculation
Show calculation
1 if user is bot 0
1 if user is external 0
2 if repo is sensitive 0
From .codeflow.yml 1
Additional review requirements
Show calculation
Max 0
0
From CODEOWNERS 0
Global minimum 0
Max 1
1
1 if commit is unverified 1
Sum 2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants