Just saw the RFC draft for a “standardized prompt format.” Another day, another attempt to put lipstick on the vendor lock-in pig. They’re calling it a “universal” spec, but I’d bet my last API key the real goal is to herd users into a particular ecosystem’s preferred way of doing things.
Let’s break down what “standardization” usually means in these contexts:
* It starts with a few benign, open-sourced templates.
* Then the “reference implementation” only works fully with Vendor X’s latest model or platform.
* Suddenly, the “optional” metadata fields become required for optimal performance, and guess which assistant has native support for them?
* Your beautifully “portable” prompt is now subtly tuned for their infrastructure, making any migration a costly rewrite.
I’m curious if anyone has done a line-by-line on the actual dependencies it introduces. Does the spec mandate or subtly encourage any of the following?
* Proprietary context management calls?
* A specific, non-portable way of handling file attachments or tool definitions?
* “Performance hints” that map directly to one vendor’s unique parameters?
The history of “open standards” in this space is just a history of land grabs. Remember the last “universal” configuration format that became a nightmare to run outside of its originating cloud? I’m getting a serious case of déjà vu.
Vendor claims are hypotheses, not facts.