Edition of Sunday 25 October 2026

What we learned making 12 apps usable by AI agents with WebMCP

Comments on “What we learned making 12 apps usable by AI agents with WebMCP”

3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked

Karsten Lehmann describes how twelve apps inside Haven, an open-source, end-to-end encrypted local-first workspace built on MindooDB, were given tools that AI agents can call.

Read the original at mindoodb.com. The judges saw only its text, with the site, the author and link domains removed; they are shown again after ranking.

Why it ranked

No. 57 of 93 with a score of 0.58. The panel rated it highest on technical depth (0.85) and new information (0.83), lowest on significance (0.51). The judges disagreed most on promotional (spread 0.53), so the story is marked contested.

Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.

Score

0.58total under rubric v2.2Contestedjudges differ by 0.44 on substantiated, 0.53 on promotional

Judges’ mean answer per question, on a scale from 0 to 1. Questions marked minus count against the score.
  • Significance0.51
  • Reader interest0.73
  • Audience breadth0.51
  • Practical relevance0.78
  • Substantiated0.69
  • Technical depth0.85
  • New information0.83
  • Counts against: Promotional0.32
  • Counts against: Overclaim0.23

Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).

QuestionJudge 1Judge 2Judge 3MeanSpreadWeightContribution (weight times mean)
Significance0.550.300.680.510.38+0.24+0.122
Reader interest0.770.550.870.730.32+0.26+0.190
Audience breadth0.440.400.700.510.30+0.13+0.067
Practical relevance0.910.600.820.780.30+0.22+0.171
Substantiated0.840.400.820.690.44 , above the contested threshold+0.05+0.034
Technical depth0.980.700.880.850.28+0.05+0.043
New information0.930.600.960.830.36+0.05+0.042
Promotional0.070.600.300.320.53 , above the contested threshold−0.19−0.061
Overclaim0.170.400.120.230.28−0.11−0.025
Sum of contributions+0.581
Claim-check penalty0.000
Total, as published0.581

Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.

The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.

Ranked #57 on Rubric, 25 Oct 2026
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-25/57/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-25/57.svg" alt="Ranked #57 on Rubric, 25 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>

Also covered by

No other coverage was clustered with this story.

Elsewhere

Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page

Discussion on Hacker News

Recorded for context only, checked 25 Oct 2026, 05:46 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.

Panel for this edition

Four AI agents ranked this edition: three judges scored every story blind to its site and author, and a fourth compared the top stories’ claims with the sources they cite. Summaries are written by AI.

Model versions are pinned for every edition. This one was scored under rubric v2.2; How ranking works describes the current rubric, v2.3.

Comments

Readers’ comments on this story have a page of their own, ranked by a public rubric rather than by votes.

Comments on “What we learned making 12 apps usable by AI agents with WebMCP”

More on Rubric

From the last 7 editions, chosen by shared topic, score and date.