Editorial policy and corrections
ContextOS publishes an open specification and practical material for people building reliable AI agents. A useful article should help you make a decision, inspect an implementation, or reproduce a result.
Policy introduced . These standards guide new work and revisions; their publication does not certify that every older article has been re-reviewed.
Who is responsible
Piyush Kumar is the ContextOS author identified on this site. Article bylines link to the author profile. A byline identifies responsibility for the article; it is not evidence of an independent review, an employer endorsement, or a production deployment.
The specification, runnable reference, and essays serve different purposes. Published schemas and explicitly normative documentation define the contract. Tutorials illustrate implementation choices. Research articles and opinion pieces should distinguish a source finding from the author's interpretation.
What counts as evidence
- Implementation guides: provide runnable code or clearly label pseudocode, identify dependencies, state expected results, and explain what the example does not implement.
- Research analysis: link to the paper, official documentation, dataset, or repository supporting a claim. A citation supports the claim next to it, not every conclusion in the article.
- Benchmarks: publish the workload, environment, versions, method, and results needed to assess the comparison. A synthetic fixture is not a customer outcome.
- Experience reports: distinguish a documented observation from a hypothetical scenario. Do not present an illustrative number as a measured production result.
- Recommendations: state the tradeoff, relevant conditions, and limitations. Passing a test is not a general security, reliability, or compliance certification.
For example, the compiler replay tutorial links to executable tests and specifies which controls they exercise. The public repository lets readers inspect the implementation and change history.
AI assistance and review
AI assistance was used in the October 2026 replay tutorial revision and this policy. That assistance does not establish technical accuracy or firsthand experience. The tutorial identifies its executable checks and limitations so readers can evaluate the result.
For new and substantially revised material, disclose material AI assistance in an editorial note when it helps readers understand how the work was produced. Verify factual claims against their sources and run examples before describing them as tested. Name a human reviewer only when that person has actually reviewed the material. Older articles without a disclosure should not be assumed to have been written without AI.
Dates and corrections
Published is the original publication date. Updated comes from the article's recorded modification date. A title-only edit, deployment, or formatting pass should not reset the publication date or imply new research. An update is not a claim that an independent reviewer has approved the page.
Material corrections should explain what changed and why. Articles marked Needs review have an unresolved review need. Articles marked Archived are retained for historical context. The absence of either label is not a warranty that examples fit every current runtime.
To report an error, open an issue in the ContextOS repository with the page URL, the disputed passage, and a supporting source or reproducible example. Do not include private traces, customer data, or credentials. Corrections can also be proposed through a pull request; documentation pages include an edit link.
Evaluate the work yourself
Start with the Context Pack contract, the runtime API contracts, or the tested replay example. Check the artifact and its limitations before adopting a recommendation.