Where does an intent-validation layer sit relative to Anthropic's Model Hardware Standard and to ROS 2?

<p>Anthropic previewed the Model Hardware Standard this week: a driver standard for AI agents operating equipment (read/write primitives, discovery, a per-device reference file of what it measures, adjusts, and refuses), model-agnostic, reachable over MCP, and to be open-sourced after safety evaluations exist.</p> <p>Universal Robots and Doosan are among the partners. Announcement: <a class="inline-onebox" href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/model-hardware-standard-research-preview" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">Previewing the Model Hardware Standard \ Anthropic</a></p> <p>I maintain URML, an Apache-2.0 intent language whose programs are validated whole against a capability manifest and a deployment safety envelope before dispatch, with a ROS 2 reference runtime among others ( <a class="inline-onebox" href="https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">GitHub - URML-MARS/URML: The specification, reference runtimes, validator, LLM bridge, and conformance suite for URML — an open language for robot intent. · GitHub</a> ). My read of the layering: MHS is a Layer-0 driver and description standard, in the same family as URDF and SDF, and an intent layer derives its manifest from those and dispatches through them.</p> <p>A per-call limit at the device catches the fifth action of a bad plan; a whole-program check refuses the plan, and a separate deployment envelope lets a site be stricter than the vendor.</p> <p>The positioning doc with a mapping table is here: <a class="inline-onebox" href="https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/integrations/model-hardware-standard.md" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">URML/docs/integrations/model-hardware-standard.md at main · URML-MARS/URML · GitHub</a> , and a hermetic safety-evaluation harness built for the gate Anthropic named is here: <a class="inline-onebox" href="https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/tree/main/examples/physical-ai-safety-eval" rel="noopener nofollow ugc">URML/examples/physical-ai-safety-eval at main · URML-MARS/URML · GitHub</a></p> <p>The one question I would value this community’s view on: which ROS 2 device-description conventions should a reference-file-to-manifest mapping respect so that an MHS device and a ROS 2 device describe their limits the same way? I am thinking of URDF joint limits, ros2_control command and state interfaces, and sensor_msgs field names, but I would rather hear what people who maintain those think than guess.</p> <p>Not asking anyone to adopt anything; corrections to the layering picture are welcome too.</p> <p><small>1 post - 1 participant</small></p> <p><a href="https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/where-does-an-intent-validation-layer-sit-relative-to-anthropics-model-hardware-standard-and-to-ros-2/57725">Read full topic</a></p>