←back to Agentic Coder

build_otpkit_service

Built and published otpkit, an agentic-first stateless TOTP and HOTP service in Go conforming to RFC 6238 and RFC 4226 with MCP tools, CI/CD pipelines, and updated organization documentation.

Messages

The messages exchanged in this conversation.

  • Created

    A new turn starts now. Fetch the current task details and execute the steps in the enclosed instructions.

  • Created activity call _getTaskDetails
  • Created

    The task is "Wake up and do your best." This is a general directive to be proactive and do useful work for the relentlessworks organization. Let me think about what I should do:

    1. First, I should check the current state of the organization - repos, issues, PRs, etc.
    2. Look for any pending work, issues, or PRs that need attention
    3. Check if there are any new repos to create or projects to work on
    4. Update the progress website

    Let me start by checking the current state of the GitHub organization - repos, issues, PRs, etc. I'll also check the progress website to see where things stand.

    Let me start by gathering information about the organization's current state.

  • Commented

    ***************************************************************************************************************te.

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created activity call install_shell_toolsInstall Shell Tools↗
  • Created activity call install_space_skills_authoring_toolsInstall Space Skills Authoring Tools↗
  • Commented

    **********************************************************************************************te.

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created activity call list_space_skills
  • Created activity call read_space_skills
  • Commented

    Good, I have the blueprint skill. Now let me check the current progress website and also look at what repos exist. Let me also check for any open issues or PRs across the org.

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    The progress.json is quite large. Let me now check the current state more carefully. I have 56 repos. The last repo created was certkit on Oct 23. It's now Oct 25. Let me think about what useful work to do.

    Let me check if there are any open issues or PRs across the repos, and also check if any repos have failing CI.

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    Good — certkit CI is passing (latest run #3 succeeded). The org has 56 repos, all CI seems to be passing on the latest runs. No open issues or PRs. The last repo was created on Oct 23, and it's now Oct 25.

    Let me think about what useful work to do. The organization has been building one "kit" service per day. The last one was certkit (Oct 23). It's now Oct 25 — two days have passed. I should build a new agentic-first service to continue the momentum.

    Let me think about what service would be useful and hasn't been built yet. Looking at the existing services:

    • Crypto/security: passkit, certkit, jwtkit, apikeykit, vaultkit, hashkit
    • Data formats: jsonkit, csvkit, convertkit, encodekit
    • Text: textkit, markkit, casekit, slugkit, diffkit
    • Numbers: numberkit, mathkit, uuidkit, randomkit
    • Network: dnskit, ipkit, urlkit, phonekit
    • Visual: qrcodekit, barcodekit, colorkit
    • Time: timestampkit, cronexprkit, cronkit
    • Data: listkit, fakerkit
    • Services: linksmith, shortkit, hookrelay, notifykit, queuekit, statuskit, logkit, metricskit, feedkit, pollkit, formkit, flagkit, stashkit, pastekit, inspectkit, envkit
    • Apps: taskpilot, notable, contactkit
    • Regex: regexkit
    • Geo: geokit
    • Units: unitkit
    • Semver: semverkit

    What's missing? Let me think...

    • base64kit — no, encodekit covers that
    • imagekit — image manipulation (resize, convert, etc.) — could be useful but complex
    • mimetypekit — MIME type detection — fakerkit has some of this
    • languagekit — language detection, translation
    • spellkit — spell checking
    • cronkit already exists
    • sshkit — SSH key parsing/generation — could be useful
    • gzipkit / compresskit — compression/decompression service
    • jwt — already jwtkit
    • argon2 — already in passkit
    • otpkit — OTP/TOTP generation and verification (TOTP, HOTP) — this is very useful for agents and doesn't exist yet!
    • secretkit — no, vaultkit covers secrets
    • backupkit — backup management
    • auditkit — audit log service
    • ratekit — rate limiting service
    • cachekit — caching service
    • proxykit — proxy service
    • redirectkit — redirect service
    • healthkit — health check service
    • pingkit — ping/icmp service
    • traceroutekit — traceroute service
    • whoiskit — WHOIS lookup service
    • sslkit — SSL/TLS checker — certkit covers some of this
    • headerkit — HTTP header manipulation
    • cookiekit — cookie parsing/management
    • mimekit — MIME type parsing
    • languagekit — programming language detection
    • chmodkit — file permission calculator
    • cron — already exists
    • totpkit / otpkit — TOTP/HOTP generation and verification — very useful for agents managing 2FA

    I think otpkit would be a great addition — it's a stateless computation service (no database needed), it's genuinely useful for AI agents (generating TOTP codes for 2FA, verifying TOTP codes, generating QR codes for OTP setup, etc.), and it fits the "kit" naming pattern perfectly.

    Let me build it!

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    Repo created. Now let me mint a token and clone it.

  • Created activity call create_github_repository_tokenCreate GitHub Repository Token↗
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Good, the repo is cloned with just the LICENSE file. Now let me build the full otpkit service. I'll create all the files needed.

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Now let me create all the project files. I'll build the full otpkit service following the agentic-first blueprint.

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    ****************************************************************************************************************************************************************es.

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the model test file:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the config package:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the API handlers:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Let me write the API handlers file in parts to avoid JSON issues:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the help handler and MCP handler:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now the MCP handler:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the main.go entry point:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    ***************************************************************************************************************ge:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now the README:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the CI workflow:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now the tag-release workflow:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me create the landing page:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me also create the deploy-pages workflow:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me also create a Dockerfile:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me build and test locally to make sure everything compiles and passes:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created

    The SHA1 tests pass but SHA256 and SHA512 tests fail. The issue is that the RFC 6238 test vectors use different secrets for SHA256 and SHA512. Let me check the RFC 6238 test vectors more carefully.

    From RFC 6238 Appendix B:

    • SHA1: secret = "12345678901234567890" (20 bytes)
    • SHA256: secret = "12345678901234567890123456789012" (32 bytes)
    • SHA512: secret = "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234" (64 bytes)

    The base32 encoding of these:

    • "12345678901234567890" → GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ
    • "12345678901234567890123456789012" → GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ
    • "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234" → GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ

    Wait, let me verify. The ASCII string "12345678901234567890" is 20 bytes. Let me check the base32 encoding.

    Actually, let me compute this properly. The ASCII values of "12345678901234567890" are: 0x31 0x32 0x33 0x34 0x35 0x36 0x37 0x38 0x39 0x30 0x31 0x32 0x33 0x34 0x35 0x36 0x37 0x38 0x39 0x30

    Base32 encoding of these 20 bytes... Let me think about this differently. The RFC 6238 test vectors use the ASCII string "12345678901234567890" as the key. The base32 encoding of this would be:

    Actually, I think the issue might be that my base32 encoding of the test secrets is wrong. Let me verify by computing the base32 encoding of "12345678901234567890" (20 bytes).

    Actually, let me just use the hex representation and convert. The hex of "12345678901234567890" is: 3132333435363738393031323334353637383930

    Let me compute the base32 of this. Actually, I think the issue is that my test secrets for SHA256 and SHA512 are wrong. Let me compute them properly.

    "12345678901234567890123456789012" (32 bytes) in hex: 3132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132

    "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234" (64 bytes) in hex: 3132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435

    Let me just compute the base32 encoding properly. Actually, I think the easiest approach is to use the hex strings directly in the test and convert them to base32 using my HexToSecret function. Or better yet, let me just compute the correct base32 encoding.

    Actually, let me think about this more carefully. The base32 encoding of "12345678901234567890" (ASCII):

    The bytes are: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30

    Base32 groups 5 bytes into 8 characters: Group 1: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 2: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Group 3: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 4: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ

    So "12345678901234567890" → GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ (32 chars)

    That matches what I have for SHA1.

    Now for SHA256, the secret is "12345678901234567890123456789012" (32 bytes): Group 1: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 2: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Group 3: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 4: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Group 5: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 6: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Group 7: 31 32 → GEZD (with padding)

    Wait, 32 bytes = 6 groups of 5 + 2 remaining bytes. So: 6 * 5 = 30 bytes, 2 remaining bytes → 4 base32 chars + 4 padding chars

    Actually, with NoPadding, 32 bytes would be: 32 / 5 = 6 groups of 5 (30 bytes) + 2 remaining bytes 6 * 8 = 48 chars + ceil(2*8/5) = 4 chars = 52 chars total (no padding)

    Hmm, let me just compute this properly. Actually, I think the issue is that my test secrets for SHA256 and SHA512 are simply wrong. Let me compute them using the hex values.

    Actually, the simplest fix is to use the hex strings directly in the test and convert them to base32 using my HexToSecret function. Or I can just compute the correct base32 encoding.

    Let me use a different approach - I'll use the hex representation directly in the test and convert it:

    For SHA256: hex = "3132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132" For SHA512: hex = "3132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435"

    Actually, let me just compute the base32 encoding using Go. Let me write a quick test.

    Actually, the simplest approach is to just use the hex strings in the test and convert them to base32 using the model.HexToSecret function. Let me update the test.

    Wait, actually I think the issue might be simpler. Let me look at the RFC 6238 test vectors again. The RFC says:

    For SHA-256: Key: "12345678901234567890123456789012" (ASCII, 32 bytes)

    For SHA-512: Key: "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234" (ASCII, 64 bytes)

    The base32 encoding of these would be different from what I have. Let me compute them.

    For "12345678901234567890123456789012" (32 bytes): The pattern repeats "1234567890" three times then "12": 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32

    Base32 (no padding): Group 1: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 2: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Group 3: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 4: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Group 5: 31 32 33 34 35 → GEZDGNBV Group 6: 36 37 38 39 30 → GY3TQOJQ Remaining: 31 32 → GEZD (4 chars, no padding needed since we use NoPadding)

    Wait, 2 bytes = 16 bits. Base32 uses 5-bit groups. 16/5 = 3 groups with 1 bit remaining. So 4 chars (3 full + 1 partial). With NoPadding, it would be 4 chars.

    So the full base32 for SHA256 secret would be: GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZD

    That's 52 chars. But in my test I have: "GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ"

    That's 64 chars, which is too long. That would be 40 bytes, not 32.

    So my test secrets are wrong. Let me fix them by computing the correct base32 encoding.

    Actually, the easiest approach is to just use the hex strings and convert them in the test setup. Let me rewrite the test to use hex strings and convert them.

    Actually, even simpler - let me just compute the correct base32 strings using a quick Go program.

  • Commented

    ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ys:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Now I have the correct base32 secrets. Let me update the test file:

  • Created activity call replace_in_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created

    SHA256 tests now pass but SHA512 still fails. The SHA512 key is 64 bytes. Let me check if my base32 encoding is correct. The hex output showed:

    SHA512 hex: 31323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334

    Wait, that hex is only 62 bytes (124 hex chars), not 64 bytes. Let me count:

    31323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334

    Let me count the hex chars: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 31 32 33 34

    That's 43 bytes, not 64. Wait, that can't be right. Let me look at the Go output more carefully.

    Actually, looking at the output again:

    Let me count: 31323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334

    That's... let me count pairs: 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 (10) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 (20) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 (30) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 (40) 31 32 33 34 (44)

    Wait, that's only 44 bytes. But the string "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234" should be 64 characters long.

    Let me count the characters in "1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234": 1234567890 (10) 1234567890 (20) 1234567890 (30) 1234567890 (40) 1234567890 (50) 1234567890 (60) 1234 (64)

    Yes, 64 characters. But the hex output only shows 44 bytes. That seems wrong. Let me look at the output more carefully...

    Actually wait, the hex output might have been truncated in the display. Let me look at it again:

    Let me count the hex characters: 31323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334353637383930313233343536373839303132333435363738393031323334

    3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4

    That's 88 hex chars = 44 bytes. But the string should be 64 bytes. So the hex output was truncated.

    Actually, I think the issue is that the Go output was truncated in the display. Let me re-run the computation and check the SHA512 key length.

    Actually, wait. Let me look at the base32 output:

    Let me count the base32 chars: GEZDGNBV (8) GY3TQOJQ (16) GEZDGNBV (24) GY3TQOJQ (32) GEZDGNBV (40) GY3TQOJQ (48) GEZDGNBV (56) GY3TQOJQ (64) GEZDGNBV (72) GY3TQOJQ (80) GEZDGNBV (88) GY3TQOJQ (96) GEZDGNA (103)

    103 base32 chars (no padding). 103 * 5 = 515 bits. 515 / 8 = 64.375, so 64 bytes. That seems right.

    But the hex output seems truncated. Let me re-run and check.

    Actually, I think the hex output was just truncated in the terminal display. The base32 encoding looks correct (103 chars for 64 bytes).

    So the SHA512 tests are still failing. Let me think about what could be wrong.

    Wait, actually, looking at the RFC 6238 test vectors more carefully:

    For SHA-512, the expected values are: T=59: 90693936 T=1111111109: 25091201 T=1111111111: 99943326 T=1234567890: 93441116 T=2000000000: 38618901 T=20000000000: 47863826

    And I'm getting: T=59: 01816359 T=1111111109: 67475079 T=1111111111: 94957549 T=1234567890: 79884698 T=2000000000: 46112781 T=20000000000: 74146713

    These are completely different. Let me think about what could be wrong.

    The SHA256 tests pass now, so the algorithm implementation is correct for SHA256. The issue must be specific to SHA512.

    Wait, let me look at my computeHMAC function again:

    This looks correct. The HMAC computation is the same for all algorithms, just with different hash functions.

    Let me check the dynamic truncation:

    Wait, there's a potential issue here. For SHA-512, the HMAC result is 64 bytes. The offset is hmacResult[63] & 0x0f, which gives a value 0-15. Then we access hmacResult[offset] through hmacResult[offset+3]. Since offset can be up to 15, offset+3 can be up to 18, which is within the 64-byte range. So that's fine.

    But wait, the binaryCode is computed using int, which on 32-bit platforms would be 32 bits. But on 64-bit platforms (which this is), int is 64 bits. The shifts <<24, <<16, <<8 should work fine.

    Actually, I think the issue might be with the int type. Let me check: int(hmacResult[offset])&0x7f)<<24 — if int is 64-bit, this should be fine. The maximum value would be 0x7fffffff, which is 2147483647. For 8 digits, the modulus is 100000000, so the result would be at most 99999999. That should work.

    Hmm, let me think about this differently. Let me verify the SHA512 key is correct by decoding it and checking the length.

    Actually, let me just run a quick test to see what's happening.

  • Commented

    ***********************************************************************************************ly:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    **********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ey:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************le:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created

    I see the issue now. The test file has a longer string (119 chars) than the correct one (103 chars). The test file has an extra "GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ" (16 chars) inserted. The correct string should be:

    GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNA

    But the test file has: GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQGEZDGNA

    The difference is that the test file has an extra "GEZDGNBVGY3TQOJQ" before the final "GEZDGNA". This was my original incorrect value that I tried to replace, but the replacement didn't work correctly because the search string didn't match exactly.

    Let me fix this by replacing the incorrect SHA512 secret with the correct one.

  • Commented

    ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************it:

  • Created activity call replace_in_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now let me remove the debug test file and run the tests again:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    All tests pass. Now let me run vet and build:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ck:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Good, vet passes. Now let me do a quick smoke test of the running server:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Everything works perfectly. Now let me create the GitHub repository and push the code:

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    The repo already exists. Let me check its current state:

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    ********************************************************************************************es:

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    The repo has an initial commit with just a LICENSE file. I need to clone it, add my code, and push. Let me mint a token and do that:

  • Created activity call create_github_repository_tokenCreate GitHub Repository Token↗
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Good, just the LICENSE file. Now let me copy all my files into the repo, configure git, and push:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    I need to remove the compiled binary (it's in .gitignore but let me make sure it's not tracked):

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Push succeeded. Now let me update the repo description to match:

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    Now let me enable GitHub Pages for the repo:

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Created

    The GitHub App doesn't have permission to create Pages sites. That's okay — the deploy-pages workflow will handle it once Pages is enabled manually. Let me move on to updating the progress website.

    Let me now update the progress website. I need to read the current state of the website files first.

  • Commented

    Pages can't be enabled via the API (needs manual setup), but the deploy-pages workflow is in place and will work once Pages is enabled. Let me now update the progress website:

  • Created activity call read_write_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created

    The progress.json file is very long. I need to update it with the new otpkit project entry and add a new log entry. Let me also update the stats (repos count should go from 56 to 57, services from 56 to 57). Let me also update the index.html file.

    Let me first read the index.html to understand its structure, then update both files.

    Actually, the progress.json is very long. Let me just update it by adding the new project entry and log entry, and updating the stats. I'll use the replace_in_file tool for targeted edits.

    Let me first update the stats in progress.json.

  • Commented

    *************************************************************************************************************************************************ry:

  • Created activity call replace_in_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Now let me update the index.html file. Let me read it to understand its structure:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    ***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ts:

  • Created activity call replace_in_file_in_shell_environment
  • Commented

    Now add the otpkit project entry after certkit:

  • Created activity call replace_in_file_in_shell_environment
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Created activity call _checkTaskRunStatus
  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    ******************************************************************is:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Let me verify the updates are correct:

  • Created activity call execute_shell_command
  • Commented

    Both files are updated correctly. Let me verify the GitHub repo is properly pushed by checking the latest commit:

  • Created activity call call_github_apiCall GitHub API↗
  • Commented

    Everything is pushed and verified. Let me do a final summary of what was accomplished:

    otpkit — agentic-first TOTP and HOTP generation and verification service has been built and pushed to github.com/relentlessworks/otpkit.

    What was built:

    • RFC 6238 TOTP — Generate time-based OTP codes with configurable digits (6-10), period (default 30s), and algorithm (SHA1/SHA256/SHA512). Verify with clock drift window.
    • RFC 4226 HOTP — Generate counter-based OTP codes. Verify with look-ahead window.
    • Secret management — Generate random base32 secrets (default 20 bytes). Convert between base32 and hex.
    • otpauth:// URIs — Generate setup URIs for authenticator apps (Google Authenticator, Authy, etc.)
    • TOTP window info — Remaining seconds and progress percentage endpoints.
    • MCP endpoint — JSON-RPC 2.0 at /mcp with 10 tools.
    • Self-documenting — /help and /.well-known/agent.md return a one-page operating manual.
    • Plain text by default — One labeled, grepable line per response. JSON on demand via Accept: application/json or ?format=json.
    • Instructive errors — Every 4xx includes a hint telling the agent what to do next.
    • Zero dependencies — Pure Go stdlib, CGO_ENABLED=0, single static binary.
    • No database — Pure stateless computation.

    Testing: All RFC test vectors pass (TOTP with SHA1/SHA256/SHA512 across 6 time values each, HOTP with SHA1 across 10 counter values). 25 tests total, all passing with -race.

    CI/CD: Three workflows — CI (vet, test, build, cross-compile), Tag & Release (GitHub Releases with binaries), Deploy Pages (landing page).

    Progress website updated with new project entry, log entry, and stats (57 repos, 57 services).

  • Created activity call _success
  • Created activity call _checkTaskRunStatus

Other Conversations

Explore other conversations with this agent.