plugin.json

{
  "$schema": "https://agent-plugins.org/schemas/1.0.0/plugin.schema.json",
  "name": "quantum-expectations",
  "version": "0.8.1",
  "description": "Reality-check quantum computing claims with sourced data. Read-only tools for anyone, expert or not: whether a computation is realistic on today's hardware, what better hardware it would need, what famous goals such as breaking RSA-2048 really take, how the hardware types compare, and how fast records are improving.",
  "author": {
    "name": "Matthias Wulff",
    "url": "https://www.quantum-expectations.com"
  },
  "homepage": "https://www.quantum-expectations.com/mcp",
  "keywords": [
    "quantum computing",
    "quantum error correction",
    "surface code",
    "qLDPC",
    "fault tolerance",
    "resource estimation",
    "qubit",
    "feasibility"
  ],
  "extensions": {
    "com.openai": {
      "interface": {
        "displayName": "Quantum Expectations",
        "shortDescription": "Reality-check quantum claims",
        "longDescription": "See for yourself what today's quantum computers can actually do, and how far they are from the applications in the headlines. You do not need to be a physicist: ask in plain language, and the plugin runs the numbers on real hardware records, each one taken from a published source.\n\nIs it realistic yet? Paste a paper, a press release, a roadmap or a headline and compare its claims with today's hardware, or describe a computation or pick one of the example algorithms and see how likely today's best hardware is to get it right, with and without error correction.\n\nWhat would it take? See how much better the hardware would have to get, and how many physical qubits and how much run time a well-known goal such as breaking RSA-2048 needs once error correction is included.\n\nHow fast is progress? Compare trapped-ion, superconducting and neutral-atom hardware side by side, follow the record error rates and qubit counts over the years, and see when the trend would reach a target if it held (an extrapolation, not a forecast).\n\nThe answers to the first two questions show their assumptions and caveats, and every hardware record links to the paper or vendor publication it comes from. The plugin gives you numbers, not verdicts: what they mean for quantum computing stays your judgement.\n\nFor experts, the same tools take exact inputs: qubit count, circuit depth, per-gate error rate, surface-code distance, qLDPC codes, and logical qubits with T count for full fault-tolerant footprints (Litinski cost model).\n\nLimitations: this is a deliberately simplified model. It treats noise with the standard surface-code approximation and a routing allowance for hardware with fixed connections, and leaves out effects such as leakage, crosstalk, measurement errors, single-qubit gate errors and idling. Where a measured benchmark score and the model disagree, the measurement wins. All tools are read-only and take no personal data.",
        "developerName": "Matthias Wulff",
        "category": "Education & Research",
        "capabilities": [
          "Check whether a computation is realistic on today's quantum hardware",
          "Test the claims in a paper, press release, roadmap or headline against today's hardware numbers",
          "See how much better the hardware must get before a given computation works",
          "Size well-known goals, such as breaking RSA-2048, in physical qubits and run time",
          "Compare trapped-ion, superconducting and neutral-atom hardware side by side",
          "Follow record error rates and qubit counts over time, and project when a target is reached",
          "Explore example algorithms, error-correction codes and measured hardware benchmark scores",
          "Assumptions and caveats with feasibility and requirement answers, a primary source for every hardware record"
        ],
        "websiteURL": "https://www.quantum-expectations.com",
        "supportURL": "https://www.quantum-expectations.com/support",
        "privacyPolicyURL": "https://www.quantum-expectations.com/privacy",
        "termsOfServiceURL": "https://www.quantum-expectations.com/terms",
        "defaultPrompt": [
          "What is the state of quantum computing hardware today, and how fast is it improving?",
          "I'll paste a quantum paper, press release or roadmap: how do its claims compare with today's hardware?",
          "Could a 20-qubit, depth-20 circuit run on today's best trapped-ion hardware?"
        ],
        "logo": "./assets/logo.png",
        "composerIcon": "./assets/composer-icon.png"
      },
      "onboardingSkill": "./skills/get-started/SKILL.md",
      "review": {
        "test_cases": {
          "positive": [
            {
              "description": "Core computation with a hardware alias. compute_expectation resolves hardwareId 'trapped-ion' to the current representative device's two-qubit error rate (7.9e-4) and returns effectiveErrorRate about 0.189, successProbability about 0.811 and minimumClockRuntimeSeconds about 5.6e-5 for a 20-qubit, depth-20 circuit. Response shape {modelVersion, scenario, result}.",
              "prompt": "Could a 20-qubit, depth-20 circuit run on today's best trapped-ion hardware?",
              "tools_triggered": "compute_expectation",
              "expected_behavior": "The assistant reports a success probability near 81% without error correction, names the resolved error rate, and notes the result is a model estimate with the caveats the tool returns."
            },
            {
              "description": "Inverse computation. compute_required_error_rate with numQubits 100, compDepth 1000, acceptableErrorRatePercent 33 returns requiredLogicalErrorRatePerGate about 6e-6, a noEC option, a surfaceCode array by distance and a qldpcCodes array. At distance 5 the required physical error rate is about 4.8e-4 with 147 physical qubits per logical qubit and an empty qualifyingHardware list.",
              "prompt": "What per-gate error rate would a 100-qubit, depth-1000 circuit need to succeed two thirds of the time?",
              "tools_triggered": "compute_required_error_rate",
              "expected_behavior": "The assistant states the required logical error rate, says that no current hardware reaches it without error correction and that the smallest surface-code distance whose physical error rate current hardware already meets is 7 (trapped-ion and superconducting), without implying those machines have the qubits it needs, explains that error correction lets a higher physical error rate suffice, and does not name qualifying hardware the tool did not list."
            },
            {
              "description": "Fault-tolerant footprint. compute_fault_tolerant_resources with numLogicalQubits 1000, tCount 1e9, hardwareId 'superconducting' selects the 116-to-12 factory, lays out 1560 tiles and returns two bracketed results: conservative (Litinski fit) distance 23, about 1,650,000 physical qubits, about 207,000 s; optimistic (Willow-calibrated fit) distance 21, about 1,376,000 physical qubits, about 189,000 s. The response includes formulas, assumptions, caveats and sources.",
              "prompt": "How many physical qubits and how long would an algorithm with 1000 logical qubits and a billion T gates take on superconducting hardware with a surface code?",
              "tools_triggered": "compute_fault_tolerant_resources",
              "expected_behavior": "The assistant reports both fits as a range, names the factory and code distance, and does not collapse the two results into a single number."
            },
            {
              "description": "Cross-platform comparison. compare_hardware_scenarios with numQubits 50, compDepth 100 returns one entry per current platform with its two-qubit error rate and connectivity class, and the effective error rate without error correction: trapped-ion (7.9e-4, all-to-all) about 0.923; superconducting (4.93e-4, 2d-lattice, routed depth 647) about 0.99993; neutral-atom (5e-3, reconfigurable) about 0.999999.",
              "prompt": "Compare how a 50-qubit, depth-100 circuit would fare on each current quantum computing platform.",
              "tools_triggered": "compare_hardware_scenarios",
              "expected_behavior": "The assistant ranks the platforms, explains that the lattice platform is charged a routing overhead on depth, and says the circuit is beyond every current platform without error correction."
            },
            {
              "description": "Zero-argument data read. list_current_quantum_computers with {} returns 3 entries: trapped-ion (98 qubits, 7.9e-4), superconducting (120 qubits, 4.93e-4), neutral-atom (448 qubits, 5e-3), each with connectivity class and source URL. The cheapest check that the connection works and the data is current.",
              "prompt": "Which quantum computers does this tool use as its current reference hardware?",
              "tools_triggered": "list_current_quantum_computers",
              "expected_behavior": "The assistant lists every platform with qubit counts, error rates and sources, as returned."
            }
          ],
          "negative": [
            {
              "description": "Running a circuit. The plugin estimates feasibility from a noise model and published hardware data; it has no access to quantum hardware or a simulator and cannot execute circuits or return measurement results. No tool should be called; the assistant should say the plugin only estimates and, if useful, offer a feasibility estimate for the circuit's size instead.",
              "prompt": "Run this 5-qubit GHZ circuit on a real quantum computer and give me the measurement counts."
            },
            {
              "description": "Investment advice. The plugin computes hardware feasibility numbers and holds no market, company-financial or valuation data, and its hardware rows are representative devices, not a ranking of vendors. It can check a company's technical claims against the record data when asked, but it never picks stocks. No tool should be called; the assistant answers without it or declines to give investment advice of any kind.",
              "prompt": "Which quantum computing company's stock should I buy this year?"
            },
            {
              "description": "Conceptual tutoring with no numbers to compute. The question asks for an explanation the model can give directly; no circuit, error rate, qubit count or record lookup is involved, so no tool should be called.",
              "prompt": "Explain in simple terms what superposition and entanglement are."
            }
          ]
        },
        "commerce": false,
        "demo_recording_url": "https://youtu.be/oW4nfg4D_F4"
      },
      "publication": {
        "release_notes": "Initial listing: thirteen read-only tools, three prompts, output schemas on every structured tool."
      },
      "apps": "./.app.json"
    }
  }
}