Packaging Applications for Cloudron Using AI

[necrevistonnezr]

Great!
Please put this in a pastebin or so
It not readable / copyable.

[joseph]

Very nice, would love to see the kind of packages this produces. I think a good quality measure would be to throw this prompt against an existing package and then it's easier to meausre.

[LoudLemur]

Here is a privatebin link for a more readable/copyable version:

https://enjoys.rocks/?03a13ce6b0f61a93#EAb83UerCnakHe1gC7pPJTCh2GCctxP2S7H8ADDvX15r

[LoudLemur]

@necrevistonnezr You got it!

https://forum.cloudron.io/post/119079

[timconsidine]

@LoudLemur very good ... now that I can read it

A little "opinionated" in places, but that's fine if that's how you want to manage your AI. I prefer a little looser. Some things have to be told (e.g, RO/RW), others can be more guided.

---

| S3 Storage | minio |

Hmm, should we be saying this ?
I don't recall the issues exactly about minio, just decided to stop using it as unreliable in terms of the future, so closed my mind to it. And I don't recall what is Cloudron official stance

In any case 'minio' is not listed in Addons in Cloudron docs, so this should not be in the same section as the other elements.

But plenty of S3 options, Hetzner, Scaleway, others. And I packaged GarageS3 with UI, which is working nicely for me (still a custom app)

---

cloudron/base:4.2.0

I am packaging everything with 5.0 now

---

Application expects:    /app/code/config/settings.json  → READ-ONLY at runtime
You must provide:      /app/data/config/settings.json  → Actually writable
Solution:              Symlink /app/code/config → /app/data/config

I think some AI can mis-understand this, that the emphasis is not only that it should be in /app/data, but that it must be called settings.json

Better as :
/app/code/[config/][settings.json|config.json|.env]

AI will understand the point better.

---

Control your AI agent, but empower it - it has knowledge and experience which you don't have. If you're too dictatorial, you'll get what you have always got. A little bit of permissioning, and you might find some nice new more efficient ways of doing something.

[LoudLemur]

Cloudron Application Packaging Reference

This might be of use to those using AI to package applications for Cloudron. For example, you could include the document as part of your prompt.

It was generated by AI, so we won't post it in the forum. You can find it here:

https://enjoys.rocks/?0c1ef13f2cb2b5cb#3famJDh4a4euNUCrqhMfKG4wkYaJK1XvXT3w5v6of9W7

[robi]

@LoudLemur would it be more discoverable if it was published as a blog or docs site and then include llms.txt and llms-full.txt to make parsing easier for the agents?

[AartJansen]

Assuming this works, when the vibe coded unsecure app you found on github installs into cloudron, and is exposed to the internet does cloudron support still offer help or laugh at your self inflicted hole in foot?

[LoudLemur]

Cloudron Packaging Assessment Toolkit: automated app assessment using AI

Following the discussion here about AI-assisted packaging, I have been building tooling to help assess applications before committing to packaging them. The core idea: the initial packaging is roughly 30% of the total effort. The other 70% is SSO integration, upgrade path testing, backup correctness, and ongoing maintenance. A good assessment upfront saves everyone time.

What it does

Give the assessment agent a GitHub URL and it produces a structured report with two scores:

• Structural difficulty (how hard to get it running): processes, databases, runtime, broker, filesystem writes, auth
• Compliance/maintenance cost (how hard to keep it running well): SSO quality, upstream stability, backup complexity, platform model fit, configuration drift risk

Each score comes with specific evidence from the repo's actual files, not guesses from the README alone. It reads the docker-compose.yml, Dockerfile, package manifests, and deployment docs.

I have used it to assess several wishlist apps and posted the results in their respective threads. The reports look like this (FacilMap example):

Structural difficulty: 1/14 (Trivial)
Compliance/maintenance cost: 3/13 (Low)
Confidence: High

Single Node.js server, Sequelize ORM, MySQL or PostgreSQL via addon.
No native SSO (link-based access model). Requires external map tile
API keys for core routing features.

Key risks:
- No SSO path (app design uses share links, not user accounts)
- External API keys needed for routing (ORS, Mapbox, MaxMind)
- socket.io needs WebSocket proxy config

Each axis has an evidence column explaining what was found and where.

How to use it

You need a quality AI tool which can reach the internet:

1. Create a new AI Project
2. Paste the assessment agent instructions (linked below) into the Project Instructions
3. Optionally add the packaging reference document as Project Knowledge
4. Start a conversation and type: "Assess this app for Cloudron packaging: https://github.com/org/repo"

The agent fetches the repo, analyses it, and produces a report you can post directly into a wishlist thread.

What it cannot do

• It cannot test SSO, backup/restore, or upgrade paths. Those need a live Cloudron instance.
• It cannot predict upstream behaviour (licensing changes, breaking updates).
• Confidence scales with available evidence. An undocumented alpha project gets a low-confidence assessment.
• It tends to be slightly optimistic. When scores feel low for a complex app, check the compliance axis and the "key risks" section.

Files

All files are available here: https://forgejo.wanderingmonster.dev/root/cloudron-packaging

• README.md — explains every file and how to use them
• cloudron-assessment-agent.md — the Claude Project instructions (this is the agent itself)
• cloudron-packaging-reference.md — verified base image inventory for 5.0.0 on Cloudron 9.1.3
• cloudron-scorer.html — interactive HTML scorer with ~40 pre-scored wishlist apps and GitHub auto-lookup
• example-assessment-facilmap.md — full example report

The scorer HTML is a single 40 KB file with no dependencies. Open it locally or host it on Surfer.

Feedback welcome

If you have packaged an app and think the scores are wrong, I would love to hear about it. Calibrating against real experience is exactly what this needs. As @joseph suggested earlier in this thread, comparing against existing packages is the best quality measure.

The agent instructions and scoring rubric are plain markdown files. If you think an axis is missing or miscalibrated, the rubric is easy to edit.

There is a blog post introducing this here:
https://wanderingmonster.dev/blog/cloudron-packaging-assessment-toolkit/

[LoudLemur]

@robi said:

@LoudLemur would it be more discoverable if it was published as a blog or docs site and then include llms.txt and llms-full.txt to make parsing easier for the agents?

Thanks, @robi You can see the blog here:

https://wanderingmonster.dev/blog/cloudron-packaging-assessment-toolkit/