Add Kilo Code agent and icon

[pedrogiroldo]

This pull request adds a new agent metadata file for the Kilo Code project. The change introduces a configuration file that describes the agent, its distribution method, and related project information.

Agent configuration:

• Added agent.json file with metadata for the Kilo Code agent, including its name, version, description, repository, authors, license, and npx distribution details.

[ignatov]

please use currentColor in the fill attribute in icon.svg

[pedrogiroldo]

@ignatov I've just adjusted the svg

[pedrogiroldo]

I'll find out what's going on

[ignatov]

use stderr :)

[maphew]

@pedrogiroldo I opened #100 for the same thing before seeing your PR, but I see our approaches are complementary and can be combined. Since #92 was earlier you're welcome to pull in my changes under yours -- assuming you and @ignatov agree it's a good combination.

[pedrogiroldo]

@maphew Cool, I think is a good idea.

[pedrogiroldo]

@ignatov I've pushed the recent changes to the repository. Following that, I executed uv run --with jsonschema .github/workflows/build_registry.py, which completed successfully without any issues. Everything looks good on my end — please let me know if you have any questions or need further adjustments. And thanks @maphew for the suggestion!

[ignatov]

hey, we have a bunch of PR with kilo, #88, #100 and #92, which to merge?

[pedrogiroldo]

@ignatov Hi! Here's my understanding of the situation:
PR #88 proposes a bridge to make Kilo compatible with ACP, which I believe was a solution designed for older versions of the Kilo CLI. However, the stable Kilo 1.0 release ships with a Kilo CLI forked from OpenCode, which already has native ACP support.
My PR, #92, brings this Kilo CLI via npx. Complementing that, PR #100 introduced a binary-based approach. The author of PR #100, @maphew, suggested we consolidate our changes into my PR — and I did just that.
I also opened an issue in the bridge repo referenced in PR #88 to clarify things, but haven't received a response — it may no longer be actively maintained.
For that reason, I believe PR #92 is the right one to merge, as it combines my commits with the valuable contributions from PR #100.

[ignatov]

great, thanks!

[maphew]

^^^ I agree
thanks for merging @ignatov !