First, let me state how much I appreciate the Koog...

# koog-agentic-framework

[pambrose]

First, let me state how much I appreciate the Koog devs' efforts. I think they have done a fantastic job with it. I also greatly appreciated the two livestreams. They were very helpful.

That said, there is one thing about Koog that deserves some consideration, and that is the naming scheme related to nodes.

I would humbly suggest the following changes:
nodeStart -> startNode
nodeFinish -> finishNode
nodeLLMRequestMultiple -> multipleRequestLLMNode
nodeExecuteMultipleTools -> executeMultipleToolsNode
nodeLLMCompressHistory -> compressHistoryLLMNode
nodeLLMSendMultipleToolResults -> receiveMultipleToolResultsLLMNode

I think you see the pattern. The existing names use "node" followed by qualifiers. That is precisely the wrong order. It should be qualifiers followed by the noun.

Why is this relevant? Bad names are not usually a big deal, but in this case, the names are so unintuitive that they interfered with my ability to follow what was going on with a strategy and retarded my understanding. That is the last thing I want to see for other people interested in Koog. A DSL should read as close to natural English as possible.

Again, I love what you have done with Koog, but I encourage you to consider fixing the names before it is too late to break people's code.

[Vadim Briliantov]

Hey! Thanks for your suggestion and I would agree that naming deserves being improved here.

Just to clarify the reason behind the current choice (which is indeed — imperfect) — it’s IDE-completion friendly. You start typing “node” without knowing what’s available — and it suggests all possible nodes so that you can scroll and select one

[pambrose]

Ah, thanks, that is good to know. I appreciate the intention, but I think readability is paramount. We do not optimize class names, or really anything else, that way, because to do so would be painful for the reader.