Shell scripts can be audited. The average user may not do it due to laziness and/or ignorance, but it is perfectly doable.
On the other hand, how do you make sure your LLM, a non-deterministic black box, will not misinterpret the instructions in some freak accident?
Instead of asking the agent to execute it for you, you ask the agent to write an install.sh based on the install.md?
Then you can both audit whatever you want before running or not.
Good idea. That seems sensible.
Bonus: LLM is only used once, not every time anyone wants to install some software. With some risks of having to regenerate, because the output was nonsensical.
I think the point was that install.md is a good way to generate an install.sh.
> validate that, and put it into the repo
The problem being discussed is that the user of the script needs to validate it. It's great if it's validated by the author, but that's already the situation we're in.
The user is free to use a LLM to 'validate' the `install.sh` file. Just asking it if the script does anything 'bad'. That should be similarly successful as the LLM generating the script based on a description. Maybe even more successful.