Aakash Khadikar

Project Owner

ASI Forge: Agentic AI IDE for ASI Chain

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request $50,000 USD
RFP Guidelines An AI-native Development Environment for the ASI:Chain

Overview

ASI Forge is an AI-native, agentic Development Environment designed to simplify and accelerate application development on ASI:Chain. The platform embeds autonomous AI agents directly into the IDE to plan, generate, execute, and critique blockchain code with persistent context. Forge supports natural-language vibecoding, wallet-based deployment, and chain-level visibility, reducing tooling complexity and lowering barriers for developers. The goal is to enable faster, safer, and more accessible development across the ASI ecosystem.

RFP Guidelines

Open for Proposals

An AI-native Development Environment for...

Ending on:

13 Feb. 2026

Days

Hours

Minutes

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $50,000 USD
Proposals 3
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Feb. 4, 2026

View RFP

This RFP seeks proposals for the development of an AI-native Development Environment (IDE) that improves the efficiency and accessibility of blockchain application development for the ASI:Chain.

Proposal Description

Our Team

The project is led by Aakash Khadikar, an AI Research Engineer focused on agentic and multi-agent systems, local-first AI tooling, and autonomous execution frameworks. The team is currently small and founder-led, with experience in building AI development tools, autonomous agents, and end-to-end systems integrating planning, execution, critique, and persistent memory.

Company Name (if applicable)

The Artificial Singularity (pre-incorporation)

Project details

ASI Forge is an AI-native, agentic Development Environment designed to accelerate and simplify decentralized application development on ASI:Chain. The platform embeds autonomous AI agents directly into the development workflow, enabling intent-driven “vibecoding” where developers describe goals and the system plans, generates, executes, critiques, and refines blockchain code end-to-end.

At the core of the IDE is AXIOM, an autonomous agent that operates with persistent context and a self-verification loop. Unlike traditional copilots or chat-based assistants, AXIOM reasons before acting, executes tasks autonomously, detects flaws in its own output, and iteratively improves results without requiring repeated human prompts.

The proposed work focuses on specializing Forge for the ASI ecosystem by integrating ASI:Chain tooling and infrastructure. This includes ASI Wallet integration for transaction signing and deployment, block explorer connectivity for real-time contract visibility, and support for local ASI:Chain development networks to enable offline testing and rapid iteration.

The IDE will expose a natural-language interface for smart contract creation, application scaffolding, and deployment workflows tailored to ASI:Chain. Developers will be able to move from intent to deployed application within a single environment, significantly reducing the complexity traditionally associated with blockchain development.

The final deliverable will include a working IDE capable of writing, deploying, and interacting with a sample application on ASI:Chain DevNet or Testnet, accompanied by documentation and a recorded demo. This project aligns with ASI:Chain’s vision of lowering barriers to entry, accelerating adoption, and enabling a new generation of AI-native decentralized applications.

Background & Experience

The team has hands-on experience designing and building agentic AI systems that operate beyond prompt-response paradigms. Prior work includes developing autonomous agents capable of planning tasks, executing code, self-critiquing outputs, and maintaining long-term context across sessions.

Forge was developed as a response to limitations in existing AI coding tools, which rely heavily on cloud APIs and stateless interactions. The platform emphasizes local execution, privacy-first design, and reasoning-driven workflows. The project demonstrates practical expertise in AI-powered developer tools, IDE design, and system orchestration.

This background positions the team well to deliver an AI-native IDE specialized for ASI:Chain, combining blockchain tooling with advanced autonomous AI capabilities aligned with SingularityNET’s long-term vision.

Links and references

LinkedIn:- https://www.linkedin.com/in/aakashkhadikar/

Additional videos

Prototype demos will be shared during the review phase.

Activity Summary

Milestones

4

Total

Discussion

0

Total Comments

Reviews

0

Total Posted

Project Team

1

Total People

Total Milestones
4
Total Budget
$50,000_USD
Last Updated
7 Feb 2026

Milestone 1 - ASI Forge Architecture & Chain Integration Design

Description

Define the technical architecture for adapting Forge into an ASI:Chain–specific AI-native IDE. This includes mapping ASI:Chain development workflows, identifying integration points for ASI Wallet, block explorer, DevNet/Testnet, and defining the vibecoding interface for smart contract generation and deployment. UX flows, agent responsibilities, and system boundaries will be finalized.

Deliverables

Technical architecture document ASI:Chain integration plan UX and agent workflow diagrams Defined vibecoding interaction patterns for ASI:Chain

Budget

$10,000 USD

Success Criterion

A reviewed and approved architecture that clearly defines system components, integration points, and development scope, enabling implementation without major design changes.

Milestone 2 - ASI Wallet & Chain Tooling Integration

Description

Implement ASI Wallet integration for signing and deploying transactions directly from Forge. Add support for ASI:Chain DevNet/TestNet interactions, including contract deployment, transaction submission, and on-chain feedback. Integrate block explorer access to allow developers to inspect deployed contracts and execution results from within the IDE.

Deliverables

ASI Wallet integrated into the IDE Chain interaction layer for ASI:Chain Block explorer connectivity Internal demo showing contract deployment from Forge

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Developers can deploy a smart contract from Forge using the ASI Wallet and verify its status via the block explorer without leaving the IDE.

Milestone 3 - Vibecoding & Agentic Smart Contract Support

Description

Extend AXIOM’s agentic capabilities to support ASI:Chain–specific vibecoding workflows. Enable natural language prompts for smart contract creation, application scaffolding, and deployment guidance. Implement self-critique and refinement loops to detect errors, improve code quality, and align outputs with ASI:Chain requirements.

Deliverables

Natural language contract generation Agentic planning, execution, and critique loops ASI:Chain–specific prompt and code adapters Demo showcasing intent → deployed contract workflow

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

A user can describe an application in natural language and have Forge generate, refine, and deploy a functional smart contract on ASI:Chain.

Milestone 4 - Demo Application, Documentation & Final Delivery

Description

Finalize the platform with a complete demo application deployed on ASI:Chain. Prepare documentation, usage guides, and recorded walkthroughs. Validate usability, performance, and stability, and package the deliverables for handover and evaluation.

Deliverables

Working AI-native IDE specialized for ASI:Chain Demo dApp deployed on ASI:Chain Documentation and user guides Recorded demo video

Budget

$10,000 USD

Success Criterion

A fully functional ASI:Chain–enabled AI-native IDE is delivered, documented, and demonstrated, meeting the RFP’s functional and non-functional requirements.

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

Reviews and Ratings in Deep Funding are structured in 4 categories. This will ensure that the reviewer takes all these perspectives into account in their assessment and it will make it easier to compare different projects on their strengths and weaknesses. Overall (Primary) This is an average of the 4 perspectives. At the start of this new process, we are assigning an equal weight to all categories, but over time we might change this and make some categories more important than others in the overall score. (This may even be done retroactively). Feasibility (secondary) This represents the user\'s assessment of whether the proposed project is theoretically possible and if it is deemed feasible. E.g. A proposal for nuclear fission might be theoretically possible, but it doesn’t look very feasible in the context of Deep Funding. Viability (secondary) This category is somewhat similar to Feasibility, but it interprets the feasibility against factors such as the size and experience of the team, the budget requested, and the estimated timelines. We could frame this as: “What is your level of confidence that this team will be able to complete this project and its milestones in a reasonable time, and successfully deploy it?” Examples:

A proposal that promises the development of a personal assistant that outperforms existing solutions might be feasible, but if there is no AI expertise in the team the viability rating might be low.
A proposal that promises a new Carbon Emission Compensation scheme might be technically feasible, but the viability could be estimated low due to challenges around market penetration and widespread adoption.

Desirability (secondary) Even if the project team succeeds in creating a product, there is the question of market fit. Is this a project that fulfills an actual need? Is there a lot of competition already? Are the USPs of the project sufficient to make a difference? Example:

Creating a translation service from, say Spanish to English might be possible, but it\'s questionable if such a service would be able to get a significant share of the market

Usefulness (secondary) This is a crucial category that aligns with the main goal of the Deep Funding program. The question to be asked here is: “To what extent will this proposal help to grow the Decentralized AI Platform?” For proposals that develop or utilize an AI service on the platform, the question could be “How many API calls do we expect it to generate” (and how important / high-valued are these calls?). For a marketing proposal, the question could be “How large and well-aligned is the target audience?” Another question is related to how the budget is spent. Are the funds mainly used for value creation for the platform or on other things? Examples:

A metaverse project that spends 95% of its budget on the development of the game and only 5 % on the development of an AI service for the platform might expect a low ‘usefulness’ rating here.

A marketing proposal that creates t-shirts for a local high school, would get a lower ‘usefulness’ rating than a marketing proposal that has a viable plan for targeting highly esteemed universities in a scaleable way.
An AI service that is fully dedicated to a single product, does not take advantage of the purpose of the platform. When the same service would be offered and useful for other parties, this should increase the ‘usefulness’ rating.

Aakash Khadikar

Project Owner

Founder & Lead Engineer. Responsible for system architecture, agent design, AI integration, ASI:Chain tooling, wallet integration, vibecoding workflows, and end-to-end delivery of the AI-native IDE.

View Profile