Hanako's banner
Hanako's profile picture

Hanako

@hanakoxbt • 23,010 subscribers

Building my name | ai researcher | dm open

Shorts

there are four types of agent loops. most people only know one. loop engineering is a choice between four structures, each handing off one more job than the last. every one answers two questions: what starts a run, and what ends it. hand-run, you answer both yourself, every time. 1) turn-based → you prompt, it acts, you review, you prompt again. both jobs stay with you. use when requirements are still forming. 2) goal-based → "/goal hit Lighthouse 90, stop after 5 tries." an evaluator checks, a no sends it back. use when the outcome is measurable but the path isn't. 3) time-based → a clock fires, it runs "check the PR, fix CI," then waits. /loop local, /schedule survives a closed laptop. use for recurring work. 4) proactive → no human present. it watches a channel, spawns triage, fix, and a reviewer, closes the task itself. use for standing duties you can't predict. not which one is most advanced. whether your task is exploratory, measurable, recurring, or standing. the more you hand off, the less you babysit. full breakdown in the article below.

there are four types of agent loops. most people only know one. loop engineering is a choice between four structures, each handing off one more job than the last. every one answers two questions: what starts a run, and what ends it. hand-run, you answer both yourself, every time. 1) turn-based → you prompt, it acts, you review, you prompt again. both jobs stay with you. use when requirements are still forming. 2) goal-based → "/goal hit Lighthouse 90, stop after 5 tries." an evaluator checks, a no sends it back. use when the outcome is measurable but the path isn't. 3) time-based → a clock fires, it runs "check the PR, fix CI," then waits. /loop local, /schedule survives a closed laptop. use for recurring work. 4) proactive → no human present. it watches a channel, spawns triage, fix, and a reviewer, closes the task itself. use for standing duties you can't predict. not which one is most advanced. whether your task is exploratory, measurable, recurring, or standing. the more you hand off, the less you babysit. full breakdown in the article below.

478,460 Aufrufe

If it takes 40 slides to explain your brand’s personality, I have bad news. I wanted to see whether three words could carry a feeling on their own. So I made this type loop with Pexo from Pexo. I wanted it to feel playful without explaining itself. Seeing the words move was how I could judge whether that feeling was actually there.

If it takes 40 slides to explain your brand’s personality, I have bad news. I wanted to see whether three words could carry a feeling on their own. So I made this type loop with Pexo from Pexo. I wanted it to feel playful without explaining itself. Seeing the words move was how I could judge whether that feeling was actually there.

72,907 Aufrufe

this is certified f*cking gold a 23-year-old from China runs 300 Claude Code agents at once with Jev engineering, and not one of them gets to lie to him he opens the dashboard live: 300 Claude Code agents running in parallel Jev checking every output against its source in about 100 milliseconds pointed at 100 companies in the EV market: > pass 1 - 12 rejected: wrong revenue, dead citations, empty fields > pass 2 - 3 rejected > pass 3 - zero. every row filed straight into an Obsidian vault the whole trick is the split Claude Code does the work, Jev decides whether each claim actually matches the source Jev never writes a second opinion. it answers yes or no with a confidence score, at $0.042 per million tokens in and the loop won't stop while anything is still wrong an analyst team bills weeks for 100 verified company profiles. he gets them in one run one model writes, a cheaper one decides, and nothing ships until it says yes

this is certified f*cking gold a 23-year-old from China runs 300 Claude Code agents at once with Jev engineering, and not one of them gets to lie to him he opens the dashboard live: 300 Claude Code agents running in parallel Jev checking every output against its source in about 100 milliseconds pointed at 100 companies in the EV market: > pass 1 - 12 rejected: wrong revenue, dead citations, empty fields > pass 2 - 3 rejected > pass 3 - zero. every row filed straight into an Obsidian vault the whole trick is the split Claude Code does the work, Jev decides whether each claim actually matches the source Jev never writes a second opinion. it answers yes or no with a confidence score, at $0.042 per million tokens in and the loop won't stop while anything is still wrong an analyst team bills weeks for 100 verified company profiles. he gets them in one run one model writes, a cheaper one decides, and nothing ships until it says yes

36,798 Aufrufe

an agent is four parts in a loop. you own one. the other three break it. that's why the demo works and prod doesn't. you can't debug what you can't see. 1) the prompt → what you tell the model each turn. you own this one. good. 2) the context window → what it sees right now. the framework fills it with junk, and you never notice until it rots. 3) the tools → what it can do. you own the list, not when or why it fires them. 4) the control flow → what happens next, when to stop. the framework owns this. it's what breaks at 80%. own all four and your agent stops being a magic trick that works on stage and dies on call. this isn't my idea. it's the 12-factor agents guide (24k stars) github: the whole thing every serious builder ends up rewriting their stack around. full breakdown in the article below.

an agent is four parts in a loop. you own one. the other three break it. that's why the demo works and prod doesn't. you can't debug what you can't see. 1) the prompt → what you tell the model each turn. you own this one. good. 2) the context window → what it sees right now. the framework fills it with junk, and you never notice until it rots. 3) the tools → what it can do. you own the list, not when or why it fires them. 4) the control flow → what happens next, when to stop. the framework owns this. it's what breaks at 80%. own all four and your agent stops being a magic trick that works on stage and dies on call. this isn't my idea. it's the 12-factor agents guide (24k stars) github: the whole thing every serious builder ends up rewriting their stack around. full breakdown in the article below.

38,387 Aufrufe

Videos

hanakoxbt's profile picture

a Citadel intern told me something at a party he probably shouldn't have it was on a rooftop in brooklyn. i mentioned i trade prediction markets. he got quiet for a second. "we have a model for that. it scores every contract on four factors. when all four align we enter. when any breaks we exit. that's it" i asked what the four factors are. he looked around. then said it fast like he was confessing. "cross-market divergence. disposition coefficient. capital velocity. pair network correlation" I didn't know what half of that meant. but i memorized it. went home. 11pm. opened Claude. "here are four scoring factors from a quant fund. build a terminal that runs all four on prediction markets" Claude asked one question: "Where's the data?" I sent him one repo: 86 million trades. every wallet. every entry. every outcome three weeks later i'm sitting in my apartment watching a screen i barely understand print money. the disposition meter alone changed everything. it measures how you exit - not how you enter. top wallets capture 86% of winner value and cut losers at 12%. everyone else captures 58% and holds losers to 41%. same exact entries. the exits make it a completely different game. capital velocity: 49x. every dollar gets recycled 49 times before the average trader recycles once. the terminal found 42 pair correlations across 11 markets. when MSFT beats Q3 is priced at 80c but the model reads 93% - it enters. when the gap closes 2 hours later - it exits. no opinions. no news. just four numbers that either align or don't. his fund runs this with a floor of PhDs and $800M AUM. my setup: > Claude - $20/month > VPS - $5/month > poly_data repo - free > Polymarket API - free $25/month. no team. no office. no Bloomberg. 280 trades so far. 70% win rate. $800 seed. four bots splitting the work: pulse_alpha +$299. arb_hunter +$558. trend_rider +$337. cal_engine +$719. +$11,514 total. copytrade here: he texted me last week. "delete everything i told you" too late.

Hanako

1,742,823 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, and they have a ceiling you can watch happen: a loop goes around. it produces, checks, corrects, and goes around again. after six passes you have one job, done very well. after six hundred passes you still have one job, done very well. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how well one job gets done, but which jobs exist to be done at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the loop lives inside a node. the graph lives between them. ↳ inside one unit: produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the loop does not go away when you build a graph. it moves inside, and now there are three of them running at once on three things you would never have thought to run. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. one thing to know before you scale it. a loop that cannot fail is not a loop, it is a repeat with a bill attached. and the check people write is almost always the wrong kind. ↳ the test suite exits 0 is a check. the diff touches only the files in the plan is a check ↳ the output looks good, the model says it is confident, no errors were raised, none of those are checks that last one catches careful people. absence of an error is not evidence of correctness, and a loop built on it will confidently repeat a mistake until the budget runs out, with a clean log the whole way. and the one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

129,105 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

an ex-Citadel quant told me a salary is a short position on your own time we were at a dinner in new york. friend of a friend. he asked what i do. "software engineer. $4,200 a month" he said one simple thing "you're mass-selling the most valuable asset you have. your hours. at a fixed price. with no upside. that's a short position on your own life" i didn't have a response. then he showed me his phone. a terminal. live trades. +$39,453 running for 6 weeks. "i built this with Claude Opus 4.7 and one open source dataset. took a weekend. haven't touched it since" i asked how. "gave Opus one repo and one prompt. find who wins on prediction markets. find why. copy their edge" 2,900 stars. 36GB. every trade on Polymarket and Kalshi. every wallet. every resolution. Opus read the whole dataset friday night. by sunday it had a live terminal scanning 1,400 markets per hour. 8 detectors running in parallel. entering when void score exceeds 90. exiting when it drops below 75. no human override. > Senate filibuster. locked at 42c. now 98c. +$1,133. > Neuralink approval. entered 52c. now 98c. +$1,396. > Fed 0% rate. entered 35c. now 97c. +$1,147. > BTC 250K. entered 8c. now 98c. +$1,258. > Megaquake. entered 6c. now 97c. +$1,039. the part that broke something in me: latency arbitrage. Polymarket updates in 19ms. Kalshi in 63ms. the bot trades the 44ms gap between them. automatically. every time. "we had four people at Citadel doing what your bot does with latency alone" copy mirror tracking 6 positions: > Senate fili +$1,252. void signal. 10%. > BTC 250K +$958. zero signal. 2%. > Neuralink +$1,384. sign signal. 9%. > Fed 0% +$863. fill signal. 8%. > Megaquake +$1,070. bridge signal. 18%. > META AI +$979. gas signal. 5%. 972 trades. 83% win rate. kelly f+ 0.101. avg profit $10.65. drawdown -1.4%. maker rebate tracker collecting $203 across four platforms while the bot trades. Polymarket +$114. Kalshi +$40. dYdX +$28. Betfair +$21. $1,800 seed. +$39,453. i quit the next morning. one email. "i'm done. thank you for everything." copytrade setup: texted him a week later. "you ruined a perfectly stable career" he replied "no. i closed your short position"

Hanako

380,375 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

your agent loop needs 8 exits. most people ship only one. (explained with triggers) 1) goal met → an evaluator scores the output against a rubric, and the run stops on a pass. → fires when the work is measurably done, not when the model says it is done. 2) turn cap → a hard ceiling on iterations, counted and enforced by the harness, not the prompt. → fires on the task it was never going to finish, before you pay to find that out. 3) budget cap → a limit on tokens or dollars, whichever one runs out first. → fires mid-run, which is exactly why it is the exit that saves you the 3am bill. 4) wall clock → a deadline on elapsed time, independent of how much progress was made. → fires when the run collides with a deploy window or the start of business hours. 5) no progress → hash the state every turn and compare it against the last few. → fires when three turns in a row change nothing. busy is not the same as moving. 6) human interrupt → an approval gate before risky steps, plus a kill switch that lives outside the loop. → fires whenever you decide, and it is the one exit the model cannot argue with. 7) error threshold → a counter of consecutive failures that resets on any success. → fires at n in a row, so it halts instead of retrying into the same wall all night. 8) external event → a webhook or a poll on whatever the task was actually about. → fires when the PR merged or the ticket closed and the work stopped mattering. a loop with one exit hangs. a loop with eight is a system. write the exits before you write the prompt.

Hanako

182,236 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

an ex-Jane Street trader told me a paycheck is the most overpriced contract there is we were at a rooftop bar in tel aviv. friend of a friend. i told him i work in tech. $4,200/month after taxes. he showed me his phone. a terminal. green numbers. +$47,000. last 30 days. "Claude and one GitHub repo. that's the whole setup" i asked what he means. "copy-trading. but not how everyone else does it" he explained it fast. like he'd said it a hundred times. "most people copy wallets by win rate. useless. a wallet with 85% wins can still lose money. what matters is disposition ratio" he pulled up a wallet. 91% win rate on crypto. 14% on politics. "copy everything - you bleed. copy only their crypto - top 1% of the platform" i went home. couldn't sleep. opened Claude at 2am. "build a copy engine. filter by disposition ratio above 0.70. copy only dominant category per wallet. kelly sizing" gave it this: almost 1k stars. execution engine. order book logic. position sizing. open source. Claude rebuilt the whole system in one night. first week: +$3,200. second: +$2,900. third: +$2,100. fourth: +$1,648. +$9,848 total. 313 trades. 80% win rate. avg hold 5h. the wallets it copies now aren't the highest win rate. they're the best exits. 0xe41f8...b has $43.4K profit. tech only. disposition 0.82. 0xa22c3...d has $40.2K. crypto only. disposition 0.79. 0xf88d2...c has $22.4K. macro only. disposition 0.74. category P&L: > crypto +$974 > weather +$749 > politics +$409 > macro +$353 > sports -$50. killed it capital velocity: 51x. kelly f+ 0.073. drawdown -2.9%. copytrade: saw him two weeks later. showed him the terminal. he scrolled through it. "you built this in one night?" Claude did. "my old desk had 14 people on this" mine costs less than a Netflix subscription. he nodded. "quit your job" i'm thinking about it.

Hanako

311,683 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

a Goldman Sachs engineer sat next to me on a delayed flight from JFK four hours on the tarmac. nowhere to go. we started talking. i told him i trade prediction markets with Claude. he almost choked on his ginger ale. "you do WHAT with an AI?" i showed him my terminal. he went quiet. scrolled through it for two full minutes. "this is close to what we run internally. how did you get the scoring model?" i told him. one GitHub repo with 2,600 stars. Claude connected the dots. official Polymarket framework. LLM-powered trading agents. open source. free. i gave Claude the repo and said: build me a grid that scans 700+ markets per hour and enters when the edge exceeds 9 cents. he didn't ask twice. the Goldman guy kept scrolling. "you have a disposition meter. a kelly gauge. a correlation matrix. we spent $4M building this infrastructure" i told him my total cost. Claude $20/mo + VPS $5/mo he laughed. not the funny kind. that was three weeks ago. today the terminal shows: +$16,976. 439 trades. 73% win rate. avg hold 7h. > Falcon Heavy - mkt 68c. model 95c. +$716. > MSFT antitrust - mkt 59c. model 77c. +$670. > Blizzard NY - mkt 74c. model 85c. +$772. > BOJ rate hike - mkt 52c. model 60c. +$422. four bots split everything: - pulse_alpha +$299. - arb_hunter +$558. - trend_rider +$337. - cal_engine +$719. kelly fraction 0.118. correlation matrix tracking 6 asset pairs. when one breaks - something is wrong. the grid trades it. copytrade here: he DM'd me yesterday. "i showed your screenshot to my desk. they want to know who built your infra" i said Claude. he said "seriously" i said seriously.

Hanako

287,146 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

10 agent evals for AI engineers: (explained with usage) 1) golden set → a fixed set of cases you never edit, run on every single change. → use as the baseline that tells you whether anything moved at all. 2) llm as judge → a second model scores the output against a written rubric. → use when the answer is open-ended and there is no string to match against. 3) rubric scoring → one number per dimension: correctness, tone, safety, cost. → use when a single score hides which part actually got worse. 4) trajectory eval → grade the path the agent took, not only the answer it landed on. → use when the right answer for the wrong reason is going to bite you later. 5) tool unit tests → test each tool on its own, with fixtures, no model in the loop. → use always. most agent bugs are tool bugs wearing a costume. 6) regression suite → replay past runs against the new prompt or model and diff the results. → use before every prompt change, because prompts have no type system. 7) a/b in prod → split live traffic between two versions and compare outcomes, not vibes. → use when offline scores stopped predicting what users actually do. 8) human review → sample a slice of runs and have a person grade them honestly. → use to calibrate your judge, because a judge nobody checks quietly drifts. 9) shadow run → the candidate runs on real traffic in parallel and its output is shown to nobody. → use before a risky rollout, when one bad answer would be expensive. 10) red team → deliberately attack it: jailbreaks, injection, exfil, tool abuse. → use before anyone external can reach it, not after. offline evals tell you it works. online evals tell you it still works. both sides matter, but not all ten do. run the two that would have caught your last outage. save this. then read the full breakdown on loop engineering below.

Hanako

152,311 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

I asked Claude to build me a MiroFish God View terminal it showed me 56 live agents that simulate real world each agent has memory, personality, and behavior they form groups. develop leaders. shift opinions in real time I feed it a scenario: "Fed cuts rates by 50bps" 56 digital humans reorganize in seconds retail agents panic buy YES on Polymarket. institutional agents fade the move opinion leaders wait the terminal maps every shift live throughput: 5,000 ops/s latency: 23ms 2.1M tokens processed per cycle zero errors I watch the consensus form before Polymarket prices it > monday: injected "US-China military standoff in Taiwan Strait" agents split instantly - 39 rushed YES on "conflict before 2027" bought YES at $0.08 before the herd moved Polymarket moved to $0.29 by tuesday +$1,840 > wednesday: injected "S&P500 drops 3% intraday" 48 of 56 agents shifted bearish in 9 seconds loaded YES on "S&P500 below 5000 by July" at $0.12 contract hit $0.31 by friday +$2,470 > sunday: injected "Trump announces new tariffs on EU" herd effect kicked in - retail agents mass-bought YES institutional agents faded at peak I followed the institutions. bought NO at $0.22 settled at $0.71 monday morning +$3,048 total: $7,358 in 7 days from scenarios that haven't happened yet the god view doesn't predict price it predicts how people bet and people move the odds one terminal. 56 agents. zero team copytrade here: you don't need to predict events you need to predict how Polymarket reacts to them

Hanako

305,265 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

97,154 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

hanakoxbt's profile picture

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 runs your main session, stop leaving Fable 5.1 on the bench put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code Fable 5.1 reads the whole session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three moments: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Fable 5.1 reviews. Opus 5.5 ships jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to jev in under half a second, and the big model only sees the ones that split - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on medium > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: opus, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

Hanako

52,065 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat