Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

AI coding agents re-explore the same codebase every single session. Repowise indexes a repo once and gives Claude Code, Codex, or any MCP agent a real dependency graph, git history, and a bug-predictive code health score. No re-grepping the same files. No stale docs. No guessing which file is... show more

Simplifying AI

37,544 subscribers

17,561 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

ANTHROPIC JUST TURNED AI AGENTS INTO GIT REPOS Anthropic shipped "ant" - a CLI that runs every Claude API endpoint straight from your terminal. The headline isn't the terminal access. It's that you can now version-control an AI agent as YAML in Git and have CI sync it to the Claude Platform, the same way you ship code. - Every API resource is a subcommand: messages, models, files, agents, sessions - Define an agent in a YAML file, check it into your repo, and keep it in sync with one update command - Spin up a session, send it an event, then pull every event and tool call back from the same CLI - Claude Code knows how to drive ant out of the box - it shells out and reads the results with no glue code Agents just stopped being prompts you babysit and became infrastructure you deploy.

ANTHROPIC JUST TURNED AI AGENTS INTO GIT REPOS Anthropic shipped "ant" - a CLI that runs every Claude API endpoint straight from your terminal. The headline isn't the terminal access. It's that you can now version-control an AI agent as YAML in Git and have CI sync it to the Claude Platform, the same way you ship code. - Every API resource is a subcommand: messages, models, files, agents, sessions - Define an agent in a YAML file, check it into your repo, and keep it in sync with one update command - Spin up a session, send it an event, then pull every event and tool call back from the same CLI - Claude Code knows how to drive ant out of the box - it shells out and reads the results with no glue code Agents just stopped being prompts you babysit and became infrastructure you deploy.

BuBBliK

200,456 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

if you use claude code, this will save you real money. the problem: every time you make an edit, your ai rereads the whole codebase to figure out what changed. tens of thousands of tokens, every turn, for context it already had. this repo fixes it. it’s called code review graph, and it just maps your entire codebase: every file, every function, every connection laid out so you can see the actual shape of your project how to set up (2 min): 1. pip install code-review-graph 2. code-review-graph install - auto-configures Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini CLI + more 3. code-review-graph build change one function, and it traces exactly what that touches... every caller, every dependent file, every test. your ai only reads what's affected, not the whole repo. and the savings are wild. a task that used to burn ~100,000 tokens (about a dollar) now runs closer to a penny.

if you use claude code, this will save you real money. the problem: every time you make an edit, your ai rereads the whole codebase to figure out what changed. tens of thousands of tokens, every turn, for context it already had. this repo fixes it. it’s called code review graph, and it just maps your entire codebase: every file, every function, every connection laid out so you can see the actual shape of your project how to set up (2 min): 1. pip install code-review-graph 2. code-review-graph install - auto-configures Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini CLI + more 3. code-review-graph build change one function, and it traces exactly what that touches... every caller, every dependent file, every test. your ai only reads what's affected, not the whole repo. and the savings are wild. a task that used to burn ~100,000 tokens (about a dollar) now runs closer to a penny.

Alvaro Cintas

75,596 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

i don't f*cking understand why this isn't popular yet someone has created a memory system that uses 90% fewer tokens while still finding all the expected symbols it builds a local graph of source symbols and their relationships. architecture, decisions and handoffs live as Git-tracked Markdown. a note can point to the code behind it, so a code change can flag that knowledge for review the loop: scan the repo → map the code → write the why → anchor notes to symbols → retrieve a task-sized slice → review drift → commit to Git → continue in the next session in the author's small, one-repo test, graph retrieval returned 10.74× less context than grep top-3 while finding every expected symbol across six tasks the useful part is the connection between memory and evidence. the repo carries what the agent learned, and the code gives you a way to check whether that knowledge still holds save this, then build a second brain for your company⭣

i don't f*cking understand why this isn't popular yet someone has created a memory system that uses 90% fewer tokens while still finding all the expected symbols it builds a local graph of source symbols and their relationships. architecture, decisions and handoffs live as Git-tracked Markdown. a note can point to the code behind it, so a code change can flag that knowledge for review the loop: scan the repo → map the code → write the why → anchor notes to symbols → retrieve a task-sized slice → review drift → commit to Git → continue in the next session in the author's small, one-repo test, graph retrieval returned 10.74× less context than grep top-3 while finding every expected symbol across six tasks the useful part is the connection between memory and evidence. the repo carries what the agent learned, and the code gives you a way to check whether that knowledge still holds save this, then build a second brain for your company⭣

beamnxw ./

30,592 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

EVERYONE'S TRYING TO SOLVE AI TEAM MEMORY WITH SERVERS, VECTOR DATABASES, AND ORCHESTRATION PLATFORMS. THIS OPEN SOURCE TOOL DOES IT WITH ONE FOLDER IN YOUR REPO. Every dev on your team runs Claude Code. When one agent screws something up, the rest have no idea. They just repeat the mistake next week. It's called teamlore. When your agent gets corrected or breaks something, it writes a small lore file into a .lore/ folder. That file ships with your PR, gets reviewed like normal code, and after merge every teammate's agent automatically recalls it when they touch that part of the repo. No server. No datab No accounts. No SaaS bill. Just a folder in git. Which means code review catches bad lessons before they poison the team, git blame tells you when a rule was added and why, and the whole thing works offline. One command to install: npx teamlore init Companion command: npx teamlore scarmap. Turns your team's history of mistakes into a visual heat map of the codebase. Every red zone is a place your team has been burned before. Which means every red zone is a place your agents should slow down. Here's the wildest part. The teamlore repo's own .lore/ folder contains every mistake Claude made while building teamlore itself. Dogfooded end-to-end. You can literally open the folder and read the receipts. The author's public invitation: "Would love for someone to try and break it." Available on npm. Repo just launched. 100% open source. (link in the comments)

EVERYONE'S TRYING TO SOLVE AI TEAM MEMORY WITH SERVERS, VECTOR DATABASES, AND ORCHESTRATION PLATFORMS. THIS OPEN SOURCE TOOL DOES IT WITH ONE FOLDER IN YOUR REPO. Every dev on your team runs Claude Code. When one agent screws something up, the rest have no idea. They just repeat the mistake next week. It's called teamlore. When your agent gets corrected or breaks something, it writes a small lore file into a .lore/ folder. That file ships with your PR, gets reviewed like normal code, and after merge every teammate's agent automatically recalls it when they touch that part of the repo. No server. No datab No accounts. No SaaS bill. Just a folder in git. Which means code review catches bad lessons before they poison the team, git blame tells you when a rule was added and why, and the whole thing works offline. One command to install: npx teamlore init Companion command: npx teamlore scarmap. Turns your team's history of mistakes into a visual heat map of the codebase. Every red zone is a place your team has been burned before. Which means every red zone is a place your agents should slow down. Here's the wildest part. The teamlore repo's own .lore/ folder contains every mistake Claude made while building teamlore itself. Dogfooded end-to-end. You can literally open the folder and read the receipts. The author's public invitation: "Would love for someone to try and break it." Available on npm. Repo just launched. 100% open source. (link in the comments)

Harman

35,140 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

you don't need to re-explain your codebase's architecture to your agent every session. most tools stop at telling you what broke. sentrux is a real-time architectural sensor, it watches your codebase as a live treemap and turns file structure and dependencies into one continuous quality score. the loop is simple: codebase > agent scans structure and dependencies > sentrux scores 5 root cause metrics into one signal > agent sees exactly where risk concentrates > next session starts from a live map instead of a blind grep the binary carries zero built-in language knowledge, all 52 languages live in plugin.toml and tags.scm query files, so a new language needs zero rust code. small catch: it only scores the structure, it won't tell you why the cycle happened, that part's still on you. built pure Rust with no runtime dependencies, specifically so it could sit as one binary between an agent and a codebase without adding friction.

you don't need to re-explain your codebase's architecture to your agent every session. most tools stop at telling you what broke. sentrux is a real-time architectural sensor, it watches your codebase as a live treemap and turns file structure and dependencies into one continuous quality score. the loop is simple: codebase > agent scans structure and dependencies > sentrux scores 5 root cause metrics into one signal > agent sees exactly where risk concentrates > next session starts from a live map instead of a blind grep the binary carries zero built-in language knowledge, all 52 languages live in plugin.toml and tags.scm query files, so a new language needs zero rust code. small catch: it only scores the structure, it won't tell you why the cycle happened, that part's still on you. built pure Rust with no runtime dependencies, specifically so it could sit as one binary between an agent and a codebase without adding friction.

Simplifying AI

18,308 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

441,974 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Polymarket Agents repo is cheating code for real life If you've been thinking AI agents are cool, but what do they actually do? this Polymarket repo is the clearest answer I've seen This Polymarket repo basically hands you a mini AI hedge fund where Claude calls the shots. It uses RAG to read the news and snipe mispriced odds 24/7, handling all the messy API work so you don't have to. Your agent could literally be catching alpha while you sleep - don't miss out on this. How you'd use it in plain English: > Pick a market (or let the agent scan for opportunities). > Feed the agent context (news, social chatter, historical notes) and let the LLM decide what matters. > Turn that into a concrete trade decision and execution loop - automated Bookmark post so you don't lose the alpha

Polymarket Agents repo is cheating code for real life If you've been thinking AI agents are cool, but what do they actually do? this Polymarket repo is the clearest answer I've seen This Polymarket repo basically hands you a mini AI hedge fund where Claude calls the shots. It uses RAG to read the news and snipe mispriced odds 24/7, handling all the messy API work so you don't have to. Your agent could literally be catching alpha while you sleep - don't miss out on this. How you'd use it in plain English: > Pick a market (or let the agent scan for opportunities). > Feed the agent context (news, social chatter, historical notes) and let the LLM decide what matters. > Turn that into a concrete trade decision and execution loop - automated Bookmark post so you don't lose the alpha

BuBBliK

16,887 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Excited to introduce Orbit - a new API specifically built for coding agents to discover, evaluate, and integrate public APIs. Orbit has two simple tools: search and integrate. All your agent needs to do is describe the task, and Orbit will generate a task brief to integrate the API. Best of all: it is completely free! No auth, no set up. Just add it to Claude, Cursor, OpenCode Devin Desktop or any other coding agent. Check it out here:

Excited to introduce Orbit - a new API specifically built for coding agents to discover, evaluate, and integrate public APIs. Orbit has two simple tools: search and integrate. All your agent needs to do is describe the task, and Orbit will generate a task brief to integrate the API. Best of all: it is completely free! No auth, no set up. Just add it to Claude, Cursor, OpenCode Devin Desktop or any other coding agent. Check it out here:

Abhinav Asthana

481,674 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

this is worth more than most five figure courses 16 claude agents audit an entire repo at once, a second fleet re-checks every finding on fresh context, and the whole thing runs off one diagram instead of a prompt i ran it against my own code and got back 11 endpoints where i never checked who was logged in, 3 of which the verifier threw out before they ever reached me this is Graph Engineering, the layer above prompting, and it runs on the agent you already pay for: - write your plan out, then ask one question at every "and then": does the next step actually read what the previous one produced - the seams that fail that question were never dependencies, so those jobs run at the same time - the arrows that survive are your real edges, and the longest chain of them is your floor that no number of agents shortens - want it faster, cut a false edge instead of adding a worker - fan the independent work out, one agent per item, no shared state between them - send every finding to a separate agent on fresh context, because a model recognises its own writing 73.5% of the time and grades it kinder once it does - make that verifier check a real signal like a passing test, never the worker's own word that it finished - shard the fleet across worktrees so parallel workers stop overwriting each other, one rule frozen into every worker: never git stash, never git reset - merge only what came back verified, into one report instead of twenty open chats the catch is the ceiling. at 95% independent work 16 agents return 9.14x rather than the 16 you would guess, and even 256 only reach 18.6x, because the merge and the verify stay serial however wide you fan coordination itself is free plain code and every agent underneath it is billed, so start at twenty files and widen once it works bookmark this, the whole method with all six ready-to-run graphs is written out in the article ↓

this is worth more than most five figure courses 16 claude agents audit an entire repo at once, a second fleet re-checks every finding on fresh context, and the whole thing runs off one diagram instead of a prompt i ran it against my own code and got back 11 endpoints where i never checked who was logged in, 3 of which the verifier threw out before they ever reached me this is Graph Engineering, the layer above prompting, and it runs on the agent you already pay for: - write your plan out, then ask one question at every "and then": does the next step actually read what the previous one produced - the seams that fail that question were never dependencies, so those jobs run at the same time - the arrows that survive are your real edges, and the longest chain of them is your floor that no number of agents shortens - want it faster, cut a false edge instead of adding a worker - fan the independent work out, one agent per item, no shared state between them - send every finding to a separate agent on fresh context, because a model recognises its own writing 73.5% of the time and grades it kinder once it does - make that verifier check a real signal like a passing test, never the worker's own word that it finished - shard the fleet across worktrees so parallel workers stop overwriting each other, one rule frozen into every worker: never git stash, never git reset - merge only what came back verified, into one report instead of twenty open chats the catch is the ceiling. at 95% independent work 16 agents return 9.14x rather than the 16 you would guess, and even 256 only reach 18.6x, because the merge and the verify stay serial however wide you fan coordination itself is free plain code and every agent underneath it is billed, so start at twenty files and widen once it works bookmark this, the whole method with all six ready-to-run graphs is written out in the article ↓

Argona

157,671 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

AGENT ARCHITECTURE ROUTES WORK. IT DOES NOT REMEMBER WORK. THAT GAP IS WHY YOUR LOOP KEEPS FIXING THE SAME BUG TWICE. these are two different engineering problems. every agent that silently drifts is missing one of them. architecture answers what runs. harness → loop → graph. it defines the tools, the retries, the branching routes, the approval gates. context ops answer what the run knows. write → read → compress → isolate. it defines what gets saved between attempts, pulled in on read, summarized on overflow, and split across sub-agents. for two months i believed a solid harness plus a verifier loop was enough. my coding agent kept re-discovering the same test failure across retries. the loop was working. it just had nowhere to write what it had already learned. here is the decision rule: if your agent forgets across restarts, add write and read. if it stalls on long tasks, add compress. if two sub-agents step on each other, add isolate. architecture without context ops is a well-routed system with amnesia.

AGENT ARCHITECTURE ROUTES WORK. IT DOES NOT REMEMBER WORK. THAT GAP IS WHY YOUR LOOP KEEPS FIXING THE SAME BUG TWICE. these are two different engineering problems. every agent that silently drifts is missing one of them. architecture answers what runs. harness → loop → graph. it defines the tools, the retries, the branching routes, the approval gates. context ops answer what the run knows. write → read → compress → isolate. it defines what gets saved between attempts, pulled in on read, summarized on overflow, and split across sub-agents. for two months i believed a solid harness plus a verifier loop was enough. my coding agent kept re-discovering the same test failure across retries. the loop was working. it just had nowhere to write what it had already learned. here is the decision rule: if your agent forgets across restarts, add write and read. if it stalls on long tasks, add compress. if two sub-agents step on each other, add isolate. architecture without context ops is a well-routed system with amnesia.

kocer

12,740 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

CLAUDE CODE SKILL THAT DESIGNS LOGOS AS PURE CODE The constraint that forced the whole approach: Claude Code has no access to image generation So instead of faking it, one developer built a skill that writes the logo as SVG - actual XML - and renders that to a PNG The process runs in four phases: interview [ reads your repo first, asks about brand and audience only for what it can’t already see ] explore [ dispatches parallel agents that generate 3-5 distinct SVG concepts at once, shown side by side in an HTML preview with a light/dark toggle ] refine, export at 7 standard sizes from favicon to 2048px Because it’s real SVG and not a rasterized image, nothing about it degrades - same file works as a 16px favicon and a 2048px app icon, and every version is hand editable code afterward if you want to nudge one curve The creator’s own account of using it: roughly 15 rounds of generate, curate, cull, repeat - some concepts literally spelled out the product name, others went fully abstract, treating the whole thing like an evolutionary design process instead of a single lucky prompt The part worth remembering before you reach for a paid AI logo tool: this whole approach exists specifically because Claude Code can’t generate images - the constraint produced a better artifact than the workaround usually does full below

YARD

10,875 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce

🚨 Do you understand what Claude just quietly dropped while everyone was distracted? 1 million tokens. Let me explain what that actually means because the number alone doesn't hit right. > A senior engineer joins a company and spends 3 to 6 months just reading code.. Understanding how things connect. Learning where the bugs hide. Why that one file nobody touches exists. It takes months because a codebase is massive and human memory is small. > Claude just loaded the entire thing in one prompt. 30 seconds. Every file, Every function, Every line. All of it. Sitting in memory like it's been working there for years. And it scored highest among every single frontier model. Not GPT.. Not Gemini, Nobody. > Yesterday Amazon's AI nuked production because it couldn't see the full picture - it made a decision with partial context and deleted everything. Today an AI can hold 1 million tokens of context at once. That's the fix. That's the "before and after" moment for AI coding. > 600 images in one request. Entire PDFs. Full repos. And they dropped it on a Friday on all plans like it was a patch note. The scariest AI updates aren't the ones with press conferences. They're the ones that drop in a tweet at 6pm and change everything by Monday morning.

🚨 Do you understand what Claude just quietly dropped while everyone was distracted? 1 million tokens. Let me explain what that actually means because the number alone doesn't hit right. > A senior engineer joins a company and spends 3 to 6 months just reading code.. Understanding how things connect. Learning where the bugs hide. Why that one file nobody touches exists. It takes months because a codebase is massive and human memory is small. > Claude just loaded the entire thing in one prompt. 30 seconds. Every file, Every function, Every line. All of it. Sitting in memory like it's been working there for years. And it scored highest among every single frontier model. Not GPT.. Not Gemini, Nobody. > Yesterday Amazon's AI nuked production because it couldn't see the full picture - it made a decision with partial context and deleted everything. Today an AI can hold 1 million tokens of context at once. That's the fix. That's the "before and after" moment for AI coding. > 600 images in one request. Entire PDFs. Full repos. And they dropped it on a Friday on all plans like it was a patch note. The scariest AI updates aren't the ones with press conferences. They're the ones that drop in a tweet at 6pm and change everything by Monday morning.

Tuki

206,309 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

this might actually be the new ugc method i've seen 100s of ai ugc ads lately where it's the same creator in every single one. same voice, same face, same brand colors, never drifts once what they're actually doing is running notch agents with memory they load the brand context one time. cloned voice, reference photo, brand color codes, do-not-say words, taste or they just teach it inline as they chat, and every correction becomes a saved rule then before it generates a single frame, the agent reads every relevant memory first. hard rules, reference assets, language constraints, taste preferences, all of it and it's workspace-wide, so every new ad already knows the brand before you type a word each chat isn't a re-introduction anymore. it's training your brand isn't a prompt. it's permanent context run 30-50 of those a month at a real offer and the volume does the rest punchier cut: the new method nobody's clocked yet run notch agents with memory on load the brand once. cloned voice, reference photo, color codes, do-not-say words, taste. or teach it inline and every correction saves as a rule it reads every relevant memory before it generates a single frame, workspace-wide each chat isn't a re-introduction. it's training. your brand isn't a prompt, it's permanent context run it at a real rate and the volume prints.

Sulfur

15,290 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

245,379 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone gave a fleet of Claude agents shared memory so they would stop contradicting each other, then measured both the bill and the output: the version that talked most made 2.4x the api calls of the version that won, and hallucinated 34% more than doing nothing at all, 0.658 against 0.492 i ran the same question past two of my own agents afterwards and got two different answers about which file owns the config. each one was individually right and the pair was wrong, which is the whole failure in one line this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides which agents may talk to each other at all, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - decide which agents may share state at all, because every edge you draw is a channel a mistake can travel down - measure divergence per PAIR instead of as a fleet average, across what they believe about place, time and task history - gate on that number and stop the pair above your threshold before it reasons, rather than repairing the output afterwards - let compressed summaries replace whole states: the verified protocol landed 0.463 against 0.658 for full broadcast - cut the sync frequency until it hurts, since the winning setup used 58% fewer calls than the one that broke it - never propagate a state nobody checked, because the contamination effect came in at d=1.18, a full standard deviation of extra lying - keep the shared layer small enough to diff, which is what a written standard does and a running conversation cannot - re-run the check after every model upgrade, because this was 8 scenarios on one model family at n=30 per condition - and learn where it does not bite: on plain software tasks every condition converged under 0.2 and the whole effect vanished turns out the ranking is the uncomfortable part: verified summaries 0.463, no synchronisation at all 0.492, full broadcast 0.658. the middle option is doing nothing, and it beat the thing everyone builds first the group agreeing is what it looks like when every agent copied the same mistake, which is why a fleet that hallucinates has a replication problem and keeps getting handed a smarter model instead so the question for your own setup: if you asked two of your agents the same thing right now, would they answer the same way bookmark this one. the layer underneath it, deciding which arrows between agents exist at all, is built step by step in the piece below ↓

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense someone gave a fleet of Claude agents shared memory so they would stop contradicting each other, then measured both the bill and the output: the version that talked most made 2.4x the api calls of the version that won, and hallucinated 34% more than doing nothing at all, 0.658 against 0.492 i ran the same question past two of my own agents afterwards and got two different answers about which file owns the config. each one was individually right and the pair was wrong, which is the whole failure in one line this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides which agents may talk to each other at all, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - decide which agents may share state at all, because every edge you draw is a channel a mistake can travel down - measure divergence per PAIR instead of as a fleet average, across what they believe about place, time and task history - gate on that number and stop the pair above your threshold before it reasons, rather than repairing the output afterwards - let compressed summaries replace whole states: the verified protocol landed 0.463 against 0.658 for full broadcast - cut the sync frequency until it hurts, since the winning setup used 58% fewer calls than the one that broke it - never propagate a state nobody checked, because the contamination effect came in at d=1.18, a full standard deviation of extra lying - keep the shared layer small enough to diff, which is what a written standard does and a running conversation cannot - re-run the check after every model upgrade, because this was 8 scenarios on one model family at n=30 per condition - and learn where it does not bite: on plain software tasks every condition converged under 0.2 and the whole effect vanished turns out the ranking is the uncomfortable part: verified summaries 0.463, no synchronisation at all 0.492, full broadcast 0.658. the middle option is doing nothing, and it beat the thing everyone builds first the group agreeing is what it looks like when every agent copied the same mistake, which is why a fleet that hallucinates has a replication problem and keeps getting handed a smarter model instead so the question for your own setup: if you asked two of your agents the same thing right now, would they answer the same way bookmark this one. the layer underneath it, deciding which arrows between agents exist at all, is built step by step in the piece below ↓

Argona

724,665 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

I built a custom TradingView indicator with Claude Code & Fable 5. It's called the Storm Gauge and is built off a real quant trading strategy. I open-sourced the full code on GitHub. Free to install, free to fork, yours to improve. Here's how to install a quant indicator on your TradingView chart: What it actually is The Storm Gauge is a live implementation of the GARCH model, a Nobel Prize-winning volatility framework that real quant desks run daily. It forecasts how "violent" tomorrow's market could be by combining three inputs: an asset's baseline volatility, yesterday's shock, and where volatility was already sitting before that shock happened. It doesn't predict market direction. Instead, it measures risk, in real time, on your actual chart. How to install it Method 1. Plugin command Open the GitHub repo: Find the installation section, copy the command, and paste it into Claude Code. It runs the plugin install automatically. Method 2. Manual config Open garchmethod.md in the repo, copy the entire file, and paste it into Claude Code. It fetches the skill files directly and verifies the strategy for you. (you only need one method; I'm just showing both) Getting it onto your TradingView chart Inside the repo, there's a Pine Script folder. Open it, copy the entire file. Go into TradingView's Pine Editor, paste it in, hit Enter, and refresh. That's it. The Storm Gauge now runs live on your chart as a real number. Once it's installed, just talk to it: → "What's the volatility forecast on Bitcoin?" → "Explain what the current volatility forecast means on $BTC and how it should impact my position sizing" → "Help me size my S&P500 position according to current market volatility" Does it actually work? I backtested the same EMA cross strategy two ways across 15 years of BTC data. Same entries, same exits. → Fixed position sizing: $17,957 final equity → Storm Gauge (GARCH) sizing: $21,205 final equity Fewer drawdowns, less risk, better result. Full breakdown of the entire build process in my recent article - pinned on my profile.

Miles Deutscher

56,625 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

19-year-old from china makes $9,000/month designing product sites and ships each one in an afternoon. here's his exact setup the whole thing runs on two tools that each do one job: > brief written by hand: 5 min > Moonchild builds the design system, then every screen from it: 20 min > MCP hands the design to Claude as real structure, not a screenshot: instant > Claude Code reads those exact tokens and builds the live app: 20 min > second Claude session reviews the build for drift: 10 min total: about an hour. screen five still matches screen one. no agency, no dev, no design team the trick is MCP. the design tool passes Claude the actual colors, components and layout, so it builds from the source instead of guessing from a picture. full pipeline, every prompt, in the article above.

19-year-old from china makes $9,000/month designing product sites and ships each one in an afternoon. here's his exact setup the whole thing runs on two tools that each do one job: > brief written by hand: 5 min > Moonchild builds the design system, then every screen from it: 20 min > MCP hands the design to Claude as real structure, not a screenshot: instant > Claude Code reads those exact tokens and builds the live app: 20 min > second Claude session reviews the build for drift: 10 min total: about an hour. screen five still matches screen one. no agency, no dev, no design team the trick is MCP. the design tool passes Claude the actual colors, components and layout, so it builds from the source instead of guessing from a picture. full pipeline, every prompt, in the article above.

Ridark

19,477 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Claude cannot watch a YouTube video, Instagram reel, Tiktok, or local file video. Same problem is with ChatGPT and Gemini. It reads the transcript and pretends it did. This FREE AI TOOL fixes this issue It extracts only the important frames, transcribes the audio, and hands Claude a clean folder it can genuinely read and understand. No uploading to a server. Runs entirely on your machine. Here is what makes it smarter than everything else doing this: → Detects scene changes instead of grabbing one frame per second like every other tool → Removes near-duplicate frames so Claude is not reading the same shot 40 times → Handles A-B-A cuts, if a shot already appeared, it does not send it again → A 10-minute static screencast collapses to 1 frame instead of 600 → A fast-cut reel catches every visual change instead of missing frames between samples → Transcribes audio with Whisper and auto-detects the language → Saves the full soundtrack so audio models can actually hear it too → Works with Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini The result: fewer frames, cheaper context, better understanding. Claude actually sees the video instead of guessing from a transcript.

Claude cannot watch a YouTube video, Instagram reel, Tiktok, or local file video. Same problem is with ChatGPT and Gemini. It reads the transcript and pretends it did. This FREE AI TOOL fixes this issue It extracts only the important frames, transcribes the audio, and hands Claude a clean folder it can genuinely read and understand. No uploading to a server. Runs entirely on your machine. Here is what makes it smarter than everything else doing this: → Detects scene changes instead of grabbing one frame per second like every other tool → Removes near-duplicate frames so Claude is not reading the same shot 40 times → Handles A-B-A cuts, if a shot already appeared, it does not send it again → A 10-minute static screencast collapses to 1 frame instead of 600 → A fast-cut reel catches every visual change instead of missing frames between samples → Transcribes audio with Whisper and auto-detects the language → Saves the full soundtrack so audio models can actually hear it too → Works with Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini The result: fewer frames, cheaper context, better understanding. Claude actually sees the video instead of guessing from a transcript.

Kanika

22,770 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense Google Research and MIT ran the same agent jobs 260 different ways for Nature last month: they held the prompts, the tools and the compute budget identical and moved nothing but the wiring between the agents, and the same work swung from 70% worse than a single agent to 80.8% better, averaging out at 0.0% i ran my own single agent against the task list first and it cleared 6 of 10 alone, already past the line where a crew starts subtracting this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides whether a crew is worth 80% more or 70% less, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - score your solo agent on the real task first: above roughly 45% success that study predicts zero to negative returns from any crew you put around it - under that line, put one supervisor over the fan out: crews with no correction step amplified their own errors to 17.2x the single agent rate, supervised aggregation held it to 4.4x - give every worker one output and let none of them read a peer's draft, so a wrong step reaches the supervisor instead of four other agents - run the comparison again after every model upgrade, because a better model raises your baseline and a higher baseline is what makes a crew stop paying - keep the single agent alive as the control, the only number that says the wiring is earning its calls turns out the shape does not travel: the biggest win came off a finance task under one supervisor and the worst collapse off a planning task with independent agents my position, and it is the arguable one: a crew is a bet on your own diagram, and the model you pick moves that bet less than one arrow does bookmark this, the three moves that draw those arrows before you pay for one extra call are in the post below ↓

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense Google Research and MIT ran the same agent jobs 260 different ways for Nature last month: they held the prompts, the tools and the compute budget identical and moved nothing but the wiring between the agents, and the same work swung from 70% worse than a single agent to 80.8% better, averaging out at 0.0% i ran my own single agent against the task list first and it cleared 6 of 10 alone, already past the line where a crew starts subtracting this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides whether a crew is worth 80% more or 70% less, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - score your solo agent on the real task first: above roughly 45% success that study predicts zero to negative returns from any crew you put around it - under that line, put one supervisor over the fan out: crews with no correction step amplified their own errors to 17.2x the single agent rate, supervised aggregation held it to 4.4x - give every worker one output and let none of them read a peer's draft, so a wrong step reaches the supervisor instead of four other agents - run the comparison again after every model upgrade, because a better model raises your baseline and a higher baseline is what makes a crew stop paying - keep the single agent alive as the control, the only number that says the wiring is earning its calls turns out the shape does not travel: the biggest win came off a finance task under one supervisor and the worst collapse off a planning task with independent agents my position, and it is the arguable one: a crew is a bet on your own diagram, and the model you pick moves that bet less than one arrow does bookmark this, the three moves that draw those arrows before you pay for one extra call are in the post below ↓

Argona

891,965 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

somebody explain this because i refuse to accept it someone ran 48 scored trials and one agent beat a whole fleet of them on all 6 task families, at 0.93 cents a run against 1.9, while openai's best fleet shape was paying $0.008 for every single point of accuracy it bought i read it expecting a hit piece and found the opposite: the fleets that partitioned the dependency graph properly lifted pass rate 14% and cut wall-clock 2.10x on the same tasks, and one of them beat claude code with agent teams the thing that decides it has a name, Graph Engineering, and it is a property of the diagram rather than the model: - partition on the real dependency graph pulled from static analysis, never by folder or by file, because the gains land hardest on the most dependency-dense projects - isolate the structural hub files first, since those are the nodes every partition would otherwise have to share - measure the critical path and treat it as the floor, because a chain that genuinely feeds itself cannot be replaced by more workers and wrapping it in a scheduler does not shorten it - match the topology to the coupling instead of defaulting to parallel: on coupled work a static parallel shape drops below a single agent, so the mismatch is worse than no orchestration - remember each worker serialises its own subtasks, which adds edges inside every agent that were never in your plan - budget the fan-out before you fire it, because three agents already burn roughly three times the tokens and the multiplier compounds across sessions - check worker count against your rate limit, since fifteen workers at ten requests a second walk straight through a hundred-per-second ceiling and cascade - put a script gate in front of the planner: it costs 0.15 seconds and zero tokens, and it lets the expensive model skip 43 to 63% of the steps for at most 1.4 points of accuracy the catch is the coordination tax, and it scales with how clever the shape looks: 58% extra reasoning turns for independent workers, 263% decentralised, 285% centralised, and 515% for the hybrid setup everyone reaches for first the same paper found that hybrid then collapses hardest on tool-heavy work at a 0.452 success rate, while the plainer decentralised shape beat centralised outright despite carrying more overhead, because parallel efficiency is what survives bookmark this, the whole build sits in the article ↓

somebody explain this because i refuse to accept it someone ran 48 scored trials and one agent beat a whole fleet of them on all 6 task families, at 0.93 cents a run against 1.9, while openai's best fleet shape was paying $0.008 for every single point of accuracy it bought i read it expecting a hit piece and found the opposite: the fleets that partitioned the dependency graph properly lifted pass rate 14% and cut wall-clock 2.10x on the same tasks, and one of them beat claude code with agent teams the thing that decides it has a name, Graph Engineering, and it is a property of the diagram rather than the model: - partition on the real dependency graph pulled from static analysis, never by folder or by file, because the gains land hardest on the most dependency-dense projects - isolate the structural hub files first, since those are the nodes every partition would otherwise have to share - measure the critical path and treat it as the floor, because a chain that genuinely feeds itself cannot be replaced by more workers and wrapping it in a scheduler does not shorten it - match the topology to the coupling instead of defaulting to parallel: on coupled work a static parallel shape drops below a single agent, so the mismatch is worse than no orchestration - remember each worker serialises its own subtasks, which adds edges inside every agent that were never in your plan - budget the fan-out before you fire it, because three agents already burn roughly three times the tokens and the multiplier compounds across sessions - check worker count against your rate limit, since fifteen workers at ten requests a second walk straight through a hundred-per-second ceiling and cascade - put a script gate in front of the planner: it costs 0.15 seconds and zero tokens, and it lets the expensive model skip 43 to 63% of the steps for at most 1.4 points of accuracy the catch is the coordination tax, and it scales with how clever the shape looks: 58% extra reasoning turns for independent workers, 263% decentralised, 285% centralised, and 515% for the hybrid setup everyone reaches for first the same paper found that hybrid then collapses hardest on tool-heavy work at a 0.452 success rate, while the plainer decentralised shape beat centralised outright despite carrying more overhead, because parallel efficiency is what survives bookmark this, the whole build sits in the article ↓

Argona

32,932 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce