正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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 次观看 • 2 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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

200,319 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

73,898 次观看 • 8 天前

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

34,538 次观看 • 8 天前

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

440,337 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

154,880 次观看 • 15 天前

🚨 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

206,260 次观看 • 5 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 🚀

244,567 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

56,219 次观看 • 18 天前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

32,433 次观看 • 11 天前

hey if you have a 3060, or any GPU with 8GB or more sitting in a drawer right now, that thing can run 9 billion parameters of intelligence autonomously. and you don't know it yet. 2 hours ago i posted that 9B hit a ceiling. 2,699 lines across 11 files. blank screen. said the limit for autonomous multifile coding on 9 billion parameters is real. then i audited every file. found 11 bugs. exact file, exact line, exact fix. duplicate variable declarations killing the script loader. a canvas reference never connected to the DOM. enemies with no movement logic. particle systems called on the class instead of the instance. fed that list as a single prompt to the same Qwen 3.5 9B on the same RTX 3060 through Hermes Agent. it fixed all 11. surgically. patch level edits across 4 files. no rewrites. no hallucinated changes. game boots. enemies spawn, move, collide. background renders. particles fire. and here's what nobody is talking about. this is a 9 billion parameter model running a full agentic framework. Hermes Agent with 31 tools. file operations, terminal, browser, code execution. not a single tool call failed. the agent chain never broke. most people think you need 70B+ for reliable tool use. this is 9B on 12 gigs doing it clean. the model didn't fail. my prompting strategy did. the ceiling is not the parameter count. the ceiling is how you prompt it. this is not done. bullets don't fire yet. boss fights need wiring. but the screen that was black 2 hours ago now has a full game rendering in real time. iterating right now. anyone with a GPU from the last 5 years should be paying attention to what is happening right now.

hey if you have a 3060, or any GPU with 8GB or more sitting in a drawer right now, that thing can run 9 billion parameters of intelligence autonomously. and you don't know it yet. 2 hours ago i posted that 9B hit a ceiling. 2,699 lines across 11 files. blank screen. said the limit for autonomous multifile coding on 9 billion parameters is real. then i audited every file. found 11 bugs. exact file, exact line, exact fix. duplicate variable declarations killing the script loader. a canvas reference never connected to the DOM. enemies with no movement logic. particle systems called on the class instead of the instance. fed that list as a single prompt to the same Qwen 3.5 9B on the same RTX 3060 through Hermes Agent. it fixed all 11. surgically. patch level edits across 4 files. no rewrites. no hallucinated changes. game boots. enemies spawn, move, collide. background renders. particles fire. and here's what nobody is talking about. this is a 9 billion parameter model running a full agentic framework. Hermes Agent with 31 tools. file operations, terminal, browser, code execution. not a single tool call failed. the agent chain never broke. most people think you need 70B+ for reliable tool use. this is 9B on 12 gigs doing it clean. the model didn't fail. my prompting strategy did. the ceiling is not the parameter count. the ceiling is how you prompt it. this is not done. bullets don't fire yet. boss fights need wiring. but the screen that was black 2 hours ago now has a full game rendering in real time. iterating right now. anyone with a GPU from the last 5 years should be paying attention to what is happening right now.

Sudo su

683,576 次观看 • 5 个月前

Claude Code Scheduled Tasks is now available... here's a solid idea to connect it with Telegram Save this so you don't forget to set it up! First, ask Claude to add a simple Telegram messaging module to your repo. You can use the Telegram Bot Builder Skill from Link: Install command: npx claude-code-templates@latest --skill enterprise-communication/telegram-bot-builder Once the module is in your project, grab your bot credentials from BotFather and add the bot ID to your .env file That's it! ✅ Now every Scheduled Task you create should end with an instruction for Claude to send the task result to Telegram using that module. Claude will handle the delivery automatically on every task it runs

Claude Code Scheduled Tasks is now available... here's a solid idea to connect it with Telegram Save this so you don't forget to set it up! First, ask Claude to add a simple Telegram messaging module to your repo. You can use the Telegram Bot Builder Skill from Link: Install command: npx claude-code-templates@latest --skill enterprise-communication/telegram-bot-builder Once the module is in your project, grab your bot credentials from BotFather and add the bot ID to your .env file That's it! ✅ Now every Scheduled Task you create should end with an instruction for Claude to send the task result to Telegram using that module. Claude will handle the delivery automatically on every task it runs

Daniel San

91,123 次观看 • 5 个月前

I just built a Meta ad policy checker in Claude Code that catches rejections BEFORE Meta does 🤯 Drop in your ad copy → it pulls Meta's LIVE Advertising Standards, checks every line against the actual policy text, and hands each ad a verdict: Cleared for launch, Fix before launch, or Grounded. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for media buyers and DTC brands who've had ads bounced — or an account restricted — and never got a straight answer why. If you're finding out about policy problems only after the rejection email, resubmitting the same ad and praying, losing days of delivery while the appeal sits in review, and every bounce quietly teaches Meta to trust your account a little less... This runs the review before Meta ever sees the ad: → Drop in your ad copy (one ad or a whole batch) → It reads each ad and figures out which of Meta's policies apply → Scrapes the live policy pages from Meta's Transparency Center → Flags the exact phrase that violates, with Meta's own policy quoted next to it → Rewrites the risky lines so the message survives but the violation doesn't → Renders a dashboard: every ad, every finding, every fix in one place No guessing which word killed the ad. No resubmit-and-pray loops. No stacking rejections on your account history. What you get: → A verdict on every ad before you spend a dollar → The violating phrase + the policy citation, side by side → Rewrites that keep the selling intent → A report you can hand straight to your team or client Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys, no Meta login. I'm giving away the complete Claude skill file. Want the skill for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

I just built a Meta ad policy checker in Claude Code that catches rejections BEFORE Meta does 🤯 Drop in your ad copy → it pulls Meta's LIVE Advertising Standards, checks every line against the actual policy text, and hands each ad a verdict: Cleared for launch, Fix before launch, or Grounded. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for media buyers and DTC brands who've had ads bounced — or an account restricted — and never got a straight answer why. If you're finding out about policy problems only after the rejection email, resubmitting the same ad and praying, losing days of delivery while the appeal sits in review, and every bounce quietly teaches Meta to trust your account a little less... This runs the review before Meta ever sees the ad: → Drop in your ad copy (one ad or a whole batch) → It reads each ad and figures out which of Meta's policies apply → Scrapes the live policy pages from Meta's Transparency Center → Flags the exact phrase that violates, with Meta's own policy quoted next to it → Rewrites the risky lines so the message survives but the violation doesn't → Renders a dashboard: every ad, every finding, every fix in one place No guessing which word killed the ad. No resubmit-and-pray loops. No stacking rejections on your account history. What you get: → A verdict on every ad before you spend a dollar → The violating phrase + the policy citation, side by side → Rewrites that keep the selling intent → A report you can hand straight to your team or client Built 100% in Claude Code. No API keys, no Meta login. I'm giving away the complete Claude skill file. Want the skill for free? > Like this post > Comment "META" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

17,246 次观看 • 27 天前

💬 We get asked Can I manage my strategies without clicking through the platform? ❕ Answer from a GT App Top Trader: Yes, and it’s a total game-changer. I’ve started using the GT Protocol MCP server to connect the platform directly to my AI agent. 🔸 Fast Integration Grab the MCP server from the GT Protocol GitHub and follow the repo guide, it’s a quick setup that only takes a couple of minutes. Once it’s ready, you can connect Claude, Cursor, or Claude Code to your account. Just tell your agent to authenticate, and your tokens will be saved automatically. 🔸 Trading via conversation Now, I use natural language for everything. For example, I just ask for a backtest, get the win rate in seconds, and deploy to a demo account with one command. 🔸 Instant monitoring I don't click around anymore. I just ask "What’s running right now?" to get a full breakdown of active bots and profits delivered straight into the chat. No more forms or clicking, just pure AI-driven trading! 👉 Get the MCP Server

💬 We get asked Can I manage my strategies without clicking through the platform? ❕ Answer from a GT App Top Trader: Yes, and it’s a total game-changer. I’ve started using the GT Protocol MCP server to connect the platform directly to my AI agent. 🔸 Fast Integration Grab the MCP server from the GT Protocol GitHub and follow the repo guide, it’s a quick setup that only takes a couple of minutes. Once it’s ready, you can connect Claude, Cursor, or Claude Code to your account. Just tell your agent to authenticate, and your tokens will be saved automatically. 🔸 Trading via conversation Now, I use natural language for everything. For example, I just ask for a backtest, get the win rate in seconds, and deploy to a demo account with one command. 🔸 Instant monitoring I don't click around anymore. I just ask "What’s running right now?" to get a full breakdown of active bots and profits delivered straight into the chat. No more forms or clicking, just pure AI-driven trading! 👉 Get the MCP Server

GT Protocol

36,479 次观看 • 3 个月前

let me save you 3 hours of head scratching. if you're running local models like Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through Claude Code via llama.cpp's Anthropic endpoint, the chain will break every 3 to 5 minutes. tool call fails. flow stops. you reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness chokes on local inference latency. switch to OpenCode. same localhost endpoint. same model. same GPU. the chain doesn't break. the tradeoff: OpenCode sometimes loops. the model forgets what it already read and repeats the same tool call. but a loop you can interrupt. a broken chain kills your momentum and you start over. watch both side by side. proprietary agent vs open source agent. same 3B model. different failure modes. pick your poison.

let me save you 3 hours of head scratching. if you're running local models like Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through Claude Code via llama.cpp's Anthropic endpoint, the chain will break every 3 to 5 minutes. tool call fails. flow stops. you reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness chokes on local inference latency. switch to OpenCode. same localhost endpoint. same model. same GPU. the chain doesn't break. the tradeoff: OpenCode sometimes loops. the model forgets what it already read and repeats the same tool call. but a loop you can interrupt. a broken chain kills your momentum and you start over. watch both side by side. proprietary agent vs open source agent. same 3B model. different failure modes. pick your poison.

Sudo su

72,538 次观看 • 5 个月前

Hermes meets SuperGrok! xAI just made every SuperGrok subscription work inside Hermes Agent. One browser login, no API key, no separate billing. And it doesn't just unlock text chat with Grok 4.3. The same OAuth token gives the agent access to: → Grok Text-to-Speech for spoken responses → Grok Imagine for image and video generation → x_search for real-time X/Twitter search I just added a new X Research Agent profile to my Hermes. Now my agent watches X while I ship. Setup takes about 60 seconds: Available on every SuperGrok tier, no restrictions. I wrote a full deep dive covering Hermes agent's architecture, memory system, self-evolving skills, GEPA optimization, and setting up multiple specialized agents The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

146,649 次观看 • 2 个月前

SOMEONE TURNED 33 PILES OF DEAD BOOKMARKS INTO A GRAVITY MAP CLAUDE REBUILDS ITSELF EVERY NIGHT - AND IT RUNS ON THE 80% OF CLAUDE NOBODY TOUCHES most people drive Claude Code like a chatbot with file access - type a prompt, watch it edit, move on. that's maybe 20% of the tool this is the opposite. she's not typing at Claude. she's running it - loops on a mac mini overnight, claude linking every node while she sleeps the gravity map in the video is just the 80% maxed out: 1 system that organizes itself, not a human babysitting a chat box the other 80% is a steering layer Anthropic shipped quietly on june 18 - 7 ways to instruct the model, and a stack of commands almost nobody opens /context to see your bloat. /clear between tasks. path-scoped rules, subagents, hooks - conventions that load themselves the exact second they matter i stopped typing at Claude months ago - now i configure it once and it shows up already running the work, 10x cleaner a prompt helps for 1 message. the steering layer pays you back every session, for life the people who learn it stop being users and become operators - everyone else is still arguing about which model is smartest the article below is the full map - all 4 layers, every file and command, start to finish

SOMEONE TURNED 33 PILES OF DEAD BOOKMARKS INTO A GRAVITY MAP CLAUDE REBUILDS ITSELF EVERY NIGHT - AND IT RUNS ON THE 80% OF CLAUDE NOBODY TOUCHES most people drive Claude Code like a chatbot with file access - type a prompt, watch it edit, move on. that's maybe 20% of the tool this is the opposite. she's not typing at Claude. she's running it - loops on a mac mini overnight, claude linking every node while she sleeps the gravity map in the video is just the 80% maxed out: 1 system that organizes itself, not a human babysitting a chat box the other 80% is a steering layer Anthropic shipped quietly on june 18 - 7 ways to instruct the model, and a stack of commands almost nobody opens /context to see your bloat. /clear between tasks. path-scoped rules, subagents, hooks - conventions that load themselves the exact second they matter i stopped typing at Claude months ago - now i configure it once and it shows up already running the work, 10x cleaner a prompt helps for 1 message. the steering layer pays you back every session, for life the people who learn it stop being users and become operators - everyone else is still arguing about which model is smartest the article below is the full map - all 4 layers, every file and command, start to finish

KingWilliam

12,305 次观看 • 1 个月前

Claude Code Agent Teams are f*cking ridiculous 🤯 One prompt → a team lead breaks your project into pieces, spins up multiple AI agents, and they all work on different parts simultaneously. Research, builds, reviews, and debugging: all happening at the same time. All inside Claude Code. If you're running complex projects where every step waits on the last one... Agent teams eliminate the entire bottleneck: → Tell Claude what you need and describe the team structure in plain English → A lead agent breaks the work into a shared task list → It spawns 3-5 teammates — each with their own context and workspace → Teammates research, build, test, and review in parallel → They message each other, share findings, and challenge each other's work → The lead synthesizes everything into a finished deliverable No managing agents yourself. No waiting for step 1 to finish before step 2 starts. No single-lens reviews that miss half the issues. What you get: → Competitive research across 5 brands done in minutes instead of hours → Multi-component builds where frontend, backend, and data layers happen simultaneously → Creative reviews from 3 different angles at once — brand voice, conversion, differentiation → Funnel debugging where 4 agents investigate 4 theories and debate until they find the real answer Built 100% in Claude Code with one settings change. I put together a full DTC playbook: 5 workflows with copy-paste prompts, the exact setup process, token management tips, and honest guidance on when agent teams are worth it vs. when a simpler approach is the better move. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "AGENTS" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

46,418 次观看 • 5 个月前

OpenAI's AgentKit will be so insane, build every step of agents on one platform. These visual agent builders make the whole process of iterating and launching agents far more efficient. It sits on top of the Responses API and unifies the tools that were previously scattered across SDKs and custom orchestration. It lets developers create agent workflows visually, connect data sources securely, and measure performance automatically without coding every layer by hand. The core of AgentKit is the Agent Builder, a drag-and-drop canvas where each node represents an action, guardrail, or decision branch. Developers can link these nodes into multi-agent workflows, preview results instantly, and version each setup. It supports inline evaluation so that developers can see how changes affect output before deploying. The Connector Registry is a single admin panel that manages how data and tools connect across the OpenAI ecosystem. It centralizes integrations like Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox, and Microsoft Teams. Large organizations can govern access and flow of data between agents securely under one global console. ChatKit provides a ready-to-use chat interface for embedding agents inside apps or websites. It manages streaming, message threads, and model reasoning displays automatically. Developers can skin the interface to match their product without writing custom front-end code. Under the hood, all these blocks use the same execution core that runs agent reasoning through OpenAI’s APIs. Workflows in Agent Builder compile down to structured instructions for the Responses API, which handles model calls, tool use, and context passing. Connector Registry handles authentication and routing for external tools, while Evals and RFT provide feedback loops that improve agents over time. This integration means developers no longer need to handle orchestration logic, model evaluation pipelines, or safety layers separately. Everything runs natively within OpenAI’s control plane with managed security, automatic versioning, and built-in testing. In short, AgentKit standardizes the entire life cycle of an AI agent—from visual design to deployment and performance tuning—inside a single unified system.

OpenAI's AgentKit will be so insane, build every step of agents on one platform. These visual agent builders make the whole process of iterating and launching agents far more efficient. It sits on top of the Responses API and unifies the tools that were previously scattered across SDKs and custom orchestration. It lets developers create agent workflows visually, connect data sources securely, and measure performance automatically without coding every layer by hand. The core of AgentKit is the Agent Builder, a drag-and-drop canvas where each node represents an action, guardrail, or decision branch. Developers can link these nodes into multi-agent workflows, preview results instantly, and version each setup. It supports inline evaluation so that developers can see how changes affect output before deploying. The Connector Registry is a single admin panel that manages how data and tools connect across the OpenAI ecosystem. It centralizes integrations like Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox, and Microsoft Teams. Large organizations can govern access and flow of data between agents securely under one global console. ChatKit provides a ready-to-use chat interface for embedding agents inside apps or websites. It manages streaming, message threads, and model reasoning displays automatically. Developers can skin the interface to match their product without writing custom front-end code. Under the hood, all these blocks use the same execution core that runs agent reasoning through OpenAI’s APIs. Workflows in Agent Builder compile down to structured instructions for the Responses API, which handles model calls, tool use, and context passing. Connector Registry handles authentication and routing for external tools, while Evals and RFT provide feedback loops that improve agents over time. This integration means developers no longer need to handle orchestration logic, model evaluation pipelines, or safety layers separately. Everything runs natively within OpenAI’s control plane with managed security, automatic versioning, and built-in testing. In short, AgentKit standardizes the entire life cycle of an AI agent—from visual design to deployment and performance tuning—inside a single unified system.

Rohan Paul

178,460 次观看 • 10 个月前