Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 4-AGENT SETUP THAT CUTS A CODEBASE AUDIT FROM 3 DAYS TO 20 MINUTES you point it at a repo and walk away - it comes back with what breaks, ranked, patches already tested. repo → map → 4 auditors → rank → fix → verify →... report → back into the map the map cuts the repo by blast radius, not by folder - skip it and four agents audit the same three files and miss the one that ships broken. 4 auditors run in parallel with separate contexts - deps, secrets, dead code, hot paths, and none of them sees another's findings. rank is code, not an agent - sort by what breaks production, drop the duplicates, zero tokens. the fixer only opens patches for the top slice - a hundred findings nobody acts on is a report, not an audit. verify runs the suite on every patch and red goes back to the fixer - that patch only, never the whole batch. the back edge into the map is the whole trick - accepted findings become rules, so next week starts where this one ended. one human step in all of it: which fixes ship - 20 minutes instead of 3 days. save this and read the full graph engineering course below ↓show more

Hanako

15,424 subscribers

137,040 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 5-AGENT SETUP THAT TURNS ONE QUESTION INTO A SOURCED REPORT you write one line and never open a tab - the fleet reads 40 sources and only the answer comes back. question → scope → 5 searchers → dedupe → writer → fact-check → report the scope agent turns a vague question into 5 angles that do not overlap - skip this and five agents fetch the same three articles. 5 searchers run in parallel with separate contexts - none of them sees what the others found, which is exactly why they do not converge on the same source. dedupe is code, not an agent - flatten, drop repeats, normalize URLs, zero tokens, instant. the writer only sees structured findings, never raw pages - it cannot cite something that was never verified because it never had access to it. the fact-checker reads the draft against the sources, not against itself - every claim without a matching source goes back, and only that section is rewritten. nothing reaches you until a second agent, with clean context, has tried to kill it. 12 minutes, 40 sources, one report where every line traces back to something real. save this and read the full graph engineering course below ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 5-AGENT SETUP THAT TURNS ONE QUESTION INTO A SOURCED REPORT you write one line and never open a tab - the fleet reads 40 sources and only the answer comes back. question → scope → 5 searchers → dedupe → writer → fact-check → report the scope agent turns a vague question into 5 angles that do not overlap - skip this and five agents fetch the same three articles. 5 searchers run in parallel with separate contexts - none of them sees what the others found, which is exactly why they do not converge on the same source. dedupe is code, not an agent - flatten, drop repeats, normalize URLs, zero tokens, instant. the writer only sees structured findings, never raw pages - it cannot cite something that was never verified because it never had access to it. the fact-checker reads the draft against the sources, not against itself - every claim without a matching source goes back, and only that section is rewritten. nothing reaches you until a second agent, with clean context, has tried to kill it. 12 minutes, 40 sources, one report where every line traces back to something real. save this and read the full graph engineering course below ↓

Hanako

59,030 views • 1 month ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-AGENT SETUP THAT TURNS ONE PROMPT INTO A FINISHED PR your name shows up in this process exactly once - at the very end, for 5 minutes. spec → planner → 3 builders → critic → scribe → PR → back into the spec the planner runs once and the whole line inherits its decisions - a bad plan executed by five perfect agents is still a bad result. 3 lanes build in parallel - and they only work because the planner cut the steps so none of them reads another's output. tests loop until green and red goes back to the coder - the critic never sees a broken build. the critic rejects to the plan, not the code - tests ask does it run, the critic asks should it exist. the scribe writes the PR from the trace, not from memory - cut this seat and you get 8 PRs nobody can tell apart. the back edge into the spec is the whole trick - today's failures become tomorrow's constraints without you typing them. one human step in the whole thing: approve or send back - 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save this and read the full graph engineering course below ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-AGENT SETUP THAT TURNS ONE PROMPT INTO A FINISHED PR your name shows up in this process exactly once - at the very end, for 5 minutes. spec → planner → 3 builders → critic → scribe → PR → back into the spec the planner runs once and the whole line inherits its decisions - a bad plan executed by five perfect agents is still a bad result. 3 lanes build in parallel - and they only work because the planner cut the steps so none of them reads another's output. tests loop until green and red goes back to the coder - the critic never sees a broken build. the critic rejects to the plan, not the code - tests ask does it run, the critic asks should it exist. the scribe writes the PR from the trace, not from memory - cut this seat and you get 8 PRs nobody can tell apart. the back edge into the spec is the whole trick - today's failures become tomorrow's constraints without you typing them. one human step in the whole thing: approve or send back - 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save this and read the full graph engineering course below ↓

Hanako

164,222 views • 1 month ago

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, but they have a ceiling: a loop makes one unit of work better. it cannot decide which units exist. so you end up with a very good agent running the wrong three steps, in the wrong order, one at a time. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: what runs, what runs at the same time, and what never runs at all. you need both. here's how it works: a graph splits your system into two kinds of decision. ↳ inside a unit: the loop. produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: the graph. split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs you get parallel work, isolated contexts, and steps that stop running when nothing needs them. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. a graph where every edge is an agent pays rent on its own wiring. one thing to know before you scale it. a graph has two return paths, and almost everyone builds one. ↳ the correction edge is short. a gate rejects one unit back to the step that produced it, and it fixes the run you are in ↳ the learning edge is long. an accepted result goes back to the splitter as a constraint, and it fixes every run after skip the second and you get a graph that is fast and never gets smarter. next week it starts from the same place with the same blind spots. and a smaller one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, but they have a ceiling: a loop makes one unit of work better. it cannot decide which units exist. so you end up with a very good agent running the wrong three steps, in the wrong order, one at a time. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: what runs, what runs at the same time, and what never runs at all. you need both. here's how it works: a graph splits your system into two kinds of decision. ↳ inside a unit: the loop. produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: the graph. split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs you get parallel work, isolated contexts, and steps that stop running when nothing needs them. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. a graph where every edge is an agent pays rent on its own wiring. one thing to know before you scale it. a graph has two return paths, and almost everyone builds one. ↳ the correction edge is short. a gate rejects one unit back to the step that produced it, and it fixes the run you are in ↳ the learning edge is long. an accepted result goes back to the splitter as a constraint, and it fixes every run after skip the second and you get a graph that is fast and never gets smarter. next week it starts from the same place with the same blind spots. and a smaller one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

73,867 views • 1 month ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 5 AGENTS WITH JEV BUILD A $1.2M A YEAR SYSTEM IN 30 MINUTES you pay $3.70 and walk away with an asset that can do $1.2M a year repo → data model → API → UI → evals no layer starts until the one under it is closed, and that edge is what turns five scripts into a system the operator on Haiku 4.5 brings up the repo and CI, the architect on Opus 5 lays down the data model and migrations two builders on Sonnet 5 run API and UI in parallel, and the reviewer on Opus 5.5 can keep finished code out of prod the evals were sitting in the file before the first line of code existed at minute zero there was not a single file, by the end it is a working product with payments and tests five agents cover in half an hour what a human team bills for a quarter JEV hands one line between layers instead of the whole history, so the next agent never re-reads the project and the run costs $3.70 instead of $370 the build takes 30 minutes, the first customers show up weeks later save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it assemble those 5 layers for you ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 5 AGENTS WITH JEV BUILD A $1.2M A YEAR SYSTEM IN 30 MINUTES you pay $3.70 and walk away with an asset that can do $1.2M a year repo → data model → API → UI → evals no layer starts until the one under it is closed, and that edge is what turns five scripts into a system the operator on Haiku 4.5 brings up the repo and CI, the architect on Opus 5 lays down the data model and migrations two builders on Sonnet 5 run API and UI in parallel, and the reviewer on Opus 5.5 can keep finished code out of prod the evals were sitting in the file before the first line of code existed at minute zero there was not a single file, by the end it is a working product with payments and tests five agents cover in half an hour what a human team bills for a quarter JEV hands one line between layers instead of the whole history, so the next agent never re-reads the project and the run costs $3.70 instead of $370 the build takes 30 minutes, the first customers show up weeks later save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it assemble those 5 layers for you ↓

Sprytix

14,208 views • 9 days ago

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

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

Hanako

97,154 views • 1 month ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED 8 RULES THAT GIVE ONE ENGINEER 8X FROM A SINGLE CHANGE the engineers built it so nothing adds up - it multiplies, and that's the 8x task → split → verify → score → write back one queue means you wait for every step in turn - three workers together cost you the slowest one, not the sum of all. as long as you're the one reading the diff, the bottleneck is you, not the model. state is written at every step - a crash mid-run costs you one step, not the whole session. history gets compressed 25 times over - the next pass starts at 8k instead of 200k. nothing moves forward without a number - "it got better" isn't a result, and the breakage comes back when you're no longer watching. the eighth rule is the only one that writes back into CLAUDE.md - the agent records what it learned, and the next run doesn't start from zero. copy this into Claude Code today - and tomorrow you work like an engineer on $1.5M a year ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED 8 RULES THAT GIVE ONE ENGINEER 8X FROM A SINGLE CHANGE the engineers built it so nothing adds up - it multiplies, and that's the 8x task → split → verify → score → write back one queue means you wait for every step in turn - three workers together cost you the slowest one, not the sum of all. as long as you're the one reading the diff, the bottleneck is you, not the model. state is written at every step - a crash mid-run costs you one step, not the whole session. history gets compressed 25 times over - the next pass starts at 8k instead of 200k. nothing moves forward without a number - "it got better" isn't a result, and the breakage comes back when you're no longer watching. the eighth rule is the only one that writes back into CLAUDE.md - the agent records what it learned, and the next run doesn't start from zero. copy this into Claude Code today - and tomorrow you work like an engineer on $1.5M a year ↓

Noisy

37,450 views • 1 month ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A SETUP WHERE ONE FILE STARTS 7 LOOPS THAT TURN A PROMPT INTO A WORKING BUSINESS AI engineer drops in 1 file - the other 95% of the work closes automatically without them. spec → tasks → code → tests → docs → release → monitoring → back into the spec you don't write tickets anymore - you write the thing tickets get derived from, and Opus 5 cuts the spec into 6 tasks by itself. a task that fails its test comes back to itself, not to you - and runs a second lap without a single notification. 6 lanes of code run in parallel and none of them wait on you - the critic filters the diff before you ever open it. every new production bug becomes a permanent line in the eval set - the system never steps on it twice. monitoring isn't the end of the line, it's the start of the next spec - those back edges are what make it a graph instead of a conveyor. and one place is left where you say yes - release, 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save this and paste it into Claude Code - and you get 7 loops that run without you ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A SETUP WHERE ONE FILE STARTS 7 LOOPS THAT TURN A PROMPT INTO A WORKING BUSINESS AI engineer drops in 1 file - the other 95% of the work closes automatically without them. spec → tasks → code → tests → docs → release → monitoring → back into the spec you don't write tickets anymore - you write the thing tickets get derived from, and Opus 5 cuts the spec into 6 tasks by itself. a task that fails its test comes back to itself, not to you - and runs a second lap without a single notification. 6 lanes of code run in parallel and none of them wait on you - the critic filters the diff before you ever open it. every new production bug becomes a permanent line in the eval set - the system never steps on it twice. monitoring isn't the end of the line, it's the start of the next spec - those back edges are what make it a graph instead of a conveyor. and one place is left where you say yes - release, 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save this and paste it into Claude Code - and you get 7 loops that run without you ↓

Sprytix

66,333 views • 1 month ago

Run your coding agent on a local model, with QVAC. OpenCode now plugs into a model on your own machine through our official plugin. That changes two things. Privacy by default. Your repo, your prompts, and every command the agent runs stay on your device. No third-party model ever sees your code. For an agent that reads your codebase and runs commands, that is the point, not a nice-to-have. New workflows. With no meter and no rate limit, the agent does not have to stop. Let it loop on a task, refactor a whole repo overnight, or run a watch-build-fix loop that keeps going. Setup takes a few minutes: one line in opencode.json and OpenCode runs on a local QVAC model. In the video demo, it handles three real developer tasks back to back, fully offline.

Run your coding agent on a local model, with QVAC. OpenCode now plugs into a model on your own machine through our official plugin. That changes two things. Privacy by default. Your repo, your prompts, and every command the agent runs stay on your device. No third-party model ever sees your code. For an agent that reads your codebase and runs commands, that is the point, not a nice-to-have. New workflows. With no meter and no rate limit, the agent does not have to stop. Let it loop on a task, refactor a whole repo overnight, or run a watch-build-fix loop that keeps going. Setup takes a few minutes: one line in opencode.json and OpenCode runs on a local QVAC model. In the video demo, it handles three real developer tasks back to back, fully offline.

QVAC

11,382,936 views • 3 months ago

$THIS MIGHT BE THE #1 OPEN-SOURCE REPO FOR CLAUDE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT GIVES CLAUDE A MEMORY AND SLASHES YOUR TOKEN COST ON EVERY QUESTION The repo is safishamsi/graphify, a free open-source skill that turns any codebase into a knowledge graph Claude Code can read instantly. Instead of grepping through your files every session, Claude gets a map of how everything connects The problem it fixes: Every time you ask Claude Code about a big repo, it does the same thing, greps through dozens of files like a brute-force Ctrl+F, blows through your context window, and sometimes still misses the answer hiding in a file nobody searched. Claude Code has no memory of how your project is structured. Every session starts from zero What it does: It maps your entire codebase into a knowledge graph, capturing not just which files exist, but which functions depend on which, which modules are central, and which files cluster around the same concern. Claude queries the map instead of scanning files How it works, three passes: 1. Code structure, free and local. Tree-sitter parses your files and pulls out classes, functions, imports and call graphs. No LLM, no tokens, just your actual code mapped deterministically 2. Audio and video, if you have them. Transcribed locally and folded into the graph 3. Docs, papers, images. Here an LLM does semantic analysis, figuring out what each document means and where it fits. Only the meaning gets sent up, never your raw source It saves you money: Normally a question about a big repo makes Claude spawn explore agents that scan file after file, eating your context window and your token budget before you get an answer. With the graph already built, Claude queries the map instead of re-reading the codebase every time. Same answer, a fraction of the tokens. The graph only gets built once, then a hook rebuilds it after each commit for free, so you never pay that scanning cost again. The bigger the repo, the bigger the gap The best parts: it's a skill, so once installed Claude knows when to use it without you memorizing commands. It works on non-code folders too, point it at docs or notes and it can spin up an Obsidian vault How to add it to your Claude: 1. Install Claude Code if you haven't: npm install -g Paul Jankura-ai/claude-code 2. Add the skill: claude skill add safishamsi/graphify 3. Open your project folder and run /graphify . to build the graph 4. Optional, make it automatic: graphify hook install so the graph rebuilds after every commit That's it. Ask Claude about your repo and it reads the map instead of burning tokens on a file hunt Bookmark this$

THIS MIGHT BE THE #1 OPEN-SOURCE REPO FOR CLAUDE CODE RIGHT NOW. IT GIVES CLAUDE A MEMORY AND SLASHES YOUR TOKEN COST ON EVERY QUESTION The repo is safishamsi/graphify, a free open-source skill that turns any codebase into a knowledge graph Claude Code can read instantly. Instead of grepping through your files every session, Claude gets a map of how everything connects The problem it fixes: Every time you ask Claude Code about a big repo, it does the same thing, greps through dozens of files like a brute-force Ctrl+F, blows through your context window, and sometimes still misses the answer hiding in a file nobody searched. Claude Code has no memory of how your project is structured. Every session starts from zero What it does: It maps your entire codebase into a knowledge graph, capturing not just which files exist, but which functions depend on which, which modules are central, and which files cluster around the same concern. Claude queries the map instead of scanning files How it works, three passes: 1. Code structure, free and local. Tree-sitter parses your files and pulls out classes, functions, imports and call graphs. No LLM, no tokens, just your actual code mapped deterministically 2. Audio and video, if you have them. Transcribed locally and folded into the graph 3. Docs, papers, images. Here an LLM does semantic analysis, figuring out what each document means and where it fits. Only the meaning gets sent up, never your raw source It saves you money: Normally a question about a big repo makes Claude spawn explore agents that scan file after file, eating your context window and your token budget before you get an answer. With the graph already built, Claude queries the map instead of re-reading the codebase every time. Same answer, a fraction of the tokens. The graph only gets built once, then a hook rebuilds it after each commit for free, so you never pay that scanning cost again. The bigger the repo, the bigger the gap The best parts: it's a skill, so once installed Claude knows when to use it without you memorizing commands. It works on non-code folders too, point it at docs or notes and it can spin up an Obsidian vault How to add it to your Claude: 1. Install Claude Code if you haven't: npm install -g Paul Jankura-ai/claude-code 2. Add the skill: claude skill add safishamsi/graphify 3. Open your project folder and run /graphify . to build the graph 4. Optional, make it automatic: graphify hook install so the graph rebuilds after every commit That's it. Ask Claude about your repo and it reads the map instead of burning tokens on a file hunt Bookmark this

Yarchi

56,502 views • 3 months ago

Memory vs. Graphs, clearly explained! memory is great, and the ceiling arrives quietly: it stores what happened. it does not store what to do about it. six runs later your file has fifty lines, and the model reloads all of them before it does anything. Graph engineering fixes this by changing what memory is: not a place things are kept, but an edge that runs backwards. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: a store keeps what happened. an edge keeps what to do about it. ↳ a store grows with every run, and every line is reloaded before the next one ↳ an edge carries one derived rule, and the rule replaces the run that produced it Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the transcript goes away, the constraint stays. and the constraint is smaller, because "adapters preserve keyword args exactly" is four hundred tokens shorter than the run that proved it. the same four blocks work on anything you can cut into lanes. i pointed them at token launches on Robinhood Chain, open source, nothing leaves your terminal the trick is knowing what deserves to survive. an output is not memory. "ported the utils slice, green on first pass" tells the next run nothing it can act on. the rule you derived from it does. one thing to know before you scale it. what you write down is not what comes back. ↳ the root rules file and auto memory are re-injected from disk. they come back intact, every time ↳ path-scoped rules live in message history. they get summarized away and do not return until a matching file is read again so a rule that must persist cannot be path-scoped. move it to the root and pay the always-loaded cost, or accept that it is advisory in any long session. and the one that eats whole nights: a memory file that has never had a line deleted is not memory. it is a tax on every run you will ever make, and nobody reads it back. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this, and the repo that runs it is below ↓

Memory vs. Graphs, clearly explained! memory is great, and the ceiling arrives quietly: it stores what happened. it does not store what to do about it. six runs later your file has fifty lines, and the model reloads all of them before it does anything. Graph engineering fixes this by changing what memory is: not a place things are kept, but an edge that runs backwards. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: a store keeps what happened. an edge keeps what to do about it. ↳ a store grows with every run, and every line is reloaded before the next one ↳ an edge carries one derived rule, and the rule replaces the run that produced it Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the transcript goes away, the constraint stays. and the constraint is smaller, because "adapters preserve keyword args exactly" is four hundred tokens shorter than the run that proved it. the same four blocks work on anything you can cut into lanes. i pointed them at token launches on Robinhood Chain, open source, nothing leaves your terminal the trick is knowing what deserves to survive. an output is not memory. "ported the utils slice, green on first pass" tells the next run nothing it can act on. the rule you derived from it does. one thing to know before you scale it. what you write down is not what comes back. ↳ the root rules file and auto memory are re-injected from disk. they come back intact, every time ↳ path-scoped rules live in message history. they get summarized away and do not return until a matching file is read again so a rule that must persist cannot be path-scoped. move it to the root and pay the always-loaded cost, or accept that it is advisory in any long session. and the one that eats whole nights: a memory file that has never had a line deleted is not memory. it is a tax on every run you will ever make, and nobody reads it back. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this, and the repo that runs it is below ↓

Hanako

48,117 views • 27 days ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-LOOP SETUP THAT REPLACES A $3,000 AGENCY AND COSTS $59 A MONTH Microsoft and Google have been running this for a while - the gap against an agency is exactly 51x. an agency charged you for waiting, not for work - the brief walked from the strategist to the copywriter to the designer for weeks. here all 6 loops read one file on the same pass - there's nobody to wait on, and the calendar is empty. 51% of the bill is production on Sonnet 5, and only 5% is strategy on Opus 5 - the priciest model runs once a week. 22% of the whole bill sits on the batch queue at half rate - where nobody is waiting for an answer right now. the journal is the only loop that writes back into the root - which angle is dead, and next week starts tighter. the 6 loops bring you 3 angles a week - the final pick stays yours, and that's the part that never automates. save this and paste it into Claude Code - the loops remove the waiting, not the judgement ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-LOOP SETUP THAT REPLACES A $3,000 AGENCY AND COSTS $59 A MONTH Microsoft and Google have been running this for a while - the gap against an agency is exactly 51x. an agency charged you for waiting, not for work - the brief walked from the strategist to the copywriter to the designer for weeks. here all 6 loops read one file on the same pass - there's nobody to wait on, and the calendar is empty. 51% of the bill is production on Sonnet 5, and only 5% is strategy on Opus 5 - the priciest model runs once a week. 22% of the whole bill sits on the batch queue at half rate - where nobody is waiting for an answer right now. the journal is the only loop that writes back into the root - which angle is dead, and next week starts tighter. the 6 loops bring you 3 angles a week - the final pick stays yours, and that's the part that never automates. save this and paste it into Claude Code - the loops remove the waiting, not the judgement ↓

Noisy

10,557 views • 1 month ago

I vibecoded an app in 2 days. Adding one new feature now takes me a week and a pile of tokens. Fix login, streaks break. Fix streaks, login breaks. The AI just goes in circles. Has this happened to you? It's not you. Every new chat starts with zero memory of your app. So the agent re-reads 40 files, rebuilds helpers that already exist, and misses what your change touches. Repowise indexes your codebase and keeps it updated on every commit. Even a brand new chat window knows: > what's already built > what's connected to what > what breaks if you change it Your agent reads the map instead of guessing. 27x fewer tokens to load context. 89% fewer file reads. Save the hours, the tokens, and your sanity. Connect your repo:

NAYAK

47,402 views • 6 days ago

CLAUDE CODE + GROK + JEV - THE FILE WHERE THREE HEADS CLOSE A TICKET IN 9 MINUTES FOR $1.74 a month of this costs $208.80, the same 120 merges by hand are 300 hours and $28,500 ticket → plan → patch → tests → review → merge Claude Code on Opus 5.5 writes the patch, Grok reads it back and argues, Jev holds the gate and merges only on green tests three heads, and not one of them is allowed to push code to prod on its own 38 files read, 3 touched, +412 lines, 48 tests, and the first four failed, so the patch went back two minutes twenty later it was 48 of 48, and only then did Jev open the gate out of 120 patches Claude Code and Grok signed off on 78 straight away and had a fight about the other 22 those 22 arguments are the product, because a reviewer that never objects is just decoration the meter clocked $208.80 for the month, and to catch the human bill it would have to keep running for another 136 months and here is the brutal part of this file: 6 of the 94 merged tickets came back with bugs every one of them sat in the part of the code the test suite has never read, because coverage there is 61% two models in the same blind spot is not two opinions, it is one mistake signed twice save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it run your ticket through these three heads ↓

CLAUDE CODE + GROK + JEV - THE FILE WHERE THREE HEADS CLOSE A TICKET IN 9 MINUTES FOR $1.74 a month of this costs $208.80, the same 120 merges by hand are 300 hours and $28,500 ticket → plan → patch → tests → review → merge Claude Code on Opus 5.5 writes the patch, Grok reads it back and argues, Jev holds the gate and merges only on green tests three heads, and not one of them is allowed to push code to prod on its own 38 files read, 3 touched, +412 lines, 48 tests, and the first four failed, so the patch went back two minutes twenty later it was 48 of 48, and only then did Jev open the gate out of 120 patches Claude Code and Grok signed off on 78 straight away and had a fight about the other 22 those 22 arguments are the product, because a reviewer that never objects is just decoration the meter clocked $208.80 for the month, and to catch the human bill it would have to keep running for another 136 months and here is the brutal part of this file: 6 of the 94 merged tickets came back with bugs every one of them sat in the part of the code the test suite has never read, because coverage there is 61% two models in the same blind spot is not two opinions, it is one mistake signed twice save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it run your ticket through these three heads ↓

Sprytix

11,673 views • 3 days ago

one agent → a loop → a graph → a system that throttles itself Google just put the whole ladder in one free course. most people never leave the first rung. 2 hours 4 minutes, taught by two Google Cloud engineers. no signup, no paywall. 17:55 - build your first agent 39:55 - loop engineering: iterate, check, break 1:13:25 - graph engineering 1:35:27 - agents that throttle themselves 1:56:19 - the full graph for multi-agent systems the fourth one is the step nobody talks about. an agent that cannot throttle itself is not autonomous, it is just unattended. everyone builds one agent and calls it done. this is the version where the agents wire themselves into a graph and decide their own rate. and the thing that decides when one of them is allowed to stop is not in the course. that part you build yourself. bookmark and watch it today, then read the eval setup below

one agent → a loop → a graph → a system that throttles itself Google just put the whole ladder in one free course. most people never leave the first rung. 2 hours 4 minutes, taught by two Google Cloud engineers. no signup, no paywall. 17:55 - build your first agent 39:55 - loop engineering: iterate, check, break 1:13:25 - graph engineering 1:35:27 - agents that throttle themselves 1:56:19 - the full graph for multi-agent systems the fourth one is the step nobody talks about. an agent that cannot throttle itself is not autonomous, it is just unattended. everyone builds one agent and calls it done. this is the version where the agents wire themselves into a graph and decide their own rate. and the thing that decides when one of them is allowed to stop is not in the course. that part you build yourself. bookmark and watch it today, then read the eval setup below

Hanako

53,692 views • 2 months ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-AGENT ASSEMBLY LINE WHERE ONE PROMPT GOES IN AND A FINISHED PR COMES OUT your name shows up in this process exactly once - at the very end, for 5 minutes. prompt → planner → coder → tester → critic → scribe → PR Opus 5 plans once - a bad plan executed by five perfect agents is still a bad result. Sonnet 5 runs 3 parallel lanes - and they only work because the planner made the steps independent. tests loop until green and red goes back to the coder - the critic never sees a broken build. Opus 5 as the critic rejects to the plan, not the code - tests ask "does it run", the critic asks "should it exist". the PR description writes itself from the trace, not from memory - cut this seat and you get 8 PRs nobody can tell apart. one human step in the whole thing: approve or send back - 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save the setup - 2 models, 6 seats, 2 return paths ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-AGENT ASSEMBLY LINE WHERE ONE PROMPT GOES IN AND A FINISHED PR COMES OUT your name shows up in this process exactly once - at the very end, for 5 minutes. prompt → planner → coder → tester → critic → scribe → PR Opus 5 plans once - a bad plan executed by five perfect agents is still a bad result. Sonnet 5 runs 3 parallel lanes - and they only work because the planner made the steps independent. tests loop until green and red goes back to the coder - the critic never sees a broken build. Opus 5 as the critic rejects to the plan, not the code - tests ask "does it run", the critic asks "should it exist". the PR description writes itself from the trace, not from memory - cut this seat and you get 8 PRs nobody can tell apart. one human step in the whole thing: approve or send back - 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save the setup - 2 models, 6 seats, 2 return paths ↓

Sprytix

39,283 views • 1 month ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A $4.4M FILE WHERE 4 AGENTS BUILD A BUSINESS DOING $120K A MONTH IN 20 MINUTES four agents run for $0, and the business on top of them pulls $120,000 a month without a single salary scout → builder → seller → critic → back to the scout the scout finds who buys and at what price, the builder makes the page and the checkout the seller writes the offer and the outreach, the critic decides whether it ships at all Haiku 4.5 searches, two Sonnet 5 build and sell, Opus 5 passes the verdict no agent grades its own work - each one is checked by the next in the ring and the ring closes: the critic checks the scout one agent always gives itself an A, four in a ring never do a kickoff meeting alone takes 60 minutes, here the whole business is done in 20 $120,000 a month is 401 customers at $299 but all four come from one model family, and they share one blind spot the agents catch the errors at the edges, the one down the middle only you catch save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you this ring ↓

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A $4.4M FILE WHERE 4 AGENTS BUILD A BUSINESS DOING $120K A MONTH IN 20 MINUTES four agents run for $0, and the business on top of them pulls $120,000 a month without a single salary scout → builder → seller → critic → back to the scout the scout finds who buys and at what price, the builder makes the page and the checkout the seller writes the offer and the outreach, the critic decides whether it ships at all Haiku 4.5 searches, two Sonnet 5 build and sell, Opus 5 passes the verdict no agent grades its own work - each one is checked by the next in the ring and the ring closes: the critic checks the scout one agent always gives itself an A, four in a ring never do a kickoff meeting alone takes 60 minutes, here the whole business is done in 20 $120,000 a month is 401 customers at $299 but all four come from one model family, and they share one blind spot the agents catch the errors at the edges, the one down the middle only you catch save this and paste it into Claude Code - let it build you this ring ↓

Sprytix

43,407 views • 15 days ago

Context vs. Graphs, clearly explained! context engineering is great, but it has a ceiling: you can make one window perfect. there is still only one of it. every technique on that layer is rationing the same scarce thing. compact, retrieve less, delete, defer. all of it is deciding what to drop. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not what goes in the window, but how many windows there are and what each one is for. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ inside a window: context engineering. what loads, in what order, what gets compacted ↳ between windows: the graph. how many lanes, what each one is allowed to see, what comes back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs each lane gets a clean window, nothing in one competes with anything in another, and your main thread stops filling up. the trick is being selective about what comes back. a subagent reads six thousand tokens of files and hands you a four hundred token summary. that ratio is the whole point. send back the raw material instead and you have moved the problem, not solved it. one thing to know before you scale it. not everything survives compaction equally, and almost nobody knows the table. ↳ the project-root rules file and auto memory are re-injected from disk. they come back intact ↳ path-scoped rules and nested rules files live in message history. they get summarized away and do not return until a matching file is read again so a rule that genuinely must persist cannot be path-scoped. move it to the root and pay the always-loaded cost, or accept that it is advisory in any long session. and the one that eats whole nights: shared context makes parallel agents converge. four auditors on one window produce one opinion with three echoes. you paid four times for it. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Context vs. Graphs, clearly explained! context engineering is great, but it has a ceiling: you can make one window perfect. there is still only one of it. every technique on that layer is rationing the same scarce thing. compact, retrieve less, delete, defer. all of it is deciding what to drop. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not what goes in the window, but how many windows there are and what each one is for. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ inside a window: context engineering. what loads, in what order, what gets compacted ↳ between windows: the graph. how many lanes, what each one is allowed to see, what comes back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs each lane gets a clean window, nothing in one competes with anything in another, and your main thread stops filling up. the trick is being selective about what comes back. a subagent reads six thousand tokens of files and hands you a four hundred token summary. that ratio is the whole point. send back the raw material instead and you have moved the problem, not solved it. one thing to know before you scale it. not everything survives compaction equally, and almost nobody knows the table. ↳ the project-root rules file and auto memory are re-injected from disk. they come back intact ↳ path-scoped rules and nested rules files live in message history. they get summarized away and do not return until a matching file is read again so a rule that genuinely must persist cannot be path-scoped. move it to the root and pay the always-loaded cost, or accept that it is advisory in any long session. and the one that eats whole nights: shared context makes parallel agents converge. four auditors on one window produce one opinion with three echoes. you paid four times for it. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

36,970 views • 1 month ago

Anthropic ex-engineer runs an internal graph that costs $6 a month and catches what a $300,000 eval suite misses. No retrieval layer. Seven nodes and one rule about who's allowed to change their mind. He published the whole schema. His version starts from the opposite idea. A graph is not an execution order. It's a memory of why. Seven nodes. Every edge carries the reason it exists: > INTENT - states what the task is for. Never how > DECOMPOSE - splits it into steps, each with a stated assumption > WORKER - executes one step. Sees nothing else > AUDIT - checks the output against the assumption, not the goal > DRIFT - compares the current step to INTENT and flags divergence > LEDGER - stores every decision with the assumption that justified it > ROOT - holds the graph, and when an assumption breaks, re-runs every step built on it Six nodes act. One node remembers why they acted. Every step carries the assumption that made it correct, so a false one only reruns what stood on it. That's the entire design. A pipeline that forgets its reasons has to redo all of it or trust all of it. He replayed a month of agent runs. 4,100 steps, 380 built on an assumption that was wrong by day three. The old pipeline shipped all 380 and linked none of them. Everyone else builds graphs where output moves forward and the reasoning evaporates. He built one where the reason travels with the result. The blast radius is the output nobody else produces. The article below is the full build - node prompts, the assumption format, the invalidation rule that finds every step downstream of a broken one. Save it. You'll want it open in the other

Anthropic ex-engineer runs an internal graph that costs $6 a month and catches what a $300,000 eval suite misses. No retrieval layer. Seven nodes and one rule about who's allowed to change their mind. He published the whole schema. His version starts from the opposite idea. A graph is not an execution order. It's a memory of why. Seven nodes. Every edge carries the reason it exists: > INTENT - states what the task is for. Never how > DECOMPOSE - splits it into steps, each with a stated assumption > WORKER - executes one step. Sees nothing else > AUDIT - checks the output against the assumption, not the goal > DRIFT - compares the current step to INTENT and flags divergence > LEDGER - stores every decision with the assumption that justified it > ROOT - holds the graph, and when an assumption breaks, re-runs every step built on it Six nodes act. One node remembers why they acted. Every step carries the assumption that made it correct, so a false one only reruns what stood on it. That's the entire design. A pipeline that forgets its reasons has to redo all of it or trust all of it. He replayed a month of agent runs. 4,100 steps, 380 built on an assumption that was wrong by day three. The old pipeline shipped all 380 and linked none of them. Everyone else builds graphs where output moves forward and the reasoning evaporates. He built one where the reason travels with the result. The blast radius is the output nobody else produces. The article below is the full build - node prompts, the assumption format, the invalidation rule that finds every step downstream of a broken one. Save it. You'll want it open in the other

wast3

307,512 views • 1 month ago

THE HEAD ENGINEER AT ANTHROPIC LEAKED A SETUP WHERE ONE FILE TURNS INTO A FINISHED PRODUCT IN 24 HOURS you hire nobody - you paste a $3.2M file into Fable 5, and the system unrolls itself from there. root → wiring → 4 branches → tests → release → back into the root in the first hour you write 4 things: boundaries, stack, roles, escalation - everything downstream is a consequence of that file. the first 5 hours the system wires itself into tools and only then decides what to build - a team would spread that across two weeks. 8 straight hours run 4 parallel branches with zero meetings - the same block a team fills with standups. by the time you finally open the diff, tests and the critic have already rejected it twice. the changelog is written by the run, not by a human from memory - so it never falls behind the code. your total involvement across the day is exactly 2 hours: the first one, and the one where you say ship it. the 9 hours you were asleep weren't downtime, they were capacity - a queue you have to launch by hand becomes your monday. and the key part: at 05:00 the report rewrites that same root - what shipped, what got rejected, what it cost. without that last line this is just a schedule - with it, the schedule improves itself. save this and paste it into Claude Code - and tomorrow starts from a better file than today did ↓

THE HEAD ENGINEER AT ANTHROPIC LEAKED A SETUP WHERE ONE FILE TURNS INTO A FINISHED PRODUCT IN 24 HOURS you hire nobody - you paste a $3.2M file into Fable 5, and the system unrolls itself from there. root → wiring → 4 branches → tests → release → back into the root in the first hour you write 4 things: boundaries, stack, roles, escalation - everything downstream is a consequence of that file. the first 5 hours the system wires itself into tools and only then decides what to build - a team would spread that across two weeks. 8 straight hours run 4 parallel branches with zero meetings - the same block a team fills with standups. by the time you finally open the diff, tests and the critic have already rejected it twice. the changelog is written by the run, not by a human from memory - so it never falls behind the code. your total involvement across the day is exactly 2 hours: the first one, and the one where you say ship it. the 9 hours you were asleep weren't downtime, they were capacity - a queue you have to launch by hand becomes your monday. and the key part: at 05:00 the report rewrites that same root - what shipped, what got rejected, what it cost. without that last line this is just a schedule - with it, the schedule improves itself. save this and paste it into Claude Code - and tomorrow starts from a better file than today did ↓

Sprytix

20,755 views • 1 month ago

Sherlock AI is the security homebase for Web3 engineering teams. Pick a repo, branch, and commit, start a run, and get visibility into vulnerabilities and attack paths tied to the code you’re about to ship. The payoff is simple: it gives engineers time back. Less time doing manual review. Less time getting a repo “audit-ready.” Less time stuck in remediation loops and follow-up reviews after every fix. Sherlock AI catches issues earlier and lets teams verify patches on the next commit, so devs can focus on building. AI auditing is the new baseline. Protocols that adopt it ship faster. Protocols that don’t will keep paying the same tax in time, churn, and rework.

Sherlock AI is the security homebase for Web3 engineering teams. Pick a repo, branch, and commit, start a run, and get visibility into vulnerabilities and attack paths tied to the code you’re about to ship. The payoff is simple: it gives engineers time back. Less time doing manual review. Less time getting a repo “audit-ready.” Less time stuck in remediation loops and follow-up reviews after every fix. Sherlock AI catches issues earlier and lets teams verify patches on the next commit, so devs can focus on building. AI auditing is the new baseline. Protocols that adopt it ship faster. Protocols that don’t will keep paying the same tax in time, churn, and rework.

SHERLOCK

1,391,475 views • 8 months ago