Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

CopilotKit Open Sources Channels SDK: An MIT Licensed Library That Runs Any AG-UI Agent Inside Slack And Microsoft Teams No per-platform rewrite. No platform credentials in your agent process. No second agent to maintain. Here's how it works: 1. Describe once, render native One message description is lowered to...

Marktechpost's profile picture

Marktechpost AI

11,659 subscribers

42,673 views • 29 days ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

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)
0:10

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

46,458 views • 6 months ago

Introducing the Agent Virtual Machine (AVM) Think V8 for agents. AI agents are currently running on your computer with no unified security, no resource limits, and no visibility into what data they're sending out. Every agent framework builds its own security model, its own sandboxing, its own permission system. You configure each one separately. You audit each one separately. You hope you didn't miss anything in any of them. The AVM changes this. It's a single runtime daemon (avmd) that sits between every agent framework and your operating system. Install it once, configure one policy file, and every agent on your machine runs inside it - regardless of which framework built it. The AVM enforces security (91-pattern injection scanner, tool/file/network ACLs, approval prompts), protects your privacy (classifies every outbound byte for PII, credentials, and financial data - blocks or alerts in real-time), and governs resources (you say "50% CPU, 4GB RAM" and the AVM fair-shares it across all agents, halting any that exceed their budget). One config. One audit command. One kill switch. The architectural model is V8 for agents. Chrome, Node.js, and Deno are different products but they share V8 as their execution engine. Agent frameworks bring the UX. The AVM brings the trust. Where needed, AVM can also generate zero-knowledge proofs of agent execution via 25 purpose-built opcodes and 6 proof systems, providing the foundational pillar for the agent-to-agent economy. AVM v0.1.0 - Changelog - Security gate: 5-layer injection scanner with 91 compiled regex patterns. Every input and output scanned. Fail-closed - nothing passes without clearing the gate. - Privacy layer: Classifies all outbound data for PII, credentials, and financial info (27 detection patterns + Luhn validation). Block, ask, warn, or allow per category. Tamper-evident hash-chained log of every egress event. - Resource governor: User sets system-wide caps (CPU/memory/disk/network). AVM fair-shares across all agents. Gas budget per agent - when gas runs out, execution halts. No agent starves your machine. - Sandbox execution: Real code execution in isolated process sandboxes (rlimits, env sanitization) or Docker containers (--cap-drop ALL, --network none, --read-only). AVM auto-selects the tier - agents never choose their own sandbox. - Approval flow: Dangerous operations (file writes, shell commands, network requests) trigger interactive approval prompts. 5-minute timeout auto-denies. Every decision logged. - CLI dashboard: hyperspace-avm top shows all running agents, resource usage, gas budgets, security events, and privacy stats in one live-updating screen. - Node.js SDK: Zero-dependency hyperspace/avm package. AVM.tryConnect() for graceful fallback - if avmd isn't running, the agent framework uses its own execution path. OpenClaw adapter example included. - One config for all agents: ~/.hyperspace/avm-policy.json governs every agent framework on your machine. One file. One audit. One kill switch.
0:15

Introducing the Agent Virtual Machine (AVM) Think V8 for agents. AI agents are currently running on your computer with no unified security, no resource limits, and no visibility into what data they're sending out. Every agent framework builds its own security model, its own sandboxing, its own permission system. You configure each one separately. You audit each one separately. You hope you didn't miss anything in any of them. The AVM changes this. It's a single runtime daemon (avmd) that sits between every agent framework and your operating system. Install it once, configure one policy file, and every agent on your machine runs inside it - regardless of which framework built it. The AVM enforces security (91-pattern injection scanner, tool/file/network ACLs, approval prompts), protects your privacy (classifies every outbound byte for PII, credentials, and financial data - blocks or alerts in real-time), and governs resources (you say "50% CPU, 4GB RAM" and the AVM fair-shares it across all agents, halting any that exceed their budget). One config. One audit command. One kill switch. The architectural model is V8 for agents. Chrome, Node.js, and Deno are different products but they share V8 as their execution engine. Agent frameworks bring the UX. The AVM brings the trust. Where needed, AVM can also generate zero-knowledge proofs of agent execution via 25 purpose-built opcodes and 6 proof systems, providing the foundational pillar for the agent-to-agent economy. AVM v0.1.0 - Changelog - Security gate: 5-layer injection scanner with 91 compiled regex patterns. Every input and output scanned. Fail-closed - nothing passes without clearing the gate. - Privacy layer: Classifies all outbound data for PII, credentials, and financial info (27 detection patterns + Luhn validation). Block, ask, warn, or allow per category. Tamper-evident hash-chained log of every egress event. - Resource governor: User sets system-wide caps (CPU/memory/disk/network). AVM fair-shares across all agents. Gas budget per agent - when gas runs out, execution halts. No agent starves your machine. - Sandbox execution: Real code execution in isolated process sandboxes (rlimits, env sanitization) or Docker containers (--cap-drop ALL, --network none, --read-only). AVM auto-selects the tier - agents never choose their own sandbox. - Approval flow: Dangerous operations (file writes, shell commands, network requests) trigger interactive approval prompts. 5-minute timeout auto-denies. Every decision logged. - CLI dashboard: hyperspace-avm top shows all running agents, resource usage, gas budgets, security events, and privacy stats in one live-updating screen. - Node.js SDK: Zero-dependency hyperspace/avm package. AVM.tryConnect() for graceful fallback - if avmd isn't running, the agent framework uses its own execution path. OpenClaw adapter example included. - One config for all agents: ~/.hyperspace/avm-policy.json governs every agent framework on your machine. One file. One audit. One kill switch.

Varun

142,992 views • 5 months ago

OpenClaw, but built for normal people. Sim is an open-source platform that lets you build AI agent workflows on a drag-and-drop canvas. Connect them to channels like Telegram and WhatsApp and deploy without writing a single line of code. They also have a built-in Copilot that generates entire workflows from plain English, which you can then tweak and customize in the UI. Key features: - Free and open-source (Apache 2.0) - Vector store integration for RAG-grounded agents - Self-host with one command (`npx simstudio`) - Run fully local with Ollama, no API keys needed - Supports vLLM for production-grade self-hosted inference The thing I really like about Sim is the level of control you get. You can add conditional branching, parallel execution, human-in-the-loop approval gates, and even nest workflows inside other workflows. Everything is visible on the canvas, so you know exactly what your agent is doing at every step. And you can build a workflow in Sim, deploy it as an MCP server, and plug it into any agent, including OpenClaw. I've shared the link to Sim's GitHub repo in the next tweet.
0:14

OpenClaw, but built for normal people. Sim is an open-source platform that lets you build AI agent workflows on a drag-and-drop canvas. Connect them to channels like Telegram and WhatsApp and deploy without writing a single line of code. They also have a built-in Copilot that generates entire workflows from plain English, which you can then tweak and customize in the UI. Key features: - Free and open-source (Apache 2.0) - Vector store integration for RAG-grounded agents - Self-host with one command (`npx simstudio`) - Run fully local with Ollama, no API keys needed - Supports vLLM for production-grade self-hosted inference The thing I really like about Sim is the level of control you get. You can add conditional branching, parallel execution, human-in-the-loop approval gates, and even nest workflows inside other workflows. Everything is visible on the canvas, so you know exactly what your agent is doing at every step. And you can build a workflow in Sim, deploy it as an MCP server, and plug it into any agent, including OpenClaw. I've shared the link to Sim's GitHub repo in the next tweet.

Akshay 🚀

52,426 views • 6 months ago

300 AI AGENTS QUIETLY RUN 99% OF A REAL COMPANY. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD OF IT This is Raft. Not an AI chat. A workspace where the agents live in your channels and reply in the thread like coworkers. You give one goal. Then they take over. They plan. They build. They check each other. They argue. And they come back with it done, while you sleep. Every agent has its own name, role, and memory. It remembers the edits you made yesterday. A human costs one seat. An agent costs a tenth. Ten agents are cheaper than one hire. And here is the strange part. On June 19 an agent from a different company walked into Raft on its own and joined the team. One founder admits he can no longer always tell himself apart from his AI twin. 20,000 people are already inside. It is free to start. And you are still typing prompts one at a time. One person + Raft = an entire company that runs while you sleep. Save and watch the clip.
0:16

300 AI AGENTS QUIETLY RUN 99% OF A REAL COMPANY. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD OF IT This is Raft. Not an AI chat. A workspace where the agents live in your channels and reply in the thread like coworkers. You give one goal. Then they take over. They plan. They build. They check each other. They argue. And they come back with it done, while you sleep. Every agent has its own name, role, and memory. It remembers the edits you made yesterday. A human costs one seat. An agent costs a tenth. Ten agents are cheaper than one hire. And here is the strange part. On June 19 an agent from a different company walked into Raft on its own and joined the team. One founder admits he can no longer always tell himself apart from his AI twin. 20,000 people are already inside. It is free to start. And you are still typing prompts one at a time. One person + Raft = an entire company that runs while you sleep. Save and watch the clip.

shmidt

19,505 views • 1 month ago

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 ↓
0:15

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

Argona

157,118 views • 1 month ago

Another WTF moment. A developer just open-sourced a coding agent harness that boots 245x faster than Claude Code. It's called jcode. You launch it and the first frame renders in 14 milliseconds. Claude Code takes 3,436. One active session uses 27.8 MB of RAM. Claude Code uses 386.6. Run ten sessions in parallel and jcode holds at 117 MB while OpenCode swells to 3.2 GB. Each agent has a semantic memory graph instead of a scratchpad. Every turn gets embedded as a vector. The graph is queried on every turn for related memories, and a sideagent verifies the hits before injecting them into context. Consolidation runs in the background to check for stale or conflicting facts. No manual /remember calls. No token burn on lookup tools. The provider list is 30+ deep. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Azure, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Groq, Mistral, Perplexity, Fireworks, Ollama, LM Studio, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint you point it at. Ran out of tokens on your first ChatGPT Pro sub? /account swaps to the second. Then there's Swarm. Spawn two agents in the same repo and the server manages them. When agent A edits a file agent B has been reading, agent B gets pinged and can check the diff. Agents can DM each other, broadcast to the room, or spawn their own worker teams for parallel tasks. Groups, channels, and completion statuses are handled automatically. The UI has live side panels that render mermaid diagrams inline. To make it fast, the author wrote a Rust mermaid renderer 1800x faster than the JavaScript one, then wrote a custom terminal called Handterm because no existing terminal could do smooth partial-line scrolling. Self-dev mode is where it gets wild. Tell your agent to enter self-dev and it starts editing jcode's own source code, rebuilds the binary, reloads it live, and keeps working across your existing sessions. You can also resume broken sessions from Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or pi directly inside jcode. Anthropic's cache goes cold at the 5-minute mark and you're staring down a big cache miss on your next turn? The UI warns you before you spend the tokens. Written in Rust. MIT licensed. Runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Termux. Sitting at 11.2k stars with a native iOS app coming.
0:17

Another WTF moment. A developer just open-sourced a coding agent harness that boots 245x faster than Claude Code. It's called jcode. You launch it and the first frame renders in 14 milliseconds. Claude Code takes 3,436. One active session uses 27.8 MB of RAM. Claude Code uses 386.6. Run ten sessions in parallel and jcode holds at 117 MB while OpenCode swells to 3.2 GB. Each agent has a semantic memory graph instead of a scratchpad. Every turn gets embedded as a vector. The graph is queried on every turn for related memories, and a sideagent verifies the hits before injecting them into context. Consolidation runs in the background to check for stale or conflicting facts. No manual /remember calls. No token burn on lookup tools. The provider list is 30+ deep. Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, Azure, OpenRouter, DeepSeek, Groq, Mistral, Perplexity, Fireworks, Ollama, LM Studio, and any OpenAI-compatible endpoint you point it at. Ran out of tokens on your first ChatGPT Pro sub? /account swaps to the second. Then there's Swarm. Spawn two agents in the same repo and the server manages them. When agent A edits a file agent B has been reading, agent B gets pinged and can check the diff. Agents can DM each other, broadcast to the room, or spawn their own worker teams for parallel tasks. Groups, channels, and completion statuses are handled automatically. The UI has live side panels that render mermaid diagrams inline. To make it fast, the author wrote a Rust mermaid renderer 1800x faster than the JavaScript one, then wrote a custom terminal called Handterm because no existing terminal could do smooth partial-line scrolling. Self-dev mode is where it gets wild. Tell your agent to enter self-dev and it starts editing jcode's own source code, rebuilds the binary, reloads it live, and keeps working across your existing sessions. You can also resume broken sessions from Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, or pi directly inside jcode. Anthropic's cache goes cold at the 5-minute mark and you're staring down a big cache miss on your next turn? The UI warns you before you spend the tokens. Written in Rust. MIT licensed. Runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Termux. Sitting at 11.2k stars with a native iOS app coming.

Brady Long

205,781 views • 1 month ago

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.
0:10

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 views • 11 months ago

more frontend vibecoding tips (results below): WHY YOUR VIBECODED FRONTENDS ALL LOOK THE SAME AND SUCK: when asked to make a frontend, the agent/llm will default to the center/average of its training data (in a very loose sense). through the training process, the model essentially converges on some default UI style. it's very capable of doing things that are different from this style, but you have to ask! for instance, ChatGPT tends to reply in the same tone for all users untill you interact with it and instruct it differently ("be sassy", "eli5"). the second reason is that most of us are not good at coming up with designs and describing them precisely (see my tweet on a crash course in common components, which i'll link below). treat frontend generation just like any other eng task! you need to provide a good detailed spec. TIPS: 1. give ur agent screenshots of designs you like (you may not know the right words to describe them but the agent will! a pic = 1000 words) where to find ui inspo? Behance, Dribbble, Mobbin (Mobbin is paid but worth it!) 2. ask ur agent for proposals, this helps "seed" different directions so the final frontend stands out. don't be afraid to go back and forth. 3. ban certain tendencies: no Inter/Roboto, no shadcn (controversial), no gradients, no emojis 4. encourage the agent to be extreme and make bold decisions, not safe ones. i think that the underlying models tend to get taught during RL/fine-tuning to make conservative choices that produce reasonable but boring frontends 5. give ur agent Figma MCP. the best results will come if you mockup your vision in Figma first. 6. Ideally choose an agent with vision capabilities TLDR: Most people are tremendously underusing agents for frontend design. They are much better than you might expect.
0:12

more frontend vibecoding tips (results below): WHY YOUR VIBECODED FRONTENDS ALL LOOK THE SAME AND SUCK: when asked to make a frontend, the agent/llm will default to the center/average of its training data (in a very loose sense). through the training process, the model essentially converges on some default UI style. it's very capable of doing things that are different from this style, but you have to ask! for instance, ChatGPT tends to reply in the same tone for all users untill you interact with it and instruct it differently ("be sassy", "eli5"). the second reason is that most of us are not good at coming up with designs and describing them precisely (see my tweet on a crash course in common components, which i'll link below). treat frontend generation just like any other eng task! you need to provide a good detailed spec. TIPS: 1. give ur agent screenshots of designs you like (you may not know the right words to describe them but the agent will! a pic = 1000 words) where to find ui inspo? Behance, Dribbble, Mobbin (Mobbin is paid but worth it!) 2. ask ur agent for proposals, this helps "seed" different directions so the final frontend stands out. don't be afraid to go back and forth. 3. ban certain tendencies: no Inter/Roboto, no shadcn (controversial), no gradients, no emojis 4. encourage the agent to be extreme and make bold decisions, not safe ones. i think that the underlying models tend to get taught during RL/fine-tuning to make conservative choices that produce reasonable but boring frontends 5. give ur agent Figma MCP. the best results will come if you mockup your vision in Figma first. 6. Ideally choose an agent with vision capabilities TLDR: Most people are tremendously underusing agents for frontend design. They are much better than you might expect.

andrew gao

64,712 views • 6 months ago

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense Google Research and MIT ran the same agent jobs 260 different ways for Nature last month: they held the prompts, the tools and the compute budget identical and moved nothing but the wiring between the agents, and the same work swung from 70% worse than a single agent to 80.8% better, averaging out at 0.0% i ran my own single agent against the task list first and it cleared 6 of 10 alone, already past the line where a crew starts subtracting this is Graph Engineering, the layer that decides whether a crew is worth 80% more or 70% less, and it installs into the agent you already pay for: - score your solo agent on the real task first: above roughly 45% success that study predicts zero to negative returns from any crew you put around it - under that line, put one supervisor over the fan out: crews with no correction step amplified their own errors to 17.2x the single agent rate, supervised aggregation held it to 4.4x - give every worker one output and let none of them read a peer's draft, so a wrong step reaches the supervisor instead of four other agents - run the comparison again after every model upgrade, because a better model raises your baseline and a higher baseline is what makes a crew stop paying - keep the single agent alive as the control, the only number that says the wiring is earning its calls turns out the shape does not travel: the biggest win came off a finance task under one supervisor and the worst collapse off a planning task with independent agents my position, and it is the arguable one: a crew is a bet on your own diagram, and the model you pick moves that bet less than one arrow does bookmark this, the three moves that draw those arrows before you pay for one extra call are in the post below ↓
0:15

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

Argona

890,363 views • 20 days ago

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.
0:16

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 views • 15 days ago

This n8n agent tracks your competitors' Facebook ads on autopilot 🤯 And drops a full AI breakdown in Slack every morning. Hooks. Offers. CTAs. Formats. All waiting for you before your first coffee. Perfect for e-comm brands & agencies who refuse to get outspent blindly. Here's the problem: Your competitors are testing 20+ new ads a week. New hooks, new angles, new offers. By the time you manually check the Ad Library, you've already missed the testing window. The winning creative is scaled. The moment is gone. This n8n automation stays on it for you: → Runs every morning automatically → Scrapes competitor ads via Foreplay API → AI analyzes each new ad (hook, CTA, offer, format) → Full breakdown delivered to Slack → Flags patterns and winning angles No manual Ad Library checks. No "wait, when did they launch that?" No falling behind while you're busy running your own ads. What lands in Slack every morning: - Every new ad from competitors you're tracking - AI breakdown of what hooks they're testing - Offers and CTAs they're pushing - Patterns in what's getting spend Built 100% in n8n. Want the full workflow? > Comment "SLACK" > Like this post And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)
0:18

This n8n agent tracks your competitors' Facebook ads on autopilot 🤯 And drops a full AI breakdown in Slack every morning. Hooks. Offers. CTAs. Formats. All waiting for you before your first coffee. Perfect for e-comm brands & agencies who refuse to get outspent blindly. Here's the problem: Your competitors are testing 20+ new ads a week. New hooks, new angles, new offers. By the time you manually check the Ad Library, you've already missed the testing window. The winning creative is scaled. The moment is gone. This n8n automation stays on it for you: → Runs every morning automatically → Scrapes competitor ads via Foreplay API → AI analyzes each new ad (hook, CTA, offer, format) → Full breakdown delivered to Slack → Flags patterns and winning angles No manual Ad Library checks. No "wait, when did they launch that?" No falling behind while you're busy running your own ads. What lands in Slack every morning: - Every new ad from competitors you're tracking - AI breakdown of what hooks they're testing - Offers and CTAs they're pushing - Patterns in what's getting spend Built 100% in n8n. Want the full workflow? > Comment "SLACK" > Like this post And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

27,424 views • 7 months ago

AgentLinter is here! Is your agent sharp & secure? I built AgentLinter, a linter for and agent config files. Here's why. Whether you're vibe-coding or agent-coding, your AI's output quality comes down to one thing: how well you wrote your But managing these files properly? Way harder than it looks. 🎯 The Silent Failure Problem Vague instructions like "write good code" let the agent interpret however it wants. Output gets inconsistent, but nothing throws an error. The failure is silent. Anthropic's own docs say write "Use 2-space indentation" not "Format code properly." But as the file grows, spotting these with your eyes alone is nearly impossible. 🔐 The Security Problem People hard-code API keys and tokens directly into or and commit them, way more often than you'd think. AgentLinter stats show 1 in 5 workspaces has exposed credentials. .gitignore doesn't catch secrets buried inside markdown files. 💥 The Consistency Problem Multiple config files = contradictions. says "be a friendly assistant," says "concise, direct tone." The agent gets confused. references files that don't exist. Past 5 files, these conflicts triple. So I thought: is code. Code has ESLint. Why doesn't this have a linter? 🔍 What AgentLinter Does It diagnoses your agent config across 8 categories: 1) Structure: file organization 2) Clarity: instruction specificity 3) Completeness: missing definitions 4) Security: exposed secrets 5) Consistency: cross-file contradictions 6) Memory: session handoff 7) Runtime Config: gateway/auth settings 8) Skill Safety: dangerous shell commands & injection patterns Each scored 0–100 with concrete fix suggestions. Write "be helpful" and it tells you to specify response length, tone, and format. Find an API key? Instant CRITICAL alert to rotate. 🔒 Privacy-First & 100% Local Everything runs on your machine. Files never leave. Only the results are shared, and you can turn that off in settings. This matters — these files can contain system prompts, security rules, and personal context. Fully open source, MIT license, 100% free. 🛠️ Multi-Tool Support Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, and Clawdbot. Detects for project mode, or clawdbot.json for agent mode and adjusts diagnostics automatically. 🚀 Get Started with one line npx agentlinter Node.js 18+, no config needed. Run it, check your score, fix what needs fixing. Happy vibe-coding & happy agent life! 🤙 Website: Github:
0:15

AgentLinter is here! Is your agent sharp & secure? I built AgentLinter, a linter for and agent config files. Here's why. Whether you're vibe-coding or agent-coding, your AI's output quality comes down to one thing: how well you wrote your But managing these files properly? Way harder than it looks. 🎯 The Silent Failure Problem Vague instructions like "write good code" let the agent interpret however it wants. Output gets inconsistent, but nothing throws an error. The failure is silent. Anthropic's own docs say write "Use 2-space indentation" not "Format code properly." But as the file grows, spotting these with your eyes alone is nearly impossible. 🔐 The Security Problem People hard-code API keys and tokens directly into or and commit them, way more often than you'd think. AgentLinter stats show 1 in 5 workspaces has exposed credentials. .gitignore doesn't catch secrets buried inside markdown files. 💥 The Consistency Problem Multiple config files = contradictions. says "be a friendly assistant," says "concise, direct tone." The agent gets confused. references files that don't exist. Past 5 files, these conflicts triple. So I thought: is code. Code has ESLint. Why doesn't this have a linter? 🔍 What AgentLinter Does It diagnoses your agent config across 8 categories: 1) Structure: file organization 2) Clarity: instruction specificity 3) Completeness: missing definitions 4) Security: exposed secrets 5) Consistency: cross-file contradictions 6) Memory: session handoff 7) Runtime Config: gateway/auth settings 8) Skill Safety: dangerous shell commands & injection patterns Each scored 0–100 with concrete fix suggestions. Write "be helpful" and it tells you to specify response length, tone, and format. Find an API key? Instant CRITICAL alert to rotate. 🔒 Privacy-First & 100% Local Everything runs on your machine. Files never leave. Only the results are shared, and you can turn that off in settings. This matters — these files can contain system prompts, security rules, and personal context. Fully open source, MIT license, 100% free. 🛠️ Multi-Tool Support Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, and Clawdbot. Detects for project mode, or clawdbot.json for agent mode and adjusts diagnostics automatically. 🚀 Get Started with one line npx agentlinter Node.js 18+, no config needed. Run it, check your score, fix what needs fixing. Happy vibe-coding & happy agent life! 🤙 Website: Github:

Simon Kim

44,224 views • 6 months ago

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓
0:15

sorry, they just did WHAT someone gave a machine one disease name, the leading cause of blindness in the developed world with 1.5 million americans already in its path, and it came back pointing at a drug that has sat in pharmacies for years under a different label: 551 papers read in 30 minutes against the 294 hours a human would have needed, and the loop that did it is public on GitHub most agent setups answer one question at a time, so the ceiling on the work is the quality of the question you happened to think of this one was handed a single question and wrote the second one itself. turns out that follow-up is where the real find was: a target called ABCA1, upregulated threefold, in an experiment no human ordered i read the whole paper looking for the trick, and the trick is structural. that is the second question, and it is the gap between an assistant and a factory: - hand the loop a field rather than a task: it was given a disease, and choosing the mechanism was part of its job - make it rank before it spends: 151 papers in, ten candidate mechanisms out, scored against each other before anything touched a bench - split reading from judging, so the agent that forms the theory is a different agent from the one grading it - close every cycle on physical reality: the verdict was an experiment, and another model's opinion was never allowed to stand in for one - feed each result back as the next question rather than a log line, which is the step almost nobody builds - search what already passed inspection first: the winner was an approved compound with a safety file already on record - write down what the round learned before opening the next one, so round two starts where round one stopped my read, and i think it is the uncomfortable one: reading was the entire bottleneck in that field, and everybody spent the decade optimising the writing. people ran every physical experiment here, the analysis agent needs a domain expert writing its prompts, and the authors decline to call this the leap it resembles. the thinking got replaced, and the hands did not so the question i cannot answer for my own setup: which step of your loop still stops dead until you sit down and type something bookmark this one. the four parts that turn one model into a line that runs like this, the queue, the rooms, the write permissions and the gate, are built file by file in the piece below ↓

Argona

32,475 views • 26 days ago

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense SpaceXAI shipped five hireable workers for $200 a month, then wrote the catch into its own Grok Bot documentation and left the page up: all five run on one computer, so one sign-in hands the browser session, the files and the command-line credentials to every one of them the NSA, CISA and the cyber agencies of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand had published the opposite instruction 103 days earlier: no broad or unrestricted access, low-risk and non-sensitive work only i ran four of mine on one account for a week, counting what each could reach: eleven signed-in apps, one browser profile, and deleting a bot left all of it standing Grok Bot is worth hiring five times over, and you can draw its blast radius before the second one exists: - sign in for the bot that needs the site, then open the others and see what they reach: that session is theirs the moment it exists - give each bot its own account on the app, since the docs tell you in writing to stop using separate bots as a security boundary - put the stop line in the description, as an approval controls the proposed action and leaves whatever already ran where it landed - cap the spend outside the product, because there is no bot-specific spend cap yet and the audit view of what they did is still coming - keep the money and the customer replies in your own hands, and let the other four start from scratch each morning on work that cannot bite one sign-in is also why this pays: five names finish inside your real tools instead of handing you drafts to paste my take, and it is the uncomfortable one: your real limit on Grok Bot is how many logins you will put on one machine, and the hiring was always the easy half bookmark this, the five descriptions that let bots hand work to each other and the one folder that survives an update are written out in the article ↓
0:15

whoever leaked this has bigger balls than sense SpaceXAI shipped five hireable workers for $200 a month, then wrote the catch into its own Grok Bot documentation and left the page up: all five run on one computer, so one sign-in hands the browser session, the files and the command-line credentials to every one of them the NSA, CISA and the cyber agencies of the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand had published the opposite instruction 103 days earlier: no broad or unrestricted access, low-risk and non-sensitive work only i ran four of mine on one account for a week, counting what each could reach: eleven signed-in apps, one browser profile, and deleting a bot left all of it standing Grok Bot is worth hiring five times over, and you can draw its blast radius before the second one exists: - sign in for the bot that needs the site, then open the others and see what they reach: that session is theirs the moment it exists - give each bot its own account on the app, since the docs tell you in writing to stop using separate bots as a security boundary - put the stop line in the description, as an approval controls the proposed action and leaves whatever already ran where it landed - cap the spend outside the product, because there is no bot-specific spend cap yet and the audit view of what they did is still coming - keep the money and the customer replies in your own hands, and let the other four start from scratch each morning on work that cannot bite one sign-in is also why this pays: five names finish inside your real tools instead of handing you drafts to paste my take, and it is the uncomfortable one: your real limit on Grok Bot is how many logins you will put on one machine, and the hiring was always the easy half bookmark this, the five descriptions that let bots hand work to each other and the one folder that survives an update are written out in the article ↓

Argona

692,786 views • 18 days ago

Met my girlfriend's parents for the first time. Her dad asked what I do for work. I said I build trading systems. He said like Wall Street? I said no. 6 AI agents. They work while I sleep. He laughed. So robots are making you money? I did not argue. I opened my laptop. Showed him the terminal. 6 agents running. 47 mispriced markets caught in the first week alone. His face changed. That is not gambling. That is automation? Exactly. Then I showed him how it works. Built the whole thing in 6 hours. Agent 1: Monitoring Runs 24/7. Watches Polymarket for mispriced markets. Spots an anomaly. Writes to memory and pings me on Telegram instantly. Agent 2: Research Parses news, X, macro data via browser tool on a cron schedule. Every morning I have a full digest on all open positions before I check my phone. Agent 3: Trading Reads the research agent memory. Sees the market has not reacted yet. Acts. Execution tool in gateway mode with a whitelist. No full access on a live server. Agent 4: Watchdog Heartbeat every 5 minutes. Monitoring running. No errors. Positions up to date. Something breaks. Immediate Telegram message. All of this. One Gateway. One config file. Isolation via per-agent scope. The token trick: stopped dumping everything into one file. Critical rules in bootstrap. Markets, patterns, past trades in memory. Semantic search pulls it when needed. Token spend dropped 3x. From $0.40 per request to $0.13. First week running: → 47 mispriced markets caught before Polymarket adjusted → Average entry edge 8 to 12 cents per position → Watchdog fired 3 times and caught a broken RPC before it cost me anything The whole system is plain text files. Open an editor. Change one line. Agent behaves differently. No deploy. No build. Her dad went quiet. Then he asked can you teach this? Her mom asked for the setup guide. I built the entire framework. Six agents. Full deployment. Memory architecture. Telegram alerts. You only need Claude + device + 1 hour per day. Giving this free for 24 hours. To get it: 1. Comment the word "Claude" 2. Like and retweet this 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar so I can DM you Save this post. Deploy the 6-agent system this week. Start with $200. Scale on evidence.
0:16

Met my girlfriend's parents for the first time. Her dad asked what I do for work. I said I build trading systems. He said like Wall Street? I said no. 6 AI agents. They work while I sleep. He laughed. So robots are making you money? I did not argue. I opened my laptop. Showed him the terminal. 6 agents running. 47 mispriced markets caught in the first week alone. His face changed. That is not gambling. That is automation? Exactly. Then I showed him how it works. Built the whole thing in 6 hours. Agent 1: Monitoring Runs 24/7. Watches Polymarket for mispriced markets. Spots an anomaly. Writes to memory and pings me on Telegram instantly. Agent 2: Research Parses news, X, macro data via browser tool on a cron schedule. Every morning I have a full digest on all open positions before I check my phone. Agent 3: Trading Reads the research agent memory. Sees the market has not reacted yet. Acts. Execution tool in gateway mode with a whitelist. No full access on a live server. Agent 4: Watchdog Heartbeat every 5 minutes. Monitoring running. No errors. Positions up to date. Something breaks. Immediate Telegram message. All of this. One Gateway. One config file. Isolation via per-agent scope. The token trick: stopped dumping everything into one file. Critical rules in bootstrap. Markets, patterns, past trades in memory. Semantic search pulls it when needed. Token spend dropped 3x. From $0.40 per request to $0.13. First week running: → 47 mispriced markets caught before Polymarket adjusted → Average entry edge 8 to 12 cents per position → Watchdog fired 3 times and caught a broken RPC before it cost me anything The whole system is plain text files. Open an editor. Change one line. Agent behaves differently. No deploy. No build. Her dad went quiet. Then he asked can you teach this? Her mom asked for the setup guide. I built the entire framework. Six agents. Full deployment. Memory architecture. Telegram alerts. You only need Claude + device + 1 hour per day. Giving this free for 24 hours. To get it: 1. Comment the word "Claude" 2. Like and retweet this 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar so I can DM you Save this post. Deploy the 6-agent system this week. Start with $200. Scale on evidence.

Himanshu Kumar

47,360 views • 2 months ago

Claude Cowork Sub-Agents are f*cking cracked 🤯 One prompt → 50 competitor ads analyzed, hooks extracted, and a full creative brief generated. 10 AI agents running in parallel, under 5 minutes. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still doing creative research and ad production one task at a time inside Claude. If you're analyzing competitor ads one by one, copying hooks into a spreadsheet manually, writing brief after brief from scratch, and watching Claude's output quality fall off a cliff after the 15th variation because the context window is completely bloated... Sub-agents eliminate the entire bottleneck: → Drop in a spreadsheet of 50 competitor ads and spin up 10 parallel sub-agents → Each sub-agent analyzes 5 ads simultaneously — hooks, angles, CTAs, emotional tone, creative format → They report structured summaries back to the main agent without bloating the context → The main agent synthesizes patterns across all 50 ads into a competitive intel brief → Then spin up another round of sub-agents to generate 30 ad copy variations across 10 personas → Each sub-agent writes for 1-2 personas in a fresh context — so variation 30 is as sharp as variation 1 No analyzing ads one at a time. No context window blowing up halfway through. No copy quality degrading after the first dozen variations. What this gives you: → 50 competitor ads broken down in minutes — hooks, angles, CTAs, formats, all structured → Pattern analysis across the full dataset that you'd miss reviewing ads individually → 30+ ad copy variations with persona-specific messaging that actually stays sharp → A workflow you can save as reusable skills and trigger with one command next time → The same output quality on the last task as the first Built 100% inside Claude Cowork with sub-agents. I put together a full DTC playbook: 5 bulk workflows with copy-paste prompts, the exact sub-agent prompting pattern, batching guidelines, and an honest breakdown of when this setup is 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)
0:10

Claude Cowork Sub-Agents are f*cking cracked 🤯 One prompt → 50 competitor ads analyzed, hooks extracted, and a full creative brief generated. 10 AI agents running in parallel, under 5 minutes. All inside Claude Cowork. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who are still doing creative research and ad production one task at a time inside Claude. If you're analyzing competitor ads one by one, copying hooks into a spreadsheet manually, writing brief after brief from scratch, and watching Claude's output quality fall off a cliff after the 15th variation because the context window is completely bloated... Sub-agents eliminate the entire bottleneck: → Drop in a spreadsheet of 50 competitor ads and spin up 10 parallel sub-agents → Each sub-agent analyzes 5 ads simultaneously — hooks, angles, CTAs, emotional tone, creative format → They report structured summaries back to the main agent without bloating the context → The main agent synthesizes patterns across all 50 ads into a competitive intel brief → Then spin up another round of sub-agents to generate 30 ad copy variations across 10 personas → Each sub-agent writes for 1-2 personas in a fresh context — so variation 30 is as sharp as variation 1 No analyzing ads one at a time. No context window blowing up halfway through. No copy quality degrading after the first dozen variations. What this gives you: → 50 competitor ads broken down in minutes — hooks, angles, CTAs, formats, all structured → Pattern analysis across the full dataset that you'd miss reviewing ads individually → 30+ ad copy variations with persona-specific messaging that actually stays sharp → A workflow you can save as reusable skills and trigger with one command next time → The same output quality on the last task as the first Built 100% inside Claude Cowork with sub-agents. I put together a full DTC playbook: 5 bulk workflows with copy-paste prompts, the exact sub-agent prompting pattern, batching guidelines, and an honest breakdown of when this setup is 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

50,169 views • 6 months ago

🧃 Introducing stereOS: a Linux based operating system hardened and purpose built for AI agents. It's clear that agents need an ACTUAL operating system (not what people are calling an "OS") to witness the full breadth and depth of their capabilities while mitigating the blast radius of autonomous, untrusted actors. But there are so many problems with AI sandboxes today: * Going out to the apple store and buying a mac mini will never scale and is way too expensive (obviously) * Running in Docker is too restrictive (agents can't stand up their own container infrastructure, no sub virtualization, docker-in-docker is very broken) * Firecracker strips all the hardware so GPU PCIe passthrough, secure boot, FIPs, etc. is out of the question. * Native VMs are too fat and the overhead of 1 agent per VM is too much. stereOS takes a different approach: it's a full NixOS system that you boot and then kick off agent sandboxes inside with gVisor + /nix/store namespace mounting. Each agent gets their own kernel and the /nix/store is read only by nature. Even if the agent was somehow able to escape the gVisor virtual kernel, they'd land on the NixOS system as the "agent" user! Not your actual hardware!! If you want to take a defense-in-depth approach, we support "native" agents that run at the system level kicked off by our `agentd` utility. These agents, on their own, can manage and kick off other sub agents using the internal sandboxing mechanisms. Today, we're open sourcing all of this: * stereOS: our purpose built Linux OS - * masterblaster: client utility to launch, manage, and orchestrate agents - * stereosd: the stereOS system control plane daemon - * agentd: the stereOS system agent management daemon - Give it a try, throw us a star, and let me know what you think 🧃⭐️
0:16

🧃 Introducing stereOS: a Linux based operating system hardened and purpose built for AI agents. It's clear that agents need an ACTUAL operating system (not what people are calling an "OS") to witness the full breadth and depth of their capabilities while mitigating the blast radius of autonomous, untrusted actors. But there are so many problems with AI sandboxes today: * Going out to the apple store and buying a mac mini will never scale and is way too expensive (obviously) * Running in Docker is too restrictive (agents can't stand up their own container infrastructure, no sub virtualization, docker-in-docker is very broken) * Firecracker strips all the hardware so GPU PCIe passthrough, secure boot, FIPs, etc. is out of the question. * Native VMs are too fat and the overhead of 1 agent per VM is too much. stereOS takes a different approach: it's a full NixOS system that you boot and then kick off agent sandboxes inside with gVisor + /nix/store namespace mounting. Each agent gets their own kernel and the /nix/store is read only by nature. Even if the agent was somehow able to escape the gVisor virtual kernel, they'd land on the NixOS system as the "agent" user! Not your actual hardware!! If you want to take a defense-in-depth approach, we support "native" agents that run at the system level kicked off by our `agentd` utility. These agents, on their own, can manage and kick off other sub agents using the internal sandboxing mechanisms. Today, we're open sourcing all of this: * stereOS: our purpose built Linux OS - * masterblaster: client utility to launch, manage, and orchestrate agents - * stereosd: the stereOS system control plane daemon - * agentd: the stereOS system agent management daemon - Give it a try, throw us a star, and let me know what you think 🧃⭐️

John McBride

150,742 views • 6 months ago

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.
0:15

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

Avi Chawla

441,393 views • 2 months ago

🚨 JUST IN: CHINA just released an AI EMPLOYEE that works 24X7 on its own. 100% OPEN SOURCE. It researches, codes, builds websites, creates slide decks, and generates videos. All by itself. All on your computer. It's called DeerFlow. You give it a task. It makes a plan, spins up its own team of sub-agents, and gets to work. You come back and there's a finished deliverable waiting. Not a draft. Not a summary. The actual thing. Not a chatbot. Not a research assistant. An AI with its own computer that works while you sleep. Here's what it does on its own: → Spawns multiple sub-agents in parallel, each tackling a different piece of your task, then combines everything into one finished output → Writes real code, runs it, reads the results, and fixes its own mistakes without asking you once → Builds slide decks, websites, full research reports, and data dashboards from scratch → Remembers you across sessions. Your writing style. Your tech stack. Your preferences. Gets better every time. → Reads files you upload, works with them inside its own filesystem, hands you clean finished outputs → Searches the web, runs commands, calls any tool you plug in Here's how it thinks: You give one instruction. The lead agent makes a plan. Sub-agents fan out and work in parallel. Results come back. Everything gets synthesized. You get a deliverable. A single research task might split into a dozen sub-agents, each exploring a different angle, then converge into one finished website with generated visuals. Here's the wildest part: DeerFlow 2.0 launched on February 28th 2026 and hit number 1 on all of GitHub Trending the same day. Version 2.0 was a complete rewrite. Zero shared code with version 1. Because users kept using it for things the team never intended. Data pipelines. Dashboards. Entire content workflows. The community told them what it needed to become. So they burned it down and rebuilt it. 22.7K GitHub stars. 2.7K forks. Built by ByteDance 100% Open Source. MIT License.
0:17

🚨 JUST IN: CHINA just released an AI EMPLOYEE that works 24X7 on its own. 100% OPEN SOURCE. It researches, codes, builds websites, creates slide decks, and generates videos. All by itself. All on your computer. It's called DeerFlow. You give it a task. It makes a plan, spins up its own team of sub-agents, and gets to work. You come back and there's a finished deliverable waiting. Not a draft. Not a summary. The actual thing. Not a chatbot. Not a research assistant. An AI with its own computer that works while you sleep. Here's what it does on its own: → Spawns multiple sub-agents in parallel, each tackling a different piece of your task, then combines everything into one finished output → Writes real code, runs it, reads the results, and fixes its own mistakes without asking you once → Builds slide decks, websites, full research reports, and data dashboards from scratch → Remembers you across sessions. Your writing style. Your tech stack. Your preferences. Gets better every time. → Reads files you upload, works with them inside its own filesystem, hands you clean finished outputs → Searches the web, runs commands, calls any tool you plug in Here's how it thinks: You give one instruction. The lead agent makes a plan. Sub-agents fan out and work in parallel. Results come back. Everything gets synthesized. You get a deliverable. A single research task might split into a dozen sub-agents, each exploring a different angle, then converge into one finished website with generated visuals. Here's the wildest part: DeerFlow 2.0 launched on February 28th 2026 and hit number 1 on all of GitHub Trending the same day. Version 2.0 was a complete rewrite. Zero shared code with version 1. Because users kept using it for things the team never intended. Data pipelines. Dashboards. Entire content workflows. The community told them what it needed to become. So they burned it down and rebuilt it. 22.7K GitHub stars. 2.7K forks. Built by ByteDance 100% Open Source. MIT License.

Kanika

738,832 views • 5 months ago

I STOPPED REVIEWING MY OWN AGENT, SOMETHING ELSE DOES IT NOW I used to read every diff it produced and approve most of them, because an agent grading itself always says the work is good. -> Now a second model with different instructions tries to break the work first, and I only read what survived. Here is what is actually in the folder that took over the night shift: • the brief > CONTRACT.md -- what it may touch, and what it may never touch. > VISION.md -- the destination, so turn 47 still knows why it started. • the gate > judge/ -- a different model, never the one that wrote the code. > break-it.md -- it opens the page, clicks, screenshots, reports back. > -- no opinion, just zero or non-zero. > shift.yml -- 03:30 every night, laptop closed. • the memory > receipts/ -- one folder per night, dated and graded. > STATE.md -- where it stopped and what it escalated. > lessons.log -- the flaky test, written down once instead of rediscovered weekly. • the brakes > caps.json -- turn limit, retry limit, spend limit. > -- written on day one, used never. The generator decides what your loop can produce -> The judge decides what it refuses to produce. One of those is the part everyone builds -> The other is why most loops quietly fail. Bookmark it & Read Full breakdown below ↓
0:18

I STOPPED REVIEWING MY OWN AGENT, SOMETHING ELSE DOES IT NOW I used to read every diff it produced and approve most of them, because an agent grading itself always says the work is good. -> Now a second model with different instructions tries to break the work first, and I only read what survived. Here is what is actually in the folder that took over the night shift: • the brief > CONTRACT.md -- what it may touch, and what it may never touch. > VISION.md -- the destination, so turn 47 still knows why it started. • the gate > judge/ -- a different model, never the one that wrote the code. > break-it.md -- it opens the page, clicks, screenshots, reports back. > -- no opinion, just zero or non-zero. > shift.yml -- 03:30 every night, laptop closed. • the memory > receipts/ -- one folder per night, dated and graded. > STATE.md -- where it stopped and what it escalated. > lessons.log -- the flaky test, written down once instead of rediscovered weekly. • the brakes > caps.json -- turn limit, retry limit, spend limit. > -- written on day one, used never. The generator decides what your loop can produce -> The judge decides what it refuses to produce. One of those is the part everyone builds -> The other is why most loops quietly fail. Bookmark it & Read Full breakdown below ↓

slash1s

37,556 views • 1 month ago