Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

I tried Hedra Agent by Hedra to see if one conversation could replace the usual mess of switching models, rewriting prompts, and juggling tools. So I started with a simple idea, Hedra Agent: - Selected the right models on its own - Generated refined visuals - Suggested multiple stylistic...

31,593 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

For 6 months I woke up at 5 AM to catch Asian markets on Polymarket. During that time I lost my girlfriend, gained 8 kg, and got used to drinking coffee instead of breakfast Then I wrote an agent that monitors everything for me while I sleep. In the 1st month income went up 15% and I finally deleted the 5 AM alarm Turns out a half-asleep human trades worse than a 200-line script I thought discipline meant waking up early. In reality it was just stubbornness that cost me money and health. When I finally sat down to build the agent it became clear why Here is what is under the hood: 1. Sentiment analysis powered by Claude. Every 15 minutes the agent runs a feed from 40+ Asian sources: Reuters Asia, Nikkei, South China Morning Post, Yonhap 2. NLP tone classification. It compares sentiment shifts to open markets on Polymarket through the API, and if the news has already dropped but the odds have not reacted yet that is the entry window 3. Kelly criterion. A mathematical formula for position sizing instead of my usual "I will bet more, feeling lucky" 4. A hard stop at 5% of the deposit per trade so that 1 mistake cannot kill the entire account 5. A cooldown between entries so the agent does not stack up a cluster of correlated positions These are exactly the rules I was missing at 5 AM. I knew them perfectly well but consistently ignored them because on adrenaline and caffeine every bet felt like an "obvious opportunity" When I ran a backtest on my old trades it was genuinely painful: 60% of the bets I placed by hand in a half-asleep state would have been rejected by the agent for failing the expected value filter Those were the exact ones dragging the whole result down When I was building my agent I needed a benchmark. A wallet that already trades on similar logic so I could compare my results to someone else's Found 1 that works almost like a mirror of what I described: same Asian markets, same cold calculation without emotion. I still keep it bookmarked and periodically check how it handles the same situations: That is actually the wallet I started with when testing auto-copying through a bot before I launched my own agent. A useful thing if you want to see how a strategy works on someone else's example first and only then build your own:

Blaze

126,874 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.

elvis

37,685 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

AI has had exactly two scaling axes that worked so far, and the second one is starting to look finite too the first one was pretraining: with scaling parameters and data, we got world knowledge (i.e. ChatGPT had read enough to know things), but it started saturating a while ago the second one was RL, and people had been doing RL the whole time before that: RLHF is RL but it never scaled far because it was trying to control the exact output, which tokens come out, how the text reads, but you can only push that so far before you’re just polishing RLVR dropped that constraint: giving the model a task, then checking whether the final answer is right, and ignoring everything in between -- so the model does whatever it wants in the middle and only the endpoint gets graded, and that’s much closer to actual RL and it’s what bought us planning and reasoning (arguably, tool use sits around 2.5 on this list -- while useful, it's not a different kind of thing) so one axis gave knowledge, the other gave reasoning, and both of them are one model working alone the next axis is how many models you can get working on the same problem, which is a different kind of axis than the previous two we know that multi-agent RL has always been the harder problem: I spent years in that literature and the gap between single-agent and multi-agent is definitely not incremental -- it’s a whole different class of difficulty! which is also why the derivatives are steep at the start, nobody has picked the easy wins yet... and the thing that gates this multi-agent coordination is communication: models can only coordinate as well as they can exchange information, and right now they do that by writing sentences to each other imagine what could we possibly achieve if we properly open that third axis development by letting models to exchange information in their native "language" without loosing any computational data that they produce during inference

Sasha Malysheva

11,393 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen