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.

Let me explain the agent loop, simple It's the core of every agentic system, and the part most people overcomplicate It's just this: 1. Send messages to the model 2. Model responds, maybe calls a tool 3. You run the tool 4. Append the result back to messages 5.... show more

Daniel San

32,970 subscribers

12,514 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

an agent is four parts in a loop. you own one. the other three break it. that's why the demo works and prod doesn't. you can't debug what you can't see. 1) the prompt → what you tell the model each turn. you own this one. good. 2) the context window → what it sees right now. the framework fills it with junk, and you never notice until it rots. 3) the tools → what it can do. you own the list, not when or why it fires them. 4) the control flow → what happens next, when to stop. the framework owns this. it's what breaks at 80%. own all four and your agent stops being a magic trick that works on stage and dies on call. this isn't my idea. it's the 12-factor agents guide (24k stars) github: the whole thing every serious builder ends up rewriting their stack around. full breakdown in the article below.

an agent is four parts in a loop. you own one. the other three break it. that's why the demo works and prod doesn't. you can't debug what you can't see. 1) the prompt → what you tell the model each turn. you own this one. good. 2) the context window → what it sees right now. the framework fills it with junk, and you never notice until it rots. 3) the tools → what it can do. you own the list, not when or why it fires them. 4) the control flow → what happens next, when to stop. the framework owns this. it's what breaks at 80%. own all four and your agent stops being a magic trick that works on stage and dies on call. this isn't my idea. it's the 12-factor agents guide (24k stars) github: the whole thing every serious builder ends up rewriting their stack around. full breakdown in the article below.

Hanako

38,184 views • 2 months ago

this is f*cking beyond comprehension. Google engineers just shipped the entire agent lifecycle in one release: build, scale, govern. and every piece answers a specific way agents die in production > context layers (Static, Turn, User, Cache): you decide what the model carries between turns, so token spend stops being a mystery > a self heal plugin: the agent notices a tool call failed and retries it a different way instead of dying mid run > adk deploy: one command from your laptop to the managed runtime, no packaging, no infra ticket > Go joins Python and Java, with its own A2A SDK then the part nobody builds for themselves: > a dashboard on token consumption, latency, error rates and tool calls: the four things that actually kill an agent > a traces tab that opens the real sequence of actions the agent took, step by step > a playground wired to the deployed agent, past sessions included, so debugging is not a redeploy loop > an Evaluation Layer with a User Simulator, because you cannot unit test a non deterministic system and the part that decides whether it ever ships: > agents get native identities as first class IAM principals: least privilege applies to them like it does to people > Model Armor screens prompt injection, tool calls and responses, inline for Gemini or over REST > Security Command Center inventories every agentic asset and flags data exfiltration by an agent ADK is already at 7 million downloads. the runtime has a free tier, and express mode runs off a Gmail address. the prototype was never the hard part.

this is f*cking beyond comprehension. Google engineers just shipped the entire agent lifecycle in one release: build, scale, govern. and every piece answers a specific way agents die in production > context layers (Static, Turn, User, Cache): you decide what the model carries between turns, so token spend stops being a mystery > a self heal plugin: the agent notices a tool call failed and retries it a different way instead of dying mid run > adk deploy: one command from your laptop to the managed runtime, no packaging, no infra ticket > Go joins Python and Java, with its own A2A SDK then the part nobody builds for themselves: > a dashboard on token consumption, latency, error rates and tool calls: the four things that actually kill an agent > a traces tab that opens the real sequence of actions the agent took, step by step > a playground wired to the deployed agent, past sessions included, so debugging is not a redeploy loop > an Evaluation Layer with a User Simulator, because you cannot unit test a non deterministic system and the part that decides whether it ever ships: > agents get native identities as first class IAM principals: least privilege applies to them like it does to people > Model Armor screens prompt injection, tool calls and responses, inline for Gemini or over REST > Security Command Center inventories every agentic asset and flags data exfiltration by an agent ADK is already at 7 million downloads. the runtime has a free tier, and express mode runs off a Gmail address. the prototype was never the hard part.

NO1ennn

24,666 views • 18 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.

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 • 1 month ago

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

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

Sudo su

72,554 views • 7 months ago

If you are trying to understand where AI agents are going, learn harness engineering. A capable model is only one part of an agent system. Once the model begins reading files, calling tools, modifying state and working across many steps, the quality of the system depends increasingly on the software around it. Consider a coding agent working through a large repository. The model can decide that it needs to inspect a file, search for a symbol, make an edit or run a test, but those decisions do not execute themselves. The surrounding runtime has to decide which resources are available, whether the requested action is permitted, how the operation should be performed, what result should be retained, and what information should be presented to the model on the next step. This becomes harder as the run gets longer. As history accumulates, replaying everything can become costly and less effective. The harness has to decide what should remain in context, what should be summarized or retrieved later, and what belongs in persistent state outside the context window. Execution has similar problems. A long-running agent may need to survive an interruption, avoid repeating completed work, enforce permissions around consequential actions, and preserve enough history to reconstruct what happened when the final result is wrong. These are harness problems. The harness is the layer that manages context, tools, execution, state, checkpoints, limits and traces around the model. Harness engineering is the work of designing and improving that layer. Engineers inspect execution traces, evaluate agents on representative tasks, look for recurring failure modes, and then change things such as context selection, tool interfaces, state handling or execution controls. That last part matters because agent failures are often not fixed by changing the model. Sometimes the useful change is in what the model sees, how a tool is exposed, what state is preserved, or what the runtime does after a failed step. As agents take on longer tasks, the demands on this surrounding software grow. Model capability remains essential, but harness engineering is what turns that capability into an execution process that can be controlled, inspected, tested and improved.

If you are trying to understand where AI agents are going, learn harness engineering. A capable model is only one part of an agent system. Once the model begins reading files, calling tools, modifying state and working across many steps, the quality of the system depends increasingly on the software around it. Consider a coding agent working through a large repository. The model can decide that it needs to inspect a file, search for a symbol, make an edit or run a test, but those decisions do not execute themselves. The surrounding runtime has to decide which resources are available, whether the requested action is permitted, how the operation should be performed, what result should be retained, and what information should be presented to the model on the next step. This becomes harder as the run gets longer. As history accumulates, replaying everything can become costly and less effective. The harness has to decide what should remain in context, what should be summarized or retrieved later, and what belongs in persistent state outside the context window. Execution has similar problems. A long-running agent may need to survive an interruption, avoid repeating completed work, enforce permissions around consequential actions, and preserve enough history to reconstruct what happened when the final result is wrong. These are harness problems. The harness is the layer that manages context, tools, execution, state, checkpoints, limits and traces around the model. Harness engineering is the work of designing and improving that layer. Engineers inspect execution traces, evaluate agents on representative tasks, look for recurring failure modes, and then change things such as context selection, tool interfaces, state handling or execution controls. That last part matters because agent failures are often not fixed by changing the model. Sometimes the useful change is in what the model sees, how a tool is exposed, what state is preserved, or what the runtime does after a failed step. As agents take on longer tasks, the demands on this surrounding software grow. Model capability remains essential, but harness engineering is what turns that capability into an execution process that can be controlled, inspected, tested and improved.

Tech with Mak

48,318 views • 8 days ago

ANTHROPIC JUST DROPPED THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO PROMPTING FABLE 5. This is the most important prompting framework I've seen. Bookmark this before you forget. Most people treat Fable 5 like a chatbot. That's the mistake. > don't over-engineer prompts — it degrades output. > use /loop for autonomous multi-step work. > give it the goal, not step-by-step commands. > add a memory file. it learns from past runs. > spin up 50+ subagents for complex tasks. Fable 5 isn't an assistant. it's a consultant that leads the work. Read it before you write another prompt. Claude → Fable 5 → Autonomous Work → Real Output → Money

ANTHROPIC JUST DROPPED THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO PROMPTING FABLE 5. This is the most important prompting framework I've seen. Bookmark this before you forget. Most people treat Fable 5 like a chatbot. That's the mistake. > don't over-engineer prompts — it degrades output. > use /loop for autonomous multi-step work. > give it the goal, not step-by-step commands. > add a memory file. it learns from past runs. > spin up 50+ subagents for complex tasks. Fable 5 isn't an assistant. it's a consultant that leads the work. Read it before you write another prompt. Claude → Fable 5 → Autonomous Work → Real Output → Money

Kirill

416,512 views • 3 months ago

this AI engineering breakdown from IBM Technology is pure f*cking treasure it explains the role as a connected system 01 Python and APIs give you the surface to build on: services, data, integrations, and the software around the model 02 RAG and embeddings solve the context layer: finding the right information before the model has to reason about it 03 agents turn that context into work: they choose tools, run steps, and move toward an outcome 04 observability closes the feedback loop: traces, metrics, failures, latency, and the evidence needed to improve the system 05 deployment is where the system becomes real: reliability, constraints, and the conditions that let people actually depend on it the model sits inside this architecture the AI engineer connects every layer into one operating loop: build → retrieve → act → observe → ship save this, then build your solo business with an AI employee ⭣

this AI engineering breakdown from IBM Technology is pure f*cking treasure it explains the role as a connected system 01 Python and APIs give you the surface to build on: services, data, integrations, and the software around the model 02 RAG and embeddings solve the context layer: finding the right information before the model has to reason about it 03 agents turn that context into work: they choose tools, run steps, and move toward an outcome 04 observability closes the feedback loop: traces, metrics, failures, latency, and the evidence needed to improve the system 05 deployment is where the system becomes real: reliability, constraints, and the conditions that let people actually depend on it the model sits inside this architecture the AI engineer connects every layer into one operating loop: build → retrieve → act → observe → ship save this, then build your solo business with an AI employee ⭣

beamnxw ./

13,505 views • 16 days ago

this is the next $100B opportunity in ai , most will miss it's harness engineering what this agentic engineer reveals is insane >The model is almost irrelevant. The harness is everything >every failure is a signal about what the environment needs. >when agent throughput far exceeds human attention, corrections are cheap and waiting is expensive most people will ignore and bookmark. be different.

this is the next $100B opportunity in ai , most will miss it's harness engineering what this agentic engineer reveals is insane >The model is almost irrelevant. The harness is everything >every failure is a signal about what the environment needs. >when agent throughput far exceeds human attention, corrections are cheap and waiting is expensive most people will ignore and bookmark. be different.

Avid

497,726 views • 6 months ago

this is pure f*cking treasure TypeSafeAI engineers spelled out in their docs exactly how Jev fits inside an agent, and these patterns are perfect one rule behind all of them: the LLM thinks, jev decides, code acts I mapped them into 9 live schemes: > model routing jev picks the cheapest model that can do the step > guardrails screens what your agent reads before it acts > tool-call gating every tool call gets allow, ask or deny before it runs > inbox triage the agent only opens what actually needs a reply > reranking jev scores 30 passages, the agent gets the best two > llm evals grades the output and sends it back if it falls short > bulk labeling one question fanned out over a huge table, the agent reads the counts > real-time control games, bots, trading loops: a decision every tick > confidence gate act, confirm or hand it to a human. your code sets the thresholds, not the LLM why it works: > ~100 ms per decision > $0.042 per 1M input tokens, output tokens free > calibrated probabilities on every answer one LLM does the thinking. jev makes the thousand small calls in between save this before you wire your next agent

this is pure f*cking treasure TypeSafeAI engineers spelled out in their docs exactly how Jev fits inside an agent, and these patterns are perfect one rule behind all of them: the LLM thinks, jev decides, code acts I mapped them into 9 live schemes: > model routing jev picks the cheapest model that can do the step > guardrails screens what your agent reads before it acts > tool-call gating every tool call gets allow, ask or deny before it runs > inbox triage the agent only opens what actually needs a reply > reranking jev scores 30 passages, the agent gets the best two > llm evals grades the output and sends it back if it falls short > bulk labeling one question fanned out over a huge table, the agent reads the counts > real-time control games, bots, trading loops: a decision every tick > confidence gate act, confirm or hand it to a human. your code sets the thresholds, not the LLM why it works: > ~100 ms per decision > $0.042 per 1M input tokens, output tokens free > calibrated probabilities on every answer one LLM does the thinking. jev makes the thousand small calls in between save this before you wire your next agent

NO1ennn

24,129 views • 4 days ago

Do you use Runway Gen-2 to make AI videos? This is for you! I built a simple tool to help "extend" Runway videos beyond the 4 second clip limit. Just choose a video, and the tool will give you the final frame -- so that you can drop this back into Runway, and generate another AI video based on it. Let me know if this is useful to you! Link is at bottom of the video and it's live to try right now.

Do you use Runway Gen-2 to make AI videos? This is for you! I built a simple tool to help "extend" Runway videos beyond the 4 second clip limit. Just choose a video, and the tool will give you the final frame -- so that you can drop this back into Runway, and generate another AI video based on it. Let me know if this is useful to you! Link is at bottom of the video and it's live to try right now.

Benjamin De Kraker

68,384 views • 3 years ago

holy sh*t. Jev's founder Diogo Almeida dropped a Google Doc on coding agents one of these PDFs has the map everyone needs: where Jev sits in an agent loop ↓ agents do the work, Jev makes the calls, the LLM only writes: 1 → task in: one Noul before anything runs. in scope, or does a human need to see it first? 2 → dispatch: a Choice picks who takes the step (research, write or review). act at 0.85+, everything below goes to review 3 → act: Jev gates the tool call (allow, confirm or block). the LLM only writes the arguments 4 → check: a Score decides what comes back (drop, summary or keep). whatever Jev is unsure of goes to a human 5 → finish: Jev says done above 0.8, then code proves the file actually exists the LLM shows up in 2 of 5 stages. everything else is a typed answer, plain code or a person. don't refactor your agent. hand Jev the one fork it hits most (usually the tool gate or dispatch) and watch 3 numbers for a week: cost per completed task, time per completed task, and how often escalation fired and whether it was right. if escalation never fires, the threshold is too loose and your agent is quietly running unsupervised.

holy sh*t. Jev's founder Diogo Almeida dropped a Google Doc on coding agents one of these PDFs has the map everyone needs: where Jev sits in an agent loop ↓ agents do the work, Jev makes the calls, the LLM only writes: 1 → task in: one Noul before anything runs. in scope, or does a human need to see it first? 2 → dispatch: a Choice picks who takes the step (research, write or review). act at 0.85+, everything below goes to review 3 → act: Jev gates the tool call (allow, confirm or block). the LLM only writes the arguments 4 → check: a Score decides what comes back (drop, summary or keep). whatever Jev is unsure of goes to a human 5 → finish: Jev says done above 0.8, then code proves the file actually exists the LLM shows up in 2 of 5 stages. everything else is a typed answer, plain code or a person. don't refactor your agent. hand Jev the one fork it hits most (usually the tool gate or dispatch) and watch 3 numbers for a week: cost per completed task, time per completed task, and how often escalation fired and whether it was right. if escalation never fires, the threshold is too loose and your agent is quietly running unsupervised.

Archive

31,914 views • 7 days ago

FIVE LAYERS OF AGENT ENGINEERING, EACH ONE WRAPS THE ONE BELOW IT. IF YOU SKIP LAYER 2, YOUR LAYER 5 WILL LOOK BROKEN WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY JUST STANDING ON NOTHING. for weeks i debated harness vs loop vs graph like they were competing choices. then a stack diagram made the shape obvious. they are not choices. they are floors. 01 | prompt engineering. the message. unit of work: one input. inputs are role, instructions, examples, format. output is a single raw response. 02 | context engineering. the memory. unit of work: what stays in the window. a curator selects, compresses, and drops from query, docs, memory, prior turns, and tool outputs before the prompt runs. 03 | harness engineering. the machine. unit of work: the machine itself. gather (context + prompt) → LLM → tools or sub-agents → verifier → final response. the article calls this the operating environment. 04 | loop engineering. the system. unit of work: the run. goal + success criteria + max iterations + budget + completion check wrap around one harness pass. failed pass appends results to context and retries. 05 | graph engineering. the topology. unit of work: the graph run. goal + nodes + edges + state schema. graph routes to agent nodes, tool nodes, or human approval. a reviewer node with a different model and fresh context checks the final answer. the wrapping is the whole point. layer 5 assumes layer 4 works. layer 4 assumes layer 3 works. skip layer 2 and layer 3's verifier keeps failing without a clear reason. this is why swapping the model is a one-day project and swapping the stack is a quarter. the model is the commodity. the five layers around it are the engineering. full three-layer breakdown of the top of the stack (harness, loop, graph) in the post below.

FIVE LAYERS OF AGENT ENGINEERING, EACH ONE WRAPS THE ONE BELOW IT. IF YOU SKIP LAYER 2, YOUR LAYER 5 WILL LOOK BROKEN WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY JUST STANDING ON NOTHING. for weeks i debated harness vs loop vs graph like they were competing choices. then a stack diagram made the shape obvious. they are not choices. they are floors. 01 | prompt engineering. the message. unit of work: one input. inputs are role, instructions, examples, format. output is a single raw response. 02 | context engineering. the memory. unit of work: what stays in the window. a curator selects, compresses, and drops from query, docs, memory, prior turns, and tool outputs before the prompt runs. 03 | harness engineering. the machine. unit of work: the machine itself. gather (context + prompt) → LLM → tools or sub-agents → verifier → final response. the article calls this the operating environment. 04 | loop engineering. the system. unit of work: the run. goal + success criteria + max iterations + budget + completion check wrap around one harness pass. failed pass appends results to context and retries. 05 | graph engineering. the topology. unit of work: the graph run. goal + nodes + edges + state schema. graph routes to agent nodes, tool nodes, or human approval. a reviewer node with a different model and fresh context checks the final answer. the wrapping is the whole point. layer 5 assumes layer 4 works. layer 4 assumes layer 3 works. skip layer 2 and layer 3's verifier keeps failing without a clear reason. this is why swapping the model is a one-day project and swapping the stack is a quarter. the model is the commodity. the five layers around it are the engineering. full three-layer breakdown of the top of the stack (harness, loop, graph) in the post below.

kocer

31,198 views • 1 month ago

this is the important part to understand what is going on. you can see the front wheel lose traction then the back of the car dips due to weight transfer. it was AFTER that the ICE agent draws his weapon.

this is the important part to understand what is going on. you can see the front wheel lose traction then the back of the car dips due to weight transfer. it was AFTER that the ICE agent draws his weapon.

Phil Labonte 🇺🇸

85,981 views • 8 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 ↓

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

32,744 views • 1 month ago

Probably you know them already, the tips works to me are -Simplify the shapes of the character and animate first that simple forms -Create model sheets and trace it -Use the key draws to create the inbetweens -Sculpt a simple model, pose it and copy what you see (1/2) +

Probably you know them already, the tips works to me are -Simplify the shapes of the character and animate first that simple forms -Create model sheets and trace it -Use the key draws to create the inbetweens -Sculpt a simple model, pose it and copy what you see (1/2) +

Tlauz - Animation course!!

360,006 views • 1 year ago

THE LOOP ENGINEERING SETUP THAT LETS CLAUDE RUN YOUR WORK FOR HOURS WITHOUT YOU you sit there babysitting it prompt by prompt other people set the loop up once and let Claude plan, act, verify and fix its own work with nobody at the keyboard that gap is the whole skill of loop engineering the 3 resources that actually teach it, in the order i'd read them: > Claude's "Getting started with loops" - the cleanest entry point, straight from the Claude team ↳ > Claude loop engineering: how to build an agent that works while you sleep - the full roadmap from a single prompt to a loop that runs overnight ↳ > the Loop Engineering orange book - the deep conceptual breakdown, for when you want the whole mental model ↳ entry point, then practice, then the concept. that order saves you a week learn this and the work that eats your whole day starts running without you

THE LOOP ENGINEERING SETUP THAT LETS CLAUDE RUN YOUR WORK FOR HOURS WITHOUT YOU you sit there babysitting it prompt by prompt other people set the loop up once and let Claude plan, act, verify and fix its own work with nobody at the keyboard that gap is the whole skill of loop engineering the 3 resources that actually teach it, in the order i'd read them: > Claude's "Getting started with loops" - the cleanest entry point, straight from the Claude team ↳ > Claude loop engineering: how to build an agent that works while you sleep - the full roadmap from a single prompt to a loop that runs overnight ↳ > the Loop Engineering orange book - the deep conceptual breakdown, for when you want the whole mental model ↳ entry point, then practice, then the concept. that order saves you a week learn this and the work that eats your whole day starts running without you

Mr. Buzzoni

18,365 views • 26 days ago

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

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

Akshay 🚀

245,379 views • 3 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 ↓

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 • 2 months ago

what if the robot could test its next move before the real arm moves? this setup already shows the first step: a 3D model follows the physical arm on screen right now, the model shows what the robot is doing the next step would be letting it test a movement in software before sending it to the real arm the ESP32 guide covers the practical side: sensors, filtering and turning movement into actions follow for more builds where small boards make physical things move

what if the robot could test its next move before the real arm moves? this setup already shows the first step: a 3D model follows the physical arm on screen right now, the model shows what the robot is doing the next step would be letting it test a movement in software before sending it to the real arm the ESP32 guide covers the practical side: sensors, filtering and turning movement into actions follow for more builds where small boards make physical things move

ard

33,298 views • 15 days ago