Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Side by side example Same model (claude-opus-4-6). Same task. Two different agent harnesses LangChain Deep Agents CLI: 9s Claude Code: 16s The harness IS the performance. 1.7× difference, zero model changes

Git Maxd

1,878 subscribers

114,022 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Trying to choose the right AI model? Here’s what happens when Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok try to build the same thing. Watch the side-by-side 👇

Trying to choose the right AI model? Here’s what happens when Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok try to build the same thing. Watch the side-by-side 👇

Verse 8 | Why Code, Just Verse 8

11,232 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

We decided to take Paul Jankura’s Claude Opus 4.5 out for a test drive vs. the current #1 ranking model in Code Arena: Gemini 3 Pro. Same prompt, different outputs. Let’s take a look. Remember, your votes drive the leaderboards. We’ll see how Claude Opus 4.5 stacks up in the coming days! Check out some of the comparisons, like how Claude Opus 4.5 handled the “Pyramids of Giza” prompt, in thread. 🧵

We decided to take Paul Jankura’s Claude Opus 4.5 out for a test drive vs. the current #1 ranking model in Code Arena: Gemini 3 Pro. Same prompt, different outputs. Let’s take a look. Remember, your votes drive the leaderboards. We’ll see how Claude Opus 4.5 stacks up in the coming days! Check out some of the comparisons, like how Claude Opus 4.5 handled the “Pyramids of Giza” prompt, in thread. 🧵

Arena.ai

88,977 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Users can explore how different AI agents analyze the same market task and compare their outputs through the platform. It is a product experience built around agent performance, task execution, and real usage. AI agents are becoming measurable digital workers.

Users can explore how different AI agents analyze the same market task and compare their outputs through the platform. It is a product experience built around agent performance, task execution, and real usage. AI agents are becoming measurable digital workers.

OKAI Official

10,097 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I got early access to AltSociety Chat and the real-time multi-model battles go crazy GPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude respond side by side If you want to know which model actually fits your project, join waitlist is your shortcut:

I got early access to AltSociety Chat and the real-time multi-model battles go crazy GPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude respond side by side If you want to know which model actually fits your project, join waitlist is your shortcut:

Nelly;

64,849 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

Akshay 🚀

63,725 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ANTHROPIC JUST TURNED AI AGENTS INTO GIT REPOS Anthropic shipped "ant" - a CLI that runs every Claude API endpoint straight from your terminal. The headline isn't the terminal access. It's that you can now version-control an AI agent as YAML in Git and have CI sync it to the Claude Platform, the same way you ship code. - Every API resource is a subcommand: messages, models, files, agents, sessions - Define an agent in a YAML file, check it into your repo, and keep it in sync with one update command - Spin up a session, send it an event, then pull every event and tool call back from the same CLI - Claude Code knows how to drive ant out of the box - it shells out and reads the results with no glue code Agents just stopped being prompts you babysit and became infrastructure you deploy.

ANTHROPIC JUST TURNED AI AGENTS INTO GIT REPOS Anthropic shipped "ant" - a CLI that runs every Claude API endpoint straight from your terminal. The headline isn't the terminal access. It's that you can now version-control an AI agent as YAML in Git and have CI sync it to the Claude Platform, the same way you ship code. - Every API resource is a subcommand: messages, models, files, agents, sessions - Define an agent in a YAML file, check it into your repo, and keep it in sync with one update command - Spin up a session, send it an event, then pull every event and tool call back from the same CLI - Claude Code knows how to drive ant out of the box - it shells out and reads the results with no glue code Agents just stopped being prompts you babysit and became infrastructure you deploy.

BuBBliK

200,456 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Vercel's AI SDK 7 ships HarnessAgent, an API for running established agent harnesses like Claude Code, Codex, and Pi. Write the agent once, then use whatever harness is best for your use case. Try building a creative production agent with Pi using the Vercel AI SDK: one image model makes the hero shot, then an E2B sandbox runs Python to cut the backdrop, render every specified size, overlay copy, audit WCAG contrast and palette share, and serve the finished ad set on a live URL. Full example in the cookbook:

Vercel's AI SDK 7 ships HarnessAgent, an API for running established agent harnesses like Claude Code, Codex, and Pi. Write the agent once, then use whatever harness is best for your use case. Try building a creative production agent with Pi using the Vercel AI SDK: one image model makes the hero shot, then an E2B sandbox runs Python to cut the backdrop, render every specified size, overlay copy, audit WCAG contrast and palette share, and serve the finished ad set on a live URL. Full example in the cookbook:

Vasek Mlejnsky

12,722 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

Those building AI coding agents will eventually hit the same wall: No matter how smart the model is, the moment you ask it to write production-ready code with the latest libraries, it starts hallucinating. Everyone is building coding agents these days, but most of them run into the same issue: They're coding with outdated documentation. The root cause isn't the model. It's the retrieval layer. If you are building an AI agent that needs information from specific domains such as code, law, academia, and finance Sign up, connect it to your agent, and you'll see the difference immediately.

Those building AI coding agents will eventually hit the same wall: No matter how smart the model is, the moment you ask it to write production-ready code with the latest libraries, it starts hallucinating. Everyone is building coding agents these days, but most of them run into the same issue: They're coding with outdated documentation. The root cause isn't the model. It's the retrieval layer. If you are building an AI agent that needs information from specific domains such as code, law, academia, and finance Sign up, connect it to your agent, and you'll see the difference immediately.

Jafar Najafov

19,834 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We gave Grok 4.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol the exact same prompt and compared the outputs side by side. The task: generate a fully interactive HTML5 glass bridge simulation with realistic physics, structural failure, cinematic visuals, polished UI, and smooth animations. The difference is actually visible.

We gave Grok 4.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol the exact same prompt and compared the outputs side by side. The task: generate a fully interactive HTML5 glass bridge simulation with realistic physics, structural failure, cinematic visuals, polished UI, and smooth animations. The difference is actually visible.

Entelligence AI

71,177 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

slash1s

20,727 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.

haytam

67,870 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

32,547 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

Claude Fable 5 orchestrating Grok 4.5 is now my favorite real workflow. all you need is this free Claude Code plugin that makes Grok the default implementer. Fable writes the specs and reviews every diff, Grok 4.5 does the typing through the Grok CLI. - Grok handles the volume, Fable handles the judgment - Every diff gets cross-vendor review for free - Specs run as parallel agents when they're independent I've been testing it for a few days and the part that sold me is watching Fable refuse to write code. It sends specs down, judges what comes back, and that's it. setup: 1. claude plugin marketplace add DannyMac180/fable-advisor && claude plugin install fable-advisor 2. Install the Grok CLI from then grok login 3. /model fable It's open source, so you can read the agent files and tweak the routing however you want.

Claude Fable 5 orchestrating Grok 4.5 is now my favorite real workflow. all you need is this free Claude Code plugin that makes Grok the default implementer. Fable writes the specs and reviews every diff, Grok 4.5 does the typing through the Grok CLI. - Grok handles the volume, Fable handles the judgment - Every diff gets cross-vendor review for free - Specs run as parallel agents when they're independent I've been testing it for a few days and the part that sold me is watching Fable refuse to write code. It sends specs down, judges what comes back, and that's it. setup: 1. claude plugin marketplace add DannyMac180/fable-advisor && claude plugin install fable-advisor 2. Install the Grok CLI from then grok login 3. /model fable It's open source, so you can read the agent files and tweak the routing however you want.

Alvaro Cintas

100,558 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Dynamic workflows are a generalization of harnesses, automations, loops, routing, and graphs. It's the most powerful feature I have built into my agent orchestrator. Supports all kinds of patterns that leverage different agent backends (claude, codex, pi, hermes,...). It's a meta-harness approach that unlocks new forms of test-time compute. Example of use cases it supports: > LLM councils to get different perspectives from LLMs or plan more intensively > Dynamically routing tasks to different agents based on needs (e.g., cost efficiency and optimal intelligence) > Advisor/Judge + executor workflows and pretty much any complex graph-based pattern required by the task. I find it especially useful for long-running work and code reviewing. > Agent teams that talk to each other if needed for the task. I like to use this for AI editing, artifact creation, and other creative tasks. And I am sure it supports so many things that I haven't discovered yet. I got inspired by the dynamic workflow feature released by the Claude Code team. I had actually built it earlier this year but wanted to generalize it across different agent backends. I think this is going to become more popular in the coming days. I will share more of my findings soon.

Dynamic workflows are a generalization of harnesses, automations, loops, routing, and graphs. It's the most powerful feature I have built into my agent orchestrator. Supports all kinds of patterns that leverage different agent backends (claude, codex, pi, hermes,...). It's a meta-harness approach that unlocks new forms of test-time compute. Example of use cases it supports: > LLM councils to get different perspectives from LLMs or plan more intensively > Dynamically routing tasks to different agents based on needs (e.g., cost efficiency and optimal intelligence) > Advisor/Judge + executor workflows and pretty much any complex graph-based pattern required by the task. I find it especially useful for long-running work and code reviewing. > Agent teams that talk to each other if needed for the task. I like to use this for AI editing, artifact creation, and other creative tasks. And I am sure it supports so many things that I haven't discovered yet. I got inspired by the dynamic workflow feature released by the Claude Code team. I had actually built it earlier this year but wanted to generalize it across different agent backends. I think this is going to become more popular in the coming days. I will share more of my findings soon.

elvis

32,623 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

MOST PEOPLE WHO BUILD WEBSITES USE CLAUDE CODE THE WRONG WAY A few people train Claude the right way and get the bottom one. The difference is not the model. It is the skills you feed it. Regular Claude without web-design systems produces clean but average product pages. The same Claude, loaded with the right skills, starts delivering sites that look like they cost $5,000. Dark hero. Cinematic pizza shots. Smooth scroll reveals. Menu cards that feel expensive. Zero templates. Those skills are free right now. They live on GitHub. The exact names sit in the article below. One set of prompts. One trained workflow. Suddenly every food brand page you build stops looking like a template and starts looking like money.

Romario

51,349 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

Grok vs Composer 2.5 Cursor just got acquired by SpaceX, so i wanted to test how good their own model is > both were given the same prompt > both completed the task around the same time too but the results are very different who do you think won?

Grok vs Composer 2.5 Cursor just got acquired by SpaceX, so i wanted to test how good their own model is > both were given the same prompt > both completed the task around the same time too but the results are very different who do you think won?

J A Z I I

45,154 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 Claude Code & Codex are EXPENSIVE !! So, I found a CHEAPER AI Agent called WorkBuddy I just tested a new AI model called Hy4 preview And its built for → Coding → Tool use → Deep research → Multi-step workflows And the setup is surprisingly simple. Here’s the tutorial 👇

🚨 Claude Code & Codex are EXPENSIVE !! So, I found a CHEAPER AI Agent called WorkBuddy I just tested a new AI model called Hy4 preview And its built for → Coding → Tool use → Deep research → Multi-step workflows And the setup is surprisingly simple. Here’s the tutorial 👇

AGAFE

78,779 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen