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.

this is certified f*cking gold a 23-year-old from China runs 300 Claude Code agents at once with Jev engineering, and not one of them gets to lie to him he opens the dashboard live: 300 Claude Code agents running in parallel Jev checking every output against its source in... about 100 milliseconds pointed at 100 companies in the EV market: > pass 1 - 12 rejected: wrong revenue, dead citations, empty fields > pass 2 - 3 rejected > pass 3 - zero. every row filed straight into an Obsidian vault the whole trick is the split Claude Code does the work, Jev decides whether each claim actually matches the source Jev never writes a second opinion. it answers yes or no with a confidence score, at $0.042 per million tokens in and the loop won't stop while anything is still wrong an analyst team bills weeks for 100 verified company profiles. he gets them in one run one model writes, a cheaper one decides, and nothing ships until it says yesshow more

Hanako

19,833 subscribers

35,597 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

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

33,524 views • 12 days ago

this is pure f*cking treasure A Stanford AI research group finally drew the perfect RAG system: retrieval, Jev and agents in one loop, and it fixes the 3 things that break every RAG app: > the LLM reads 20 passages when only 3 matter > it answers questions your docs can't answer > it trusts whatever text it retrieves here's how it runs: > a lead agent sends the query > hybrid search pulls the top 20 candidates, dense + keyword > ONE Jev request scores all 20 + 2 gates: answerable? injection? > only passages above 0.6 reach the writer agent > a second Jev call checks every claim against its source > grounded answer, with citations and when the docs don't have it: > answerable fails, the writer never runs > a researcher agent rewrites the query and retries once > still nothing? "not in the docs". zero tokens spent on a guess retrieval casts the net. Jev decides what's real. agents do the work save this before you build your next RAG

this is pure f*cking treasure A Stanford AI research group finally drew the perfect RAG system: retrieval, Jev and agents in one loop, and it fixes the 3 things that break every RAG app: > the LLM reads 20 passages when only 3 matter > it answers questions your docs can't answer > it trusts whatever text it retrieves here's how it runs: > a lead agent sends the query > hybrid search pulls the top 20 candidates, dense + keyword > ONE Jev request scores all 20 + 2 gates: answerable? injection? > only passages above 0.6 reach the writer agent > a second Jev call checks every claim against its source > grounded answer, with citations and when the docs don't have it: > answerable fails, the writer never runs > a researcher agent rewrites the query and retries once > still nothing? "not in the docs". zero tokens spent on a guess retrieval casts the net. Jev decides what's real. agents do the work save this before you build your next RAG

NO1ennn

43,423 views • 8 days 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

24,699 views • 9 days ago

Claude Code tip: if Opus 5.5 is already your main model, Fable 5.1 has been sitting idle this whole time. wire it in with /advisor start it with /advisor fable Opus 5.5 writes every line. Fable 5.1 reads the whole session, every tool call, and says nothing until one of three moments: → a plan gets proposed: is this actually the right move, or just the first one? → the same error comes back twice: is the search stuck, or is this a dead end? → the task gets marked done: what got missed while it was moving fast? Opus 5.5 ships. Fable 5.1 catches what would've shipped broken. Jev engineering makes the same move one layer down: forks that don't need a real thinker, which file, which tool, retry or give up, get routed to Jev and answered in under half a second. the expensive model only ever sees the forks that genuinely split. the tree this runs on: > Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the main session > explorer, medium effort, reads the code > worker, medium effort, edits and runs tests > researcher, medium effort, pulls the docs > Fable 5.1 outside all of it, on call, never writing a line itself drop the tree and this prompt into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Look in ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already cover explorer, worker and researcher. Draft new ones only for roles that are missing. Set each to model: opus, effort: medium. If an existing subagent is pinned to a different model, list it, don't touch it. 2. Set the main session's effortLevel to high in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable. 3. Check for anything disabling the advisor: CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable blocking feature-flag fetches, and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report what you find. Change nothing yet. 4. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Don't touch anything until I say go."

Claude Code tip: if Opus 5.5 is already your main model, Fable 5.1 has been sitting idle this whole time. wire it in with /advisor start it with /advisor fable Opus 5.5 writes every line. Fable 5.1 reads the whole session, every tool call, and says nothing until one of three moments: → a plan gets proposed: is this actually the right move, or just the first one? → the same error comes back twice: is the search stuck, or is this a dead end? → the task gets marked done: what got missed while it was moving fast? Opus 5.5 ships. Fable 5.1 catches what would've shipped broken. Jev engineering makes the same move one layer down: forks that don't need a real thinker, which file, which tool, retry or give up, get routed to Jev and answered in under half a second. the expensive model only ever sees the forks that genuinely split. the tree this runs on: > Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the main session > explorer, medium effort, reads the code > worker, medium effort, edits and runs tests > researcher, medium effort, pulls the docs > Fable 5.1 outside all of it, on call, never writing a line itself drop the tree and this prompt into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Look in ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already cover explorer, worker and researcher. Draft new ones only for roles that are missing. Set each to model: opus, effort: medium. If an existing subagent is pinned to a different model, list it, don't touch it. 2. Set the main session's effortLevel to high in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable. 3. Check for anything disabling the advisor: CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable blocking feature-flag fetches, and CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report what you find. Change nothing yet. 4. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Don't touch anything until I say go."

Ryven

35,757 views • 8 days ago

Jev dropped and people immediately started doing stupid sh*t with it people gave this thing trading bots, browsers, Doom, drones, dinosaurs and tax forms and basically said: “you decide.” here’s what happened: > jev-trader Jev gets a new Monad block every ~300ms and decides whether to place a live limit order. no essay. just the decision. 1,911 stars ▸ ⁠ > jev-ultrafast a browser agent where Jev decides every click. the text model only wakes up when something actually needs to be written. 16,758 stars ▸ ⁠ > jev-doom-agent someone compiled actual Chocolate Doom to WebAssembly and let Jev make the tactical decisions every frame. yes. Doom. ▸ ⁠ > jev-t-rex-runner remember that stupid Chrome dinosaur? now Jev plays it. jump → duck → run → repeat ▸ ⁠ > typesafe-chess Jev went against a real chess search engine. two games. colors swapped. the search engine won both — and overruled Jev’s first instinct on roughly half the moves. ▸ ⁠ > jev-drone camera → Jev → drone. a simulated quadrotor has to clear five stations while Jev looks at the situation twice a second and decides what happens next. ▸ ⁠ > tax-doc-classifier then someone gave it IRS forms. 261 documents. 100% strict accuracy. roughly $0.001/page. ▸ ⁠ > killmyidea this one is evil lol tell it your startup idea. Jev looks at it from different angles and gives you: KILL / FIX / SHIP ▸ ⁠ > jev-curate throw huge Parquet / JSONL datasets at it. Jev judges 1,500+ rows/sec and keeps only the stuff that passes your rules. ▸ ⁠ > pg-jev and now it’s inside PostgreSQL. ask questions about your own tables in plain English → get the decision back. ▸ ⁠ and this is the weird part: none of these need Jev to write you a beautiful paragraph. they need it to look at a situation and pick: BUY / WAIT CLICK A / CLICK B JUMP / DUCK KILL / FIX / SHIP KEEP / DROP that’s basically the whole Jev idea. LLMs think and write. Jev decides. code does. full setup + my three-question Jev test below

Jev dropped and people immediately started doing stupid sh*t with it people gave this thing trading bots, browsers, Doom, drones, dinosaurs and tax forms and basically said: “you decide.” here’s what happened: > jev-trader Jev gets a new Monad block every ~300ms and decides whether to place a live limit order. no essay. just the decision. 1,911 stars ▸ ⁠ > jev-ultrafast a browser agent where Jev decides every click. the text model only wakes up when something actually needs to be written. 16,758 stars ▸ ⁠ > jev-doom-agent someone compiled actual Chocolate Doom to WebAssembly and let Jev make the tactical decisions every frame. yes. Doom. ▸ ⁠ > jev-t-rex-runner remember that stupid Chrome dinosaur? now Jev plays it. jump → duck → run → repeat ▸ ⁠ > typesafe-chess Jev went against a real chess search engine. two games. colors swapped. the search engine won both — and overruled Jev’s first instinct on roughly half the moves. ▸ ⁠ > jev-drone camera → Jev → drone. a simulated quadrotor has to clear five stations while Jev looks at the situation twice a second and decides what happens next. ▸ ⁠ > tax-doc-classifier then someone gave it IRS forms. 261 documents. 100% strict accuracy. roughly $0.001/page. ▸ ⁠ > killmyidea this one is evil lol tell it your startup idea. Jev looks at it from different angles and gives you: KILL / FIX / SHIP ▸ ⁠ > jev-curate throw huge Parquet / JSONL datasets at it. Jev judges 1,500+ rows/sec and keeps only the stuff that passes your rules. ▸ ⁠ > pg-jev and now it’s inside PostgreSQL. ask questions about your own tables in plain English → get the decision back. ▸ ⁠ and this is the weird part: none of these need Jev to write you a beautiful paragraph. they need it to look at a situation and pick: BUY / WAIT CLICK A / CLICK B JUMP / DUCK KILL / FIX / SHIP KEEP / DROP that’s basically the whole Jev idea. LLMs think and write. Jev decides. code does. full setup + my three-question Jev test below

kiosa

67,168 views • 15 days ago

19-year-old from china makes $9,000/month designing product sites and ships each one in an afternoon. here's his exact setup the whole thing runs on two tools that each do one job: > brief written by hand: 5 min > Moonchild builds the design system, then every screen from it: 20 min > MCP hands the design to Claude as real structure, not a screenshot: instant > Claude Code reads those exact tokens and builds the live app: 20 min > second Claude session reviews the build for drift: 10 min total: about an hour. screen five still matches screen one. no agency, no dev, no design team the trick is MCP. the design tool passes Claude the actual colors, components and layout, so it builds from the source instead of guessing from a picture. full pipeline, every prompt, in the article above.

19-year-old from china makes $9,000/month designing product sites and ships each one in an afternoon. here's his exact setup the whole thing runs on two tools that each do one job: > brief written by hand: 5 min > Moonchild builds the design system, then every screen from it: 20 min > MCP hands the design to Claude as real structure, not a screenshot: instant > Claude Code reads those exact tokens and builds the live app: 20 min > second Claude session reviews the build for drift: 10 min total: about an hour. screen five still matches screen one. no agency, no dev, no design team the trick is MCP. the design tool passes Claude the actual colors, components and layout, so it builds from the source instead of guessing from a picture. full pipeline, every prompt, in the article above.

Ridark

19,477 views • 3 months ago

Opus 5.5 + GrokBot + Jev... I can't believe that I build it I packed the best of AI into ONE agent - now 99% of people’s AI agents look dumb, slow, and expensive Try here (free): prompt → GrokBot → Jev chooses LLM → Claude / GPT working on GrokBot's computer 24/7 → result → Jev sends only the tasks Grok is weak at to Opus or GPT → Jev picks the best model for each task - for example, Claude for motion design and Codex for web design → runs on the ChatGPT and Claude subscriptions you already pay for (API also work) → works on GrokBot computer while you keep chatting → checks every result against the goal before you see it → GrokBot gets smarter and cheaper at the same time → And plenty more features in a bot everyone will call "obvious" by 2030 Try Jevopus, thank me later - then read the article on the full Jev architecture ↓

Opus 5.5 + GrokBot + Jev... I can't believe that I build it I packed the best of AI into ONE agent - now 99% of people’s AI agents look dumb, slow, and expensive Try here (free): prompt → GrokBot → Jev chooses LLM → Claude / GPT working on GrokBot's computer 24/7 → result → Jev sends only the tasks Grok is weak at to Opus or GPT → Jev picks the best model for each task - for example, Claude for motion design and Codex for web design → runs on the ChatGPT and Claude subscriptions you already pay for (API also work) → works on GrokBot computer while you keep chatting → checks every result against the goal before you see it → GrokBot gets smarter and cheaper at the same time → And plenty more features in a bot everyone will call "obvious" by 2030 Try Jevopus, thank me later - then read the article on the full Jev architecture ↓

codila

270,673 views • 11 days ago

This is f*cking insane. This tip saved me thousands of dollars. run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop burning Opus on work it was never needed for. the whole idea in one line: the strong model plans, the mid-tier model executes, Fable stays quiet until it's actually needed. roles, broken down: Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, splits into explorer (reads the codebase), worker (edits files, runs tests), researcher (pulls docs) Fable 5.1, called through /advisor fable, reads everything happening in the session but stays silent unless something's actually wrong three moments where Fable speaks: → a plan goes out: is this actually the right call? → the same failure shows up again: is the search going nowhere? → the task gets marked finished: did something get skipped? Jev engineering does the same thing one level down. the forks that don't need real thought, which file, which tool, keep going or stop, go straight to Jev and come back in under half a second. the big models only ever see the forks that genuinely need a decision. anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists. drop this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on each. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. Check for anything disabling the advisor, CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort settings. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: check in with the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."

This is f*cking insane. This tip saved me thousands of dollars. run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop burning Opus on work it was never needed for. the whole idea in one line: the strong model plans, the mid-tier model executes, Fable stays quiet until it's actually needed. roles, broken down: Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, splits into explorer (reads the codebase), worker (edits files, runs tests), researcher (pulls docs) Fable 5.1, called through /advisor fable, reads everything happening in the session but stays silent unless something's actually wrong three moments where Fable speaks: → a plan goes out: is this actually the right call? → the same failure shows up again: is the search going nowhere? → the task gets marked finished: did something get skipped? Jev engineering does the same thing one level down. the forks that don't need real thought, which file, which tool, keep going or stop, go straight to Jev and come back in under half a second. the big models only ever see the forks that genuinely need a decision. anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists. drop this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on each. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. Check for anything disabling the advisor, CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort settings. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: check in with the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."

rvaniaaa

250,263 views • 7 days ago

I GAVE JEV A CRAWLER + ONE GPT AGENT AND ASKED WHERE THE ONLINE MONEY IS RIGHT NOW it read 5,137 open jobs and found 3 niches where clients pay and almost nobody bids everyone asks chatgpt for side hustle ideas everyone gets the same 10 answers so i made it read what clients are actually paying for this week a crawler is a bot that reads the internet for you jev is the ai that answers every question with a number, under a second, under a cent gpt is the expensive brain, it only gets called when jev says a niche is worth it the crawler reads, jev decides, gpt researches honestly gpt alone just guesses, jev is what turns 5,137 jobs into 3 answers what the three of them did: -> crawler read all 5,137 open jobs on freelancer, budgets, skills, how many people already bid -> jev checked every one: real job? doable online by one person? 684 got cut -> gpt named 30 niches from 600 of them, jev sorted all 4,453 into those niches -> jev looked at each niche's numbers and sent only 12 to gpt -> gpt researched those 12 on the open web: other platforms, real prices, how crowded it is -> 3 came back with real demand and fewer bids than the typical job (14): 01 chrome extension · 85 jobs this week · median $545 · 11 bids each · ~$4,671/mo 02 tiktok shop setup · 91 jobs this week · median $232 · 6.5 bids each · ~$1,984/mo 03 notion setup · 95 jobs this week · median $181 · 3 bids each · ~$1,551/mo potential = your fair share of this week's jobs (budget ÷ (bids + 1)), max 2 jobs a week not every pick held up, excel dashboards looked great on freelancer but gpt found it crowded everywhere else jev made 9,617 calls for $0.13, gpt on every job would have cost ~$58.66, the whole run cost $6.53 i wrote up why the cheap brain decides and the expensive one only gets called when it's worth it, it's below ↓ costs nothing bookmark this, empty niches don't stay empty show this to the one friend who keeps asking chatgpt for side hustle ideas should i run it on upwork next, or is chrome extension the one?

I GAVE JEV A CRAWLER + ONE GPT AGENT AND ASKED WHERE THE ONLINE MONEY IS RIGHT NOW it read 5,137 open jobs and found 3 niches where clients pay and almost nobody bids everyone asks chatgpt for side hustle ideas everyone gets the same 10 answers so i made it read what clients are actually paying for this week a crawler is a bot that reads the internet for you jev is the ai that answers every question with a number, under a second, under a cent gpt is the expensive brain, it only gets called when jev says a niche is worth it the crawler reads, jev decides, gpt researches honestly gpt alone just guesses, jev is what turns 5,137 jobs into 3 answers what the three of them did: -> crawler read all 5,137 open jobs on freelancer, budgets, skills, how many people already bid -> jev checked every one: real job? doable online by one person? 684 got cut -> gpt named 30 niches from 600 of them, jev sorted all 4,453 into those niches -> jev looked at each niche's numbers and sent only 12 to gpt -> gpt researched those 12 on the open web: other platforms, real prices, how crowded it is -> 3 came back with real demand and fewer bids than the typical job (14): 01 chrome extension · 85 jobs this week · median $545 · 11 bids each · ~$4,671/mo 02 tiktok shop setup · 91 jobs this week · median $232 · 6.5 bids each · ~$1,984/mo 03 notion setup · 95 jobs this week · median $181 · 3 bids each · ~$1,551/mo potential = your fair share of this week's jobs (budget ÷ (bids + 1)), max 2 jobs a week not every pick held up, excel dashboards looked great on freelancer but gpt found it crowded everywhere else jev made 9,617 calls for $0.13, gpt on every job would have cost ~$58.66, the whole run cost $6.53 i wrote up why the cheap brain decides and the expensive one only gets called when it's worth it, it's below ↓ costs nothing bookmark this, empty niches don't stay empty show this to the one friend who keeps asking chatgpt for side hustle ideas should i run it on upwork next, or is chrome extension the one?

Paone

49,272 views • 4 days ago

A 20-year-old student from China, Li Hao, built an AI speed radar with Claude alone and sold it to a city district for $317,000 He wrote the whole thing in 9 days, spending about $20 on Claude API calls He set an old camera on his balcony, pointed it at the intersection below, and let Claude watch the road Claude tags every car, motorbike and pedestrian in real time, 653 in five minutes, and flags anyone over the limit The moment a car speeds, Claude clips the video, reads the license plate, matches the owner, and emails the fine on its own A normal radar takes one photo and misses half the time. Claude records full video, so there is nothing to dispute, and the fines go out with no operator He walked into the district office with a flash drive and asked for 10 minutes. he left with a contract Every Claude config he used is in the article

A 20-year-old student from China, Li Hao, built an AI speed radar with Claude alone and sold it to a city district for $317,000 He wrote the whole thing in 9 days, spending about $20 on Claude API calls He set an old camera on his balcony, pointed it at the intersection below, and let Claude watch the road Claude tags every car, motorbike and pedestrian in real time, 653 in five minutes, and flags anyone over the limit The moment a car speeds, Claude clips the video, reads the license plate, matches the owner, and emails the fine on its own A normal radar takes one photo and misses half the time. Claude records full video, so there is nothing to dispute, and the fines go out with no operator He walked into the district office with a flash drive and asked for 10 minutes. he left with a contract Every Claude config he used is in the article

Fokki

332,896 views • 3 months ago

VERCEL + CLOUDFLARE + CLAUDE CODE all picked up Jev in 6 days... an AI that can't write a single word became the fastest adopted model on Vercel's AI Gateway Jev decides → big model thinks → code authorizes TypeSafe dropped it on September 15, founder Diogo Almeida worked on ChatGPT research at OpenAI it answers three ways: pick one option, rate it on a scale, or yes/no with a percentage "which agent next?" comes back as Researcher 71% / Coder 18% / Reviewer 11% Vercel says almost 13% of its paying teams tried it within the first 24 hours on Vercel's leaderboard it pulled about 26% of all requests but only 1.8% of tokens TypeSafe's own tests: up to 194x faster and 445x cheaper than regular models TypeSafe calls it a System One Model, named after Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow your expensive model stops burning tokens on yes or no questions and only gets the hard ones 6 days, 110 community use cases, zero words written ↓

VERCEL + CLOUDFLARE + CLAUDE CODE all picked up Jev in 6 days... an AI that can't write a single word became the fastest adopted model on Vercel's AI Gateway Jev decides → big model thinks → code authorizes TypeSafe dropped it on September 15, founder Diogo Almeida worked on ChatGPT research at OpenAI it answers three ways: pick one option, rate it on a scale, or yes/no with a percentage "which agent next?" comes back as Researcher 71% / Coder 18% / Reviewer 11% Vercel says almost 13% of its paying teams tried it within the first 24 hours on Vercel's leaderboard it pulled about 26% of all requests but only 1.8% of tokens TypeSafe's own tests: up to 194x faster and 445x cheaper than regular models TypeSafe calls it a System One Model, named after Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow your expensive model stops burning tokens on yes or no questions and only gets the hard ones 6 days, 110 community use cases, zero words written ↓

leopardracer

16,184 views • 7 days ago

Top 12 agentic use cases for Jev: (bookmark this) Jev handles semantic decisions that ordinary code cannot express reliably. It returns typed answers and probabilities, while code continues to cover the workflow. Here are 12 practical use cases for Jev: 1. Browser next action > Convert the current DOM state into a bounded action such as click, type, or stop. Code executes only valid operation-target pairs. There are already several open-source Jev web agents. 2. Context compaction > Decide which events from a long agent trace should remain. The selected text stays verbatim instead of being replaced with a generated summary. 3. Skill and context loading > Compare the current user turn against the available skills. Load only the instructions needed for that turn instead of filling the context window with every skill. 4. Typed tool-call compilation > Map a natural-language request to a function and fill its typed arguments. Each argument is evaluated separately before code allows execution. 5. Citation verification > Check whether a quoted passage exists and whether the surrounding evidence supports the claim. The output can be supported, unsupported, or contradicted. 6. Extraction verification > Run a cheap extractor first, then use Jev to verify questionable fields. Clean records stay on the fast path while uncertain ones reach a reasoning model. 7. Agent trace evaluation > Turn raw trajectories into queryable labels such as progress and repetition. This avoids asking another LLM to write a full review of every run. 8. Semantic regression tests > Replay a trace suite against a new agent build. Semantic checks can then pass or block prompt, model, tool, and policy changes in CI. 9. Jevgrep code search > Search a codebase by what the code does rather than its exact words. Jev scores candidate snippets and returns the most relevant code first. 10. Entity alignment > Compare two candidate records and decide whether to merge, review, or keep them separate. Candidate generation remains deterministic while Jev handles semantic identity. 11. Retrieval reranking > Let embeddings retrieve a broad candidate set, then use Jev to reorder passages by relevance. The generation model receives the most useful evidence first. 12. Memory promotion gate > Capture a completed agent trace, then judge whether its corrections contain a reusable lesson. Trace-backed lessons can be promoted while task-specific noise is discarded. If you want to see the final pattern in practice, it is already implemented in the Beacon open-source project. Beacon captures full sessions across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, and 20+ agent harnesses, and then Jev identifies which workflows and corrections are worth learning from, so that a lesson discovered by one agent can become available to the others. GitHub repo: (don’t forget to star it ⭐) If you want to dive deeper, I also wrote about a similar mechanism in a hands-on guide. It covers building a Jev-style decision path with open models, entirely locally. Read it below.

Top 12 agentic use cases for Jev: (bookmark this) Jev handles semantic decisions that ordinary code cannot express reliably. It returns typed answers and probabilities, while code continues to cover the workflow. Here are 12 practical use cases for Jev: 1. Browser next action > Convert the current DOM state into a bounded action such as click, type, or stop. Code executes only valid operation-target pairs. There are already several open-source Jev web agents. 2. Context compaction > Decide which events from a long agent trace should remain. The selected text stays verbatim instead of being replaced with a generated summary. 3. Skill and context loading > Compare the current user turn against the available skills. Load only the instructions needed for that turn instead of filling the context window with every skill. 4. Typed tool-call compilation > Map a natural-language request to a function and fill its typed arguments. Each argument is evaluated separately before code allows execution. 5. Citation verification > Check whether a quoted passage exists and whether the surrounding evidence supports the claim. The output can be supported, unsupported, or contradicted. 6. Extraction verification > Run a cheap extractor first, then use Jev to verify questionable fields. Clean records stay on the fast path while uncertain ones reach a reasoning model. 7. Agent trace evaluation > Turn raw trajectories into queryable labels such as progress and repetition. This avoids asking another LLM to write a full review of every run. 8. Semantic regression tests > Replay a trace suite against a new agent build. Semantic checks can then pass or block prompt, model, tool, and policy changes in CI. 9. Jevgrep code search > Search a codebase by what the code does rather than its exact words. Jev scores candidate snippets and returns the most relevant code first. 10. Entity alignment > Compare two candidate records and decide whether to merge, review, or keep them separate. Candidate generation remains deterministic while Jev handles semantic identity. 11. Retrieval reranking > Let embeddings retrieve a broad candidate set, then use Jev to reorder passages by relevance. The generation model receives the most useful evidence first. 12. Memory promotion gate > Capture a completed agent trace, then judge whether its corrections contain a reusable lesson. Trace-backed lessons can be promoted while task-specific noise is discarded. If you want to see the final pattern in practice, it is already implemented in the Beacon open-source project. Beacon captures full sessions across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, and 20+ agent harnesses, and then Jev identifies which workflows and corrections are worth learning from, so that a lesson discovered by one agent can become available to the others. GitHub repo: (don’t forget to star it ⭐) If you want to dive deeper, I also wrote about a similar mechanism in a hands-on guide. It covers building a Jev-style decision path with open models, entirely locally. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

127,384 views • 12 days ago

I still don't understand why everyone is not using this yet. Thanks to it, a year ago I increased my income to 17,000 dollars a month Andrey Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI, published a simple idea that got 16 million views: stop using AI to write code, use it to build a second brain You point Claude Code to a folder, drop any source in there (an article, transcript, PDF) and Claude reads it, links it, and saves it into a living wiki of everything you know. It compounds like interest: the more you feed it, the smarter it gets Here is the gist: Install Obsidian, create a vault, open it in Claude Code Paste the file with Karpathy's wiki idea and tell Claude to build it Claude creates three folders: raw for sources, wiki for its pages, CLAUDE which runs everything Drop any source into raw and say "ingest this" Ask questions across everything, forever Five minutes to set up, and you never start with an empty chat again The full step-by-step guide is in the article. Save to bookmarks

I still don't understand why everyone is not using this yet. Thanks to it, a year ago I increased my income to 17,000 dollars a month Andrey Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI, published a simple idea that got 16 million views: stop using AI to write code, use it to build a second brain You point Claude Code to a folder, drop any source in there (an article, transcript, PDF) and Claude reads it, links it, and saves it into a living wiki of everything you know. It compounds like interest: the more you feed it, the smarter it gets Here is the gist: Install Obsidian, create a vault, open it in Claude Code Paste the file with Karpathy's wiki idea and tell Claude to build it Claude creates three folders: raw for sources, wiki for its pages, CLAUDE which runs everything Drop any source into raw and say "ingest this" Ask questions across everything, forever Five minutes to set up, and you never start with an empty chat again The full step-by-step guide is in the article. Save to bookmarks

Bober_smart

2,878,852 views • 1 month ago

While you’re reading this his YouTube channel just made another $300 A guy from Spain doesn’t speak on camera. Doesn’t edit. Doesn’t brainstorm. He opens Claude Opus, types what he needs, and walks away. The script writes itself. The video goes up. The money comes in. $300 a day. Not from a job. Not from freelance. Not from grinding 12-hour days. From a faceless YouTube channel where Claude writes every single script. 56,700 views on one video. 3,000 above his usual average. +369 new subscribers from a single upload. $300 in estimated earnings and the video is still running. His own caption says it: “Script with Claude Opus 4.6 flies like a plane.” While other creators rewrite their scripts 6 times and still get 800 views He typed one prompt. Claude did the rest. $300 today. $300 tomorrow. $300 while he’s at lunch in Madrid. The channel doesn’t stop when he does. Most people will read this, think “nice” and keep doing it the hard way. A few will open Claude tonight and start. The screen doesn’t lie. Which one are you?

While you’re reading this his YouTube channel just made another $300 A guy from Spain doesn’t speak on camera. Doesn’t edit. Doesn’t brainstorm. He opens Claude Opus, types what he needs, and walks away. The script writes itself. The video goes up. The money comes in. $300 a day. Not from a job. Not from freelance. Not from grinding 12-hour days. From a faceless YouTube channel where Claude writes every single script. 56,700 views on one video. 3,000 above his usual average. +369 new subscribers from a single upload. $300 in estimated earnings and the video is still running. His own caption says it: “Script with Claude Opus 4.6 flies like a plane.” While other creators rewrite their scripts 6 times and still get 800 views He typed one prompt. Claude did the rest. $300 today. $300 tomorrow. $300 while he’s at lunch in Madrid. The channel doesn’t stop when he does. Most people will read this, think “nice” and keep doing it the hard way. A few will open Claude tonight and start. The screen doesn’t lie. Which one are you?

Shelpid.WI3M

14,648 views • 4 months ago

jev + opus 5.5 for design is insane... a launch video used to mean an agency, weeks of back and forth and a fat invoice. now Opus 5.5 makes the video, the ad cuts and the landing page from one brief. the video below: made in 3 minutes. at 0:09 it drops into edit mode - dot grid, selection handles, pixel sizes on every card - so you see exactly how it was built. but most people get the same mid result: centered text, gradient background, everything fading in. That's Opus's default look when it has nothing to copy. here's the pipeline that makes it look like an agency did it: 1. Build the brand brain first → logo, colors, fonts, screenshots of your real product, your best ad copy → have Opus turn it into a DESIGN.md. The video and the site both follow it 2. Steal a reference, don't describe one → pick 1-2 launch videos with the pacing you want → "make it like this" beats "make it modern and punchy" every time 3. Give it a renderer → install HyperFrames or Remotion: every scene is code, rendered straight to mp4 → a change = one line and a re-render, not starting over 4. Use real components → buttons, cards and UI from 21st_dev instead of empty placeholder boxes → fake-looking UI is the fastest way to look cheap 5. Storyboard before motion → 3 storyboard options, you pick one, then one still per scene → fixing a still takes seconds, fixing a render takes a re-render 6. Run it as a 4-person team + jev → breakdown: pull pacing, type and transitions from the reference → storyboard: the 3 options and the stills → build: every scene in code, music, draft render → review: watch it second by second, list the problems, touch nothing → jev: scores every review note against DESIGN.md (fix now / later / skip) in milliseconds, so build only touches what matters 7. Cut the ads from the same project → same scenes, different hooks: pain first, result first, offer first → 9:16 for reels, 1:1 for feed, 16:9 for YouTube. No reshoots 8. Ship the landing page from the same DESIGN.md → the hero is a looping cut of the launch video → before launch: mobile, every button state, zero placeholder text 9. Give notes like a director → "slow this zoom by half", "hard cut here", "push in on the button" → "make it better" gets random changes paste this into Claude Code 👇 "Read my brand folder and write DESIGN.md. Break down the reference video I give you: pacing, type, transitions. Show me 3 storyboards, then one still per scene for the one I pick. Build every scene in HyperFrames, add music, render a draft. Review it second by second without editing and list the problems. Pass every note to Jev and have it score each one against DESIGN.md: fix now / later / skip. Fix only "fix now". After I approve: cut 3 ad variants with different hooks in 9:16, 1:1 and 16:9, then build the landing page from the same DESIGN.md with the video loop as the hero." everyone has the same model. bookmark this and start using the edge.

Archive

39,253 views • 10 days ago

THIS TRADER TRAINED HIS OBSIDIAN VAULT ON HUNDREDS OF CHART PATTERNS AND NOW IT THINKS WITH HIM every setup he ever studied is in there > linked to the outcome > linked to the context > linked to what he was thinking at the time he types one command > Claude Code finds the relevant sources, runs analysis through NotebookLM, saves everything structured the vault doesn't just store information anymore it connects it most traders are still screenshotting charts into a Discord and forgetting them in 48 hours article below

THIS TRADER TRAINED HIS OBSIDIAN VAULT ON HUNDREDS OF CHART PATTERNS AND NOW IT THINKS WITH HIM every setup he ever studied is in there > linked to the outcome > linked to the context > linked to what he was thinking at the time he types one command > Claude Code finds the relevant sources, runs analysis through NotebookLM, saves everything structured the vault doesn't just store information anymore it connects it most traders are still screenshotting charts into a Discord and forgetting them in 48 hours article below

monokern

85,964 views • 4 months ago

A WEB STUDIO CHARGES $35,000 FOR AN ANIMATED SITE. THE SAME BUILD NOW COSTS $12 - CLAUDE CODE WRITES, HIGGSFIELD RENDERS. Every agency billing $100-149/hr is just three departments. Here's each one, collapsed into a single agentic session. SYSTEM 1 - THE MOTION STUDIO (Higgsfield) Cinematic clips pulled from 30+ generative models - hero shots, transitions, ambient loops. → This used to be a motion artist on retainer. Now it's a prompt. SYSTEM 2 - THE DEV TEAM (Claude Code) Scaffolds the site, writes the GSAP ScrollTrigger timelines and Lenis smooth-scroll, extracts frames, optimizes every asset. → A full scroll-driven build with zero hand-coded keyframes. SYSTEM 3 - THE DESIGN DEPT (baked-in cinematic layer) Six effects with no config: film grain, particles, vignette, glass cards, color tints, scroll pacing. → The polish that justified the invoice - now it ships by default. Three departments. One operator. One pass. What used to take a designer, a motion artist, and a developer through weeks of handoffs now runs in a single session - for a Claude subscription and a few dollars of Higgsfield credits. The studio was never the talent. It was the overhead. And the overhead just became three systems. Reply "web-site" to this post and I will send you the step-by-step Playbook 👇

A WEB STUDIO CHARGES $35,000 FOR AN ANIMATED SITE. THE SAME BUILD NOW COSTS $12 - CLAUDE CODE WRITES, HIGGSFIELD RENDERS. Every agency billing $100-149/hr is just three departments. Here's each one, collapsed into a single agentic session. SYSTEM 1 - THE MOTION STUDIO (Higgsfield) Cinematic clips pulled from 30+ generative models - hero shots, transitions, ambient loops. → This used to be a motion artist on retainer. Now it's a prompt. SYSTEM 2 - THE DEV TEAM (Claude Code) Scaffolds the site, writes the GSAP ScrollTrigger timelines and Lenis smooth-scroll, extracts frames, optimizes every asset. → A full scroll-driven build with zero hand-coded keyframes. SYSTEM 3 - THE DESIGN DEPT (baked-in cinematic layer) Six effects with no config: film grain, particles, vignette, glass cards, color tints, scroll pacing. → The polish that justified the invoice - now it ships by default. Three departments. One operator. One pass. What used to take a designer, a motion artist, and a developer through weeks of handoffs now runs in a single session - for a Claude subscription and a few dollars of Higgsfield credits. The studio was never the talent. It was the overhead. And the overhead just became three systems. Reply "web-site" to this post and I will send you the step-by-step Playbook 👇

ZEUS⚡️

175,274 views • 3 months ago

I genuinely don't understand why everyone isn't using this yet Andrej Karpathy, a co-founder of OpenAI, posted a simple idea that hit 16 million views: stop using AI to write code, use it to build a second brain. You point Claude Code at a folder, drop in any source, an article, a transcript, a PDF, and Claude reads it, links it, and files it into a living wiki of everything you know. It compounds like interest, the more you feed it, the smarter it gets. Here's the whole thing: > Install Obsidian, create a vault, open it in Claude Code > Paste Karpathy's wiki idea file and tell Claude to build it > Claude makes three folders: raw for sources, wiki for its pages, a CLAUDE.md that runs it > Drop any source into raw and say "ingest this" > Ask questions across everything, forever Five minutes to set up, and you never start from a blank chat again. Full step-by-step guide with Claude and Obsidian, link below. Bookmark this

I genuinely don't understand why everyone isn't using this yet Andrej Karpathy, a co-founder of OpenAI, posted a simple idea that hit 16 million views: stop using AI to write code, use it to build a second brain. You point Claude Code at a folder, drop in any source, an article, a transcript, a PDF, and Claude reads it, links it, and files it into a living wiki of everything you know. It compounds like interest, the more you feed it, the smarter it gets. Here's the whole thing: > Install Obsidian, create a vault, open it in Claude Code > Paste Karpathy's wiki idea file and tell Claude to build it > Claude makes three folders: raw for sources, wiki for its pages, a CLAUDE.md that runs it > Drop any source into raw and say "ingest this" > Ask questions across everything, forever Five minutes to set up, and you never start from a blank chat again. Full step-by-step guide with Claude and Obsidian, link below. Bookmark this

Ridark

7,024,664 views • 3 months 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 • 1 month ago

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

200,690 views • 4 months ago