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.

Vercel just solved the biggest problem with trusting agents to write your code. yesterday they shipped Foreman - an open-source software factory. 58 stars. Nobody's seen it yet. The idea? Instead of one agent writing, reviewing and merging its own work - rubber-stamping its own bugs… Foreman splits the... loop into four stations, each one an agent in its own sandbox. And the reviewer runs on a DIFFERENT model vendor: it never sees the implementer's reasoning, only the pushed branch. The agents can't collude. The flow is simple: label an issue "factory" → work enters the line Classifier → triages it, asks questions if it's vague Analyst → turns it into a plan with acceptance criteria Implementer → codes it in a sandbox, runs your repo's own checks Reviewer → judges the branch against the criteria, can send it back twice you → get a draft PR. review, mark ready, merge It also keeps a "factory brain" - durable memory of your repo's quirks that survives across runs. Issue text can't write into it, so nobody prompt-injects your factory. -> MIT. One deploy button. Published by Vercel.show more

Granite

2,132 subscribers

123,948 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & Technologie Bildung Gesundheit & Wellness

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

THIS GUY CONNECTED HIS AI AGENTS TO HIS OBSIDIAN AND BUILT A BRAIN THAT LEARNS ON ITS OWN. HERE'S HOW TO BUILD IT Obsidian is just markdown files sitting in a folder. That turns out to be the perfect memory for an AI agent, because an agent can read and write those files directly. He wired his agents into the vault so they pull context from it, do the work, and write what they learned back. The notes aren't the point. The loop is, and it gets sharper every cycle How to build it: 1. Point an agent at your vault. The fastest way, no plugins, no API keys: open a terminal and run npx obsidian-mcp /path/to/your/vault. That exposes your Obsidian folder to Claude as a tool it can read, search, and write to. Add it to your Claude Code or Cowork config and restart 2. Confirm it can see the brain. Ask it: "list the notes in my vault and summarize what's in them." If it reads them back, the connection is live. Now it starts every task with everything the vault already holds instead of from zero 3. Give each agent one job and a write-back rule. Tell it: "research this, then save what you found as a new note in /brain with links to related notes." One agent researches, one summarizes, one plans. Each writes its output back into the vault 4. Close the loop. Add one line to every agent's instructions: "read /brain before starting, write your result back when done." Now each task leaves the vault richer, and the next run reads that before it works. It compounds instead of resetting 5. You only steer. Review what the brain produces, point it at the next thing. The agents handle the reading, writing, and connecting The edge isn't better notes. It's a brain that feeds itself, so the work gets sharper every cycle instead of starting over Bookmark this

THIS GUY CONNECTED HIS AI AGENTS TO HIS OBSIDIAN AND BUILT A BRAIN THAT LEARNS ON ITS OWN. HERE'S HOW TO BUILD IT Obsidian is just markdown files sitting in a folder. That turns out to be the perfect memory for an AI agent, because an agent can read and write those files directly. He wired his agents into the vault so they pull context from it, do the work, and write what they learned back. The notes aren't the point. The loop is, and it gets sharper every cycle How to build it: 1. Point an agent at your vault. The fastest way, no plugins, no API keys: open a terminal and run npx obsidian-mcp /path/to/your/vault. That exposes your Obsidian folder to Claude as a tool it can read, search, and write to. Add it to your Claude Code or Cowork config and restart 2. Confirm it can see the brain. Ask it: "list the notes in my vault and summarize what's in them." If it reads them back, the connection is live. Now it starts every task with everything the vault already holds instead of from zero 3. Give each agent one job and a write-back rule. Tell it: "research this, then save what you found as a new note in /brain with links to related notes." One agent researches, one summarizes, one plans. Each writes its output back into the vault 4. Close the loop. Add one line to every agent's instructions: "read /brain before starting, write your result back when done." Now each task leaves the vault richer, and the next run reads that before it works. It compounds instead of resetting 5. You only steer. Review what the brain produces, point it at the next thing. The agents handle the reading, writing, and connecting The edge isn't better notes. It's a brain that feeds itself, so the work gets sharper every cycle instead of starting over Bookmark this

Yarchi

58,186 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The reason your AI gives generic answers isn't the model. It's that your company's knowledge lives in 12 different tools and your agent can't see any of it. So here's how to build a context database your agents can actually use: 1) Pull it in: - Slack, email, meetings, docs, tickets - Auto-collected on a schedule into one place. 2) Clean it up. - An agent files what matters and drops the noise, so your brain doesn't bloat. 3) Store it as memory. - Folders of files your agents read from and write back to as they learn. 4) Point your agents at it. - Now they draft, build, and ship with full context instead of guessing. Same model. Same agent. The difference is whether it can understand your company or not. Build the database once. Everything downstream gets smarter.

The reason your AI gives generic answers isn't the model. It's that your company's knowledge lives in 12 different tools and your agent can't see any of it. So here's how to build a context database your agents can actually use: 1) Pull it in: - Slack, email, meetings, docs, tickets - Auto-collected on a schedule into one place. 2) Clean it up. - An agent files what matters and drops the noise, so your brain doesn't bloat. 3) Store it as memory. - Folders of files your agents read from and write back to as they learn. 4) Point your agents at it. - Now they draft, build, and ship with full context instead of guessing. Same model. Same agent. The difference is whether it can understand your company or not. Build the database once. Everything downstream gets smarter.

The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃

13,598 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

While AI timeline argues about loop engineering, a 20-year-old student in Shenzhen built the biggest loop anyone's aimed at money: 300 agents, one brain, $1,200 -> 395,000. Not a prompt. Not a bot. A loop that runs the whole job on its own - and never asks him a thing. No fund. No backers. Just a laptop, a dorm room, and a bet that a swarm beats a genius. His wallet: The smartest single model still works one step at a time. His loop moves in 300 directions at once - and never checks in with him. Claude Opus 4.8 runs the floor as the brain. 300 agents are the hands. One loop ties them together: > Decompose - Opus breaks the market into targets > Dispatch - 300 agents scatter across them at once > Execute - thousands of reads in a single pass, not one by one > Review - Opus grades every edge before a cent moves The hands find. The brain judges. The loop learns what failed and runs again, tighter each time. One daily loss cap, and it shuts itself down. It's not a bot you babysit. It's a loop that runs the whole desk. Everyone's just learning to run one loop. He runs 300 in one. The edge was never the genius model - it's the size of the loop, and the brain in charge of it. Save this - the full 300-agent loop is laid out above, start to finish. You'll want it when you build your own. 300 agents are looping right now, hunting the markets everyone skips. Two clicks and their trades land in your wallet too:

While AI timeline argues about loop engineering, a 20-year-old student in Shenzhen built the biggest loop anyone's aimed at money: 300 agents, one brain, $1,200 -> 395,000. Not a prompt. Not a bot. A loop that runs the whole job on its own - and never asks him a thing. No fund. No backers. Just a laptop, a dorm room, and a bet that a swarm beats a genius. His wallet: The smartest single model still works one step at a time. His loop moves in 300 directions at once - and never checks in with him. Claude Opus 4.8 runs the floor as the brain. 300 agents are the hands. One loop ties them together: > Decompose - Opus breaks the market into targets > Dispatch - 300 agents scatter across them at once > Execute - thousands of reads in a single pass, not one by one > Review - Opus grades every edge before a cent moves The hands find. The brain judges. The loop learns what failed and runs again, tighter each time. One daily loss cap, and it shuts itself down. It's not a bot you babysit. It's a loop that runs the whole desk. Everyone's just learning to run one loop. He runs 300 in one. The edge was never the genius model - it's the size of the loop, and the brain in charge of it. Save this - the full 300-agent loop is laid out above, start to finish. You'll want it when you build your own. 300 agents are looping right now, hunting the markets everyone skips. Two clicks and their trades land in your wallet too:

cvxv666

53,163 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Every AI agent you've tried has amnesia. It does one task, forgets everything, and tomorrow you start from zero. That's not an employee. That's a temp you have to retrain every single morning. Hyperagent by Airtable is the first platform I've used that actually fixes this. Here's what got me: 1. Agents that compound. Each agent has memory. The one running today is smarter than the one you shipped three weeks ago. Same prompt, same integrations, but weeks of your judgment baked in. 2. Real deliverables, real receipts. You don't get a chat transcript. You get finished work with the cost and runtime printed right on it. A full research report for under ten bucks. Try getting that invoice from an agency. 3. A fleet, not a chatbot. Build a specialist for outreach, another for research, another for reporting. Give each one its own tools, its own memory, and its own budget cap so nothing runs away with your credits. 4. Deploy to Slack and your whole team uses the agent you built. One competitive intel agent, @ mentioned by everyone. Airtable runs its own data team this way. 5. Each agent gets its own cloud machine with a real browser and code execution. It works while you sleep. No babysitting, no local setup, no laptop that has to stay open. I put it to work in the video below. Watch what it builds. The teams treating agents as durable assets instead of one-off prompts are going to lap everyone else. This is the first tool that actually treats them that way. #ad Hyperagent

Every AI agent you've tried has amnesia. It does one task, forgets everything, and tomorrow you start from zero. That's not an employee. That's a temp you have to retrain every single morning. Hyperagent by Airtable is the first platform I've used that actually fixes this. Here's what got me: 1. Agents that compound. Each agent has memory. The one running today is smarter than the one you shipped three weeks ago. Same prompt, same integrations, but weeks of your judgment baked in. 2. Real deliverables, real receipts. You don't get a chat transcript. You get finished work with the cost and runtime printed right on it. A full research report for under ten bucks. Try getting that invoice from an agency. 3. A fleet, not a chatbot. Build a specialist for outreach, another for research, another for reporting. Give each one its own tools, its own memory, and its own budget cap so nothing runs away with your credits. 4. Deploy to Slack and your whole team uses the agent you built. One competitive intel agent, @ mentioned by everyone. Airtable runs its own data team this way. 5. Each agent gets its own cloud machine with a real browser and code execution. It works while you sleep. No babysitting, no local setup, no laptop that has to stay open. I put it to work in the video below. Watch what it builds. The teams treating agents as durable assets instead of one-off prompts are going to lap everyone else. This is the first tool that actually treats them that way. #ad Hyperagent

Leonard Rodman

94,961 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Coding agents shouldn't run on a laptop. That's why I've been building Cave. It's a self-hosted platform for running OpenCode agents in isolated sandboxes on your own server. You give it a GitHub repo, it creates an isolated sandbox, clones the code, sets everything up, and gives you a coding agent. Check in from your phone, run multiple agents side by side. It's not open source yet (it will be), but I'm opening a private beta so you can install it on your own server already. I've been dogfooding it since day one. If you're running a software factory: multiple agents working in parallel across repos, Cave gives you one place to monitor and manage all of it. Now, I'm looking for people who want to give it a spin. DM me, happy to set you up 😊 🚀

Coding agents shouldn't run on a laptop. That's why I've been building Cave. It's a self-hosted platform for running OpenCode agents in isolated sandboxes on your own server. You give it a GitHub repo, it creates an isolated sandbox, clones the code, sets everything up, and gives you a coding agent. Check in from your phone, run multiple agents side by side. It's not open source yet (it will be), but I'm opening a private beta so you can install it on your own server already. I've been dogfooding it since day one. If you're running a software factory: multiple agents working in parallel across repos, Cave gives you one place to monitor and manage all of it. Now, I'm looking for people who want to give it a spin. DM me, happy to set you up 😊 🚀

André König

36,113 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Smart money used to mean knowing the right people, being in the right rooms. Now it means having the right agents. For years, building one took five tools, four logins, and a painful month of work. Today, it takes just a single prompt. BNB Agent Studio is live on BNB Smart Chain. Open Cursor or Claude Code, describe the agent you want, and it ships to the chain with its own onchain identity, its own wallet, and a way to pay its own bills. The whole thing runs on Amazon Web Services's Bedrock AgentCore, so your agent stays online long after you've closed your laptop. This is the start of the Smart Money Era. Capital that works for you instead of waiting for you to move it. Agents that monitor markets while you sleep, rebalance positions you'd never get to in time, and hunt yield without checking dashboards. Try BNB Agent Studio for free for a limited time with GitHub login only, with no AWS account or credit card needed. Read the full breakdown in our blog 👇

Smart money used to mean knowing the right people, being in the right rooms. Now it means having the right agents. For years, building one took five tools, four logins, and a painful month of work. Today, it takes just a single prompt. BNB Agent Studio is live on BNB Smart Chain. Open Cursor or Claude Code, describe the agent you want, and it ships to the chain with its own onchain identity, its own wallet, and a way to pay its own bills. The whole thing runs on Amazon Web Services's Bedrock AgentCore, so your agent stays online long after you've closed your laptop. This is the start of the Smart Money Era. Capital that works for you instead of waiting for you to move it. Agents that monitor markets while you sleep, rebalance positions you'd never get to in time, and hunt yield without checking dashboards. Try BNB Agent Studio for free for a limited time with GitHub login only, with no AWS account or credit card needed. Read the full breakdown in our blog 👇

BNB Chain

281,949 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

everyone in iOS development should watch this. seriously, it might change the whole industry. i pointed claude code at a live ios device running on revyl, typed "test everything," and walked away. here's what's actually happening: ① you don't write the tests. no scripts, no selectors, no test plan. i never told it which screens to open or what to check. it read the app, decided what mattered, and tested it. the entire instruction was "test everything." ② it built its own test team. it looked at the app, clocked that it's basically four mini apps (rides, delivery, services, account), and split itself into 4 agents, one per surface. scoping coverage like that is usually a person's whole afternoon. it did it in seconds, unprompted. ③ all four ran at the same time, each on its own live device. this is where revyl comes in. every agent gets its own live ios session in the cloud, so four running apps get tested in parallel instead of taking turns on one simulator. serial testing turns coverage into a time tax. running all of it at once removes the tax. ④ it tests like a person, not like a script. each agent drives the app the way a user would, taps through the flows, and visually checks each screen against what it expected to see. nothing is pinned to a brittle element id, so renaming a button doesn't take down half your suite. that one detail is the most annoying thing about how we test today, and it just quietly goes away. ⑤ no xcuitest, no sims melting your laptop. i didn't write a single xcuitest script, and there were no simulators booting on my machine. the agents run on cloud devices, so coverage stops being capped by what your laptop can handle. the part that got me isn't that an agent tested an app. it's that i never told it how. i handed it a device and an intent, and it figured out the scoping, the parallelizing, and the driving on its own. if you still write and maintain mobile ui tests by hand, i'm not sure that lasts the year.

everyone in iOS development should watch this. seriously, it might change the whole industry. i pointed claude code at a live ios device running on revyl, typed "test everything," and walked away. here's what's actually happening: ① you don't write the tests. no scripts, no selectors, no test plan. i never told it which screens to open or what to check. it read the app, decided what mattered, and tested it. the entire instruction was "test everything." ② it built its own test team. it looked at the app, clocked that it's basically four mini apps (rides, delivery, services, account), and split itself into 4 agents, one per surface. scoping coverage like that is usually a person's whole afternoon. it did it in seconds, unprompted. ③ all four ran at the same time, each on its own live device. this is where revyl comes in. every agent gets its own live ios session in the cloud, so four running apps get tested in parallel instead of taking turns on one simulator. serial testing turns coverage into a time tax. running all of it at once removes the tax. ④ it tests like a person, not like a script. each agent drives the app the way a user would, taps through the flows, and visually checks each screen against what it expected to see. nothing is pinned to a brittle element id, so renaming a button doesn't take down half your suite. that one detail is the most annoying thing about how we test today, and it just quietly goes away. ⑤ no xcuitest, no sims melting your laptop. i didn't write a single xcuitest script, and there were no simulators booting on my machine. the agents run on cloud devices, so coverage stops being capped by what your laptop can handle. the part that got me isn't that an agent tested an app. it's that i never told it how. i handed it a device and an intent, and it figured out the scoping, the parallelizing, and the driving on its own. if you still write and maintain mobile ui tests by hand, i'm not sure that lasts the year.

Landseer Enga

23,963 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Run your coding agent on a local model, with QVAC. OpenCode now plugs into a model on your own machine through our official plugin. That changes two things. Privacy by default. Your repo, your prompts, and every command the agent runs stay on your device. No third-party model ever sees your code. For an agent that reads your codebase and runs commands, that is the point, not a nice-to-have. New workflows. With no meter and no rate limit, the agent does not have to stop. Let it loop on a task, refactor a whole repo overnight, or run a watch-build-fix loop that keeps going. Setup takes a few minutes: one line in opencode.json and OpenCode runs on a local QVAC model. In the video demo, it handles three real developer tasks back to back, fully offline.

Run your coding agent on a local model, with QVAC. OpenCode now plugs into a model on your own machine through our official plugin. That changes two things. Privacy by default. Your repo, your prompts, and every command the agent runs stay on your device. No third-party model ever sees your code. For an agent that reads your codebase and runs commands, that is the point, not a nice-to-have. New workflows. With no meter and no rate limit, the agent does not have to stop. Let it loop on a task, refactor a whole repo overnight, or run a watch-build-fix loop that keeps going. Setup takes a few minutes: one line in opencode.json and OpenCode runs on a local QVAC model. In the video demo, it handles three real developer tasks back to back, fully offline.

QVAC

11,382,628 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

What if you can build an Agent with it own computer in a single api call? At my Google I/O talk, I showed how to use Gemini Managed Agents and the new Interactions API to give your AI a secure, hosted Linux sandbox to execute code and manage its own memory.

What if you can build an Agent with it own computer in a single api call? At my Google I/O talk, I showed how to use Gemini Managed Agents and the new Interactions API to give your AI a secure, hosted Linux sandbox to execute code and manage its own memory.

Philipp Schmid

21,769 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Claude Tag just dropped an AI coworker into your Slack. For a second, we thought we were dead. After researching, we noticed we have a DIFFERENT BET. One Key Question: who configured your Slack coworker? IT Dept did. What it remembers, what data it has access to, which channels it sees. Decided in the backend, handed down to you. So the marketer, the sales rep, the media buyer still don't own their AI. They borrow the company's. SureThing flips it. Everyone spins up their own twin in Slack, no ticket to IT: → Mark in Sales → Jay in Dev → Ivy in Media Buying → Caliana in Social → Alyson in Product Each with its own memory. Each owned by the person doing the actual work. Electricity didn't change the factory until we redesigned the factory. AI won't change the company until we redesign who owns the intelligence. That is the intelligence revolution. Not centralized, but Decentralized. - powered by

Claude Tag just dropped an AI coworker into your Slack. For a second, we thought we were dead. After researching, we noticed we have a DIFFERENT BET. One Key Question: who configured your Slack coworker? IT Dept did. What it remembers, what data it has access to, which channels it sees. Decided in the backend, handed down to you. So the marketer, the sales rep, the media buyer still don't own their AI. They borrow the company's. SureThing flips it. Everyone spins up their own twin in Slack, no ticket to IT: → Mark in Sales → Jay in Dev → Ivy in Media Buying → Caliana in Social → Alyson in Product Each with its own memory. Each owned by the person doing the actual work. Electricity didn't change the factory until we redesigned the factory. AI won't change the company until we redesign who owns the intelligence. That is the intelligence revolution. Not centralized, but Decentralized. - powered by

SureThing

1,215,459 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ONE PROMPT AND ONE BUTTON NOW BUILDS A FULL SYSTEM, DATABASE, BACKEND, AND FRONTEND INCLUDED Most people still picture AI as something you ask questions to, then copy the answer into your own code by hand. A builder wired Claude into Obsidian through MCP instead, so a single written prompt becomes the actual spec for the system. Claude breaks that prompt into database schema, UI components, and API endpoints on its own, then writes, runs, and fixes the code until it actually works. MCP is what makes this possible, it lets the agent see the filesystem, installed packages, and running services before it starts building anything. The output isn't a code snippet sitting in a chat window, it's a live local app running on its own server, ready to open in a browser. What used to need a backend developer, a DevOps engineer, and two weeks now finishes in under fifteen minutes. See the full architecture and prompt structure below👇

ONE PROMPT AND ONE BUTTON NOW BUILDS A FULL SYSTEM, DATABASE, BACKEND, AND FRONTEND INCLUDED Most people still picture AI as something you ask questions to, then copy the answer into your own code by hand. A builder wired Claude into Obsidian through MCP instead, so a single written prompt becomes the actual spec for the system. Claude breaks that prompt into database schema, UI components, and API endpoints on its own, then writes, runs, and fixes the code until it actually works. MCP is what makes this possible, it lets the agent see the filesystem, installed packages, and running services before it starts building anything. The output isn't a code snippet sitting in a chat window, it's a live local app running on its own server, ready to open in a browser. What used to need a backend developer, a DevOps engineer, and two weeks now finishes in under fifteen minutes. See the full architecture and prompt structure below👇

wast3

20,348 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

this model runs coding agents for $0.30 per million tokens and someone just wired it into an entire company most people arguing about AI agents online have never watched one actually run a business types → seeded world → store → heartbeat → memory → cockpit → gate → command line → runtime nine files, one shared state, every screen just reads from it, nobody’s faking their own copy fail a policy check and the approve button turns into “override” instead, so nobody clicks past a red flag by accident that gate is the only reason an agent gets to touch money without someone standing over it bookmark this and watch it run, then read the article below

this model runs coding agents for $0.30 per million tokens and someone just wired it into an entire company most people arguing about AI agents online have never watched one actually run a business types → seeded world → store → heartbeat → memory → cockpit → gate → command line → runtime nine files, one shared state, every screen just reads from it, nobody’s faking their own copy fail a policy check and the approve button turns into “override” instead, so nobody clicks past a red flag by accident that gate is the only reason an agent gets to touch money without someone standing over it bookmark this and watch it run, then read the article below

leopardracer

28,047 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

A DEVELOPER WHO HELPS MAINTAIN GIT ITSELF PROVED THAT USING GIT AND CONTRIBUTING WITH GIT ARE TWO DIFFERENT SKILLS AND ALMOST NO ONE LEARNS THE SECOND 55 minutes from Johannes Schindelin, one of git's most prolific contributors, on the workflow that gets your code accepted into a project you don't own. -> The moment it lands, committing to your own repo turns out to be the easy 10%. Landing a change in someone else's codebase is the part nobody taught you. Most people can save their own work. Far fewer can revise a patch five times, keep the history clean, and merge it into a project moving under them. Saving your code was never the skill -> getting it merged into someone else's is. And when an AI agent fires off a pull request nobody asked for, the person who knows how to really contribute is the one who gets it accepted instead of closed. Anyone can commit to their own repo. The person who can land a change in a project they don't own is the one who actually ships. Bookmark & Watch it today ↓

A DEVELOPER WHO HELPS MAINTAIN GIT ITSELF PROVED THAT USING GIT AND CONTRIBUTING WITH GIT ARE TWO DIFFERENT SKILLS AND ALMOST NO ONE LEARNS THE SECOND 55 minutes from Johannes Schindelin, one of git's most prolific contributors, on the workflow that gets your code accepted into a project you don't own. -> The moment it lands, committing to your own repo turns out to be the easy 10%. Landing a change in someone else's codebase is the part nobody taught you. Most people can save their own work. Far fewer can revise a patch five times, keep the history clean, and merge it into a project moving under them. Saving your code was never the skill -> getting it merged into someone else's is. And when an AI agent fires off a pull request nobody asked for, the person who knows how to really contribute is the one who gets it accepted instead of closed. Anyone can commit to their own repo. The person who can land a change in a project they don't own is the one who actually ships. Bookmark & Watch it today ↓

slash1s

12,750 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Someone just posted the full blueprint for an AI swarm that does the job of a 200-person quant research team. Six agents. Running 24/7. Finding brand-new alpha while you sleep. Citadel needs 100 PhDs to do this. Two Sigma needs 200. This does it with six bots and one laptop. Two ways to play this - spend a weekend building your own swarm, or copy the wallet of one that's already up $2M: Boris Cherny runs Claude Code at Anthropic. Two weeks ago he said: "I don't prompt Claude anymore. I have loops running that prompt Claude. My job is to write loops" Alpha research is just a pipeline. So instead of sitting in it, you hand each stage to its own agent: > one reads every new research paper overnight and pulls out the trade idea > one builds the features and cleans the data > one backtests it over 20 years, costs and slippage included > one runs the hard stats and kills anything overfit > one checks it still works in every market regime > one strips out plain momentum and value to see if any real edge is left Each of those six is a job a fund pays a $600,000-a-year quant to do. He runs all six for the price of an API bill. The rule that makes it work: the agent that builds a signal never gets to approve it. A separate, stronger agent tries to kill it first. Whatever survives all six by morning is real, new alpha. One trader's already running this exact swarm on Polymarket. That $2M wallet is public, every trade on-chain. The full build is in the post below - six agents, the tool that runs them, and the five mistakes that kill most people. Bookmark & read this before it's buried.

cvxv666

103,734 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ANTHROPIC KILLED THE VECTOR DATABASE AND REPLACED IT WITH A FOLDER no embeddings. no black-box retrieval. no special memory tools. the agent just reads and writes a folder the insight: your agent already knows how to use a filesystem. so Anthropic made long-term memory a directory of small markdown files, mounted straight into the agent's sandbox at /mnt/memory the agent manages it with the tools it already has, bash, read, write, edit, grep, and Anthropic auto-injects a note into the system prompt so the agent always knows the memory is there and where to look the result: > every change is an immutable version: full audit trail, point-in-time recovery, redaction > read-only or read-write per store, so many agents can safely share one memory > workspace-scoped and persistent, memory that survives every session end most teams bolt on a vector DB and pray retrieval works. Anthropic went the opposite way: compiled knowledge as plain, human-readable files you can open, diff, and edit yourself and there's a second layer. Anthropic's "Dreaming" runs offline, reviews past sessions and the store, and rewrites it into a cleaner, higher-signal version. the agent literally consolidates memory in its sleep. bookmark this. the most production-grade agent memory right now is just a well-organized folder, and Anthropic proved it.

ANTHROPIC KILLED THE VECTOR DATABASE AND REPLACED IT WITH A FOLDER no embeddings. no black-box retrieval. no special memory tools. the agent just reads and writes a folder the insight: your agent already knows how to use a filesystem. so Anthropic made long-term memory a directory of small markdown files, mounted straight into the agent's sandbox at /mnt/memory the agent manages it with the tools it already has, bash, read, write, edit, grep, and Anthropic auto-injects a note into the system prompt so the agent always knows the memory is there and where to look the result: > every change is an immutable version: full audit trail, point-in-time recovery, redaction > read-only or read-write per store, so many agents can safely share one memory > workspace-scoped and persistent, memory that survives every session end most teams bolt on a vector DB and pray retrieval works. Anthropic went the opposite way: compiled knowledge as plain, human-readable files you can open, diff, and edit yourself and there's a second layer. Anthropic's "Dreaming" runs offline, reviews past sessions and the store, and rewrites it into a cleaner, higher-signal version. the agent literally consolidates memory in its sleep. bookmark this. the most production-grade agent memory right now is just a well-organized folder, and Anthropic proved it.

NO1ennn

13,346 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Anthropic engineer: «You're not supposed to sit and re-prompt Claude all day. You build one loop, and it does the work while you sleep.» • 00:00 - Build your first agent that runs on its own • 05:02 - The loop that fixes its own mistakes • 16:43 - Why Claude forgets you between chats, and the fix You can learn it in one afternoon. 30 minutes here replace what most people spend a year figuring out. Watch it today, then read the guide on building loops below.

Anthropic engineer: «You're not supposed to sit and re-prompt Claude all day. You build one loop, and it does the work while you sleep.» • 00:00 - Build your first agent that runs on its own • 05:02 - The loop that fixes its own mistakes • 16:43 - Why Claude forgets you between chats, and the fix You can learn it in one afternoon. 30 minutes here replace what most people spend a year figuring out. Watch it today, then read the guide on building loops below.

Raytar

28,046 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Ken Griffin, CEO of Citadel, said: "I'm fairly depressed watching AI do a week of PhD work in a few hours" He's worth $51.2 billion and 20% of every stock trade in America goes through his firm. The money isn't what's bothering him. Citadel pays $400,000 to $650,000 a year for that work. New trading AI agent does it now, on a free trial, for people who have never written a line of code. It went live this summer and most of your timeline still hasn't noticed. You type one sentence in plain English. AI agents loop takes it from there: > an AI agent turns your sentence into a real trading strategy > backtests it across 5 years of data in about 12 seconds > scores it 0 to 100 and shows you the exact spot where it leaks > kills the versions that only look good on paper > rebuilds what's left and runs the loop again > stress-tests the survivor on years it has never seen, then puts it live on your exchange in about 90 seconds That list is the entire job description of a junior quant. At a desk, one properly tested idea burns about $87,500 in salary time, and most of what they build is dead by week six. Two clicks and this AI agent is testing your own idea. Costs you nothing and it runs the whole thing by itself: Griffin gets to be depressed about it. He already owns the desk. You just got handed one. Bookmark & read full story of how they got an AI to build trading strategies and kill its own bad ones is in the article below.

Ken Griffin, CEO of Citadel, said: "I'm fairly depressed watching AI do a week of PhD work in a few hours" He's worth $51.2 billion and 20% of every stock trade in America goes through his firm. The money isn't what's bothering him. Citadel pays $400,000 to $650,000 a year for that work. New trading AI agent does it now, on a free trial, for people who have never written a line of code. It went live this summer and most of your timeline still hasn't noticed. You type one sentence in plain English. AI agents loop takes it from there: > an AI agent turns your sentence into a real trading strategy > backtests it across 5 years of data in about 12 seconds > scores it 0 to 100 and shows you the exact spot where it leaks > kills the versions that only look good on paper > rebuilds what's left and runs the loop again > stress-tests the survivor on years it has never seen, then puts it live on your exchange in about 90 seconds That list is the entire job description of a junior quant. At a desk, one properly tested idea burns about $87,500 in salary time, and most of what they build is dead by week six. Two clicks and this AI agent is testing your own idea. Costs you nothing and it runs the whole thing by itself: Griffin gets to be depressed about it. He already owns the desk. You just got handed one. Bookmark & read full story of how they got an AI to build trading strategies and kill its own bad ones is in the article below.

cvxv666

222,320 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

How to build a 1-person AI company that: - Runs locally - 100% open-source - No human employees, all agents - Real-time collaboration via email Multi-agent orchestration is not new. Plenty of frameworks already let agents hand off tasks, run in parallel, and talk to each other. So the interesting question is not whether agents can collaborate. It is what structure you use to make them collaborate. The common approach is to wire a graph of nodes and edges and reason about the plumbing yourself. It works, but you are learning a new abstraction just to describe who does what. There is a coordination structure we have trusted for a hundred years already: an organization. Every company runs the same way. People have roles, roles have reporting lines, and work moves up and down that chart without anyone relaying each message by hand. Map that onto agents and the whole thing gets intuitive. You lay out an org chart, each agent fills one role, you talk to the person at the top, and the org sorts out the work between them. You already know how a company works, so you already know how to run one here. There is no new abstraction to learn. That is exactly what Alook does. Each agent is a live Claude Code or OpenCode session with a defined role, a reporting line, and its own email inbox. The agents coordinate over email, the same way a team would. And it all runs locally through a runtime on your own machine, so nothing leaves your setup. You bring your own agent too. Claude Code and Codex both work, and if you would rather stay fully open source and local, OpenCode works the same way. To show how this feels in practice, I set up three agents as a small sales team. Vi is the one I talk to. I hand Vi a goal, and Vi routes the work down the chart. Neile runs prospect research. Vi passes the target criteria, and Neile reports back a ranked list of names, roles, and companies, each with a suggested angle and a confidence score. Lliane runs outreach. Vi hands over the messaging angle and follow-up cadence, and Lliane reports back on emails sent, responses received, and any deal that needs escalation. I never relay a message between them. Neile and Lliane report to Vi, and Vi updates me in one place. The whole thing is open source and self-hosted, so it runs on your machine with your own agents. Give the repo a star if you want to follow where it goes: I also wrote a full walkthrough on building your own AI company with it, from a blank org chart to a running job. The article is quoted below. Cheers! :)

How to build a 1-person AI company that: - Runs locally - 100% open-source - No human employees, all agents - Real-time collaboration via email Multi-agent orchestration is not new. Plenty of frameworks already let agents hand off tasks, run in parallel, and talk to each other. So the interesting question is not whether agents can collaborate. It is what structure you use to make them collaborate. The common approach is to wire a graph of nodes and edges and reason about the plumbing yourself. It works, but you are learning a new abstraction just to describe who does what. There is a coordination structure we have trusted for a hundred years already: an organization. Every company runs the same way. People have roles, roles have reporting lines, and work moves up and down that chart without anyone relaying each message by hand. Map that onto agents and the whole thing gets intuitive. You lay out an org chart, each agent fills one role, you talk to the person at the top, and the org sorts out the work between them. You already know how a company works, so you already know how to run one here. There is no new abstraction to learn. That is exactly what Alook does. Each agent is a live Claude Code or OpenCode session with a defined role, a reporting line, and its own email inbox. The agents coordinate over email, the same way a team would. And it all runs locally through a runtime on your own machine, so nothing leaves your setup. You bring your own agent too. Claude Code and Codex both work, and if you would rather stay fully open source and local, OpenCode works the same way. To show how this feels in practice, I set up three agents as a small sales team. Vi is the one I talk to. I hand Vi a goal, and Vi routes the work down the chart. Neile runs prospect research. Vi passes the target criteria, and Neile reports back a ranked list of names, roles, and companies, each with a suggested angle and a confidence score. Lliane runs outreach. Vi hands over the messaging angle and follow-up cadence, and Lliane reports back on emails sent, responses received, and any deal that needs escalation. I never relay a message between them. Neile and Lliane report to Vi, and Vi updates me in one place. The whole thing is open source and self-hosted, so it runs on your machine with your own agents. Give the repo a star if you want to follow where it goes: I also wrote a full walkthrough on building your own AI company with it, from a blank org chart to a running job. The article is quoted below. Cheers! :)

Akshay 🚀

169,131 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Another blow to Anthropic! They spent months building what's now fully open-source. Anthropic recently put Claude inside Slack, where you can tag it in a channel. It reads the thread, breaks the task into steps, and posts the result back. The problem is that it only runs Claude and only in the channels Anthropic supports. Running your own agent there is harder. The reasoning, tool calls, and state management are mostly handled by the framework. Connecting that agent to a messaging platform is not. Moreover, each platform has a different integration: - Slack renders messages with Block Kit - Teams uses Adaptive Cards - and each has its own SDK, auth flow, and delivery model. If an agent needs to run on three platforms, one must write three separate integrations against the same agent logic. That overhead explains why most custom agents never get deployed to Slack, and why the ones that do are usually a single vendor's hosted assistant. The alternative is to keep the agent in one place and add a per-platform adapter that translates its output into each platform's native format. The agent is written once, and each channel requires just another output target instead of a separate build. CopilotKit open-sourced this full implementation in the Channels SDK. Essentially, any agent that implements AG-UI can run in a messaging platform in a few lines of code, like Slack, Teams, Discord, WhatsApp, and many more. Because the agent runs inside the thread, it has that conversation's context, so it can summarize the discussion, open a ticket, or route to the right person. It works with any backend, so LangGraph, CrewAI, Mastra, Google ADK, or a plain HTTP agent can connect through an existing endpoint. The same message can render as a Block Kit in Slack and as Adaptive Cards in Teams. In practice, the model and orchestration stay the same; it requires no migration or rewrite. It also handles human-in-the-loop approvals, persistence, and transcripts that carry state across platforms, so a thread started in Teams can continue in Slack. CopilotKit is open-source, and AG-UI is supported across every major agent framework, including LangGraph, CrewAI, Mastra, and Google ADK. Here's the repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐) The agent running in Slack no longer has to be a vendor's. It can be the one you already built. The video below shows this in action. Thanks to CopilotKit for working with me on this launch.

Another blow to Anthropic! They spent months building what's now fully open-source. Anthropic recently put Claude inside Slack, where you can tag it in a channel. It reads the thread, breaks the task into steps, and posts the result back. The problem is that it only runs Claude and only in the channels Anthropic supports. Running your own agent there is harder. The reasoning, tool calls, and state management are mostly handled by the framework. Connecting that agent to a messaging platform is not. Moreover, each platform has a different integration: - Slack renders messages with Block Kit - Teams uses Adaptive Cards - and each has its own SDK, auth flow, and delivery model. If an agent needs to run on three platforms, one must write three separate integrations against the same agent logic. That overhead explains why most custom agents never get deployed to Slack, and why the ones that do are usually a single vendor's hosted assistant. The alternative is to keep the agent in one place and add a per-platform adapter that translates its output into each platform's native format. The agent is written once, and each channel requires just another output target instead of a separate build. CopilotKit open-sourced this full implementation in the Channels SDK. Essentially, any agent that implements AG-UI can run in a messaging platform in a few lines of code, like Slack, Teams, Discord, WhatsApp, and many more. Because the agent runs inside the thread, it has that conversation's context, so it can summarize the discussion, open a ticket, or route to the right person. It works with any backend, so LangGraph, CrewAI, Mastra, Google ADK, or a plain HTTP agent can connect through an existing endpoint. The same message can render as a Block Kit in Slack and as Adaptive Cards in Teams. In practice, the model and orchestration stay the same; it requires no migration or rewrite. It also handles human-in-the-loop approvals, persistence, and transcripts that carry state across platforms, so a thread started in Teams can continue in Slack. CopilotKit is open-source, and AG-UI is supported across every major agent framework, including LangGraph, CrewAI, Mastra, and Google ADK. Here's the repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐) The agent running in Slack no longer has to be a vendor's. It can be the one you already built. The video below shows this in action. Thanks to CopilotKit for working with me on this launch.

Akshay 🚀

242,368 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

underrated gems in Kimi-K3 release: > an early K3 wrote the majority of the kernels in the late development stages > it built a triton-class compiler from scratch, MiniTriton, that delivers performance on par with or better than Triton and torch.compile > then it designed a chip, by a model, for a model, in one 48-hour autonomous run the model is rewriting and optimizing every layer of the stack it runs on: kernels for its own training. A compiler for its own kernels. silicon for its own weights. we're watching software build its own hardware

underrated gems in Kimi-K3 release: > an early K3 wrote the majority of the kernels in the late development stages > it built a triton-class compiler from scratch, MiniTriton, that delivers performance on par with or better than Triton and torch.compile > then it designed a chip, by a model, for a model, in one 48-hour autonomous run the model is rewriting and optimizing every layer of the stack it runs on: kernels for its own training. A compiler for its own kernels. silicon for its own weights. we're watching software build its own hardware

Alex Ker 🔭

310,834 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat