Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

we just released a new blog "Training a coding agent using the OpenCode harness in remote HF sandboxes with TRL and OpenEnv" you can take a real coding agent (OpenCode), let it run its own tool loop against real coding problems, and train it with RL on the exact...

SergioPaniego's profile picture

Sergio Paniego

5,633 subscribers

34,431 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

We built the best codebase search to give any agent grounded information from GitHub repos. Introducing Sandbox Search. Point it at any repo, and we’ll spin up a secure coding agent in its own sandbox to do research for you. Use inside claude code, openclaw, cursor, and more.
0:14

We built the best codebase search to give any agent grounded information from GitHub repos. Introducing Sandbox Search. Point it at any repo, and we’ll spin up a secure coding agent in its own sandbox to do research for you. Use inside claude code, openclaw, cursor, and more.

Arlan

12,412 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Introducing Agent Sandbox, the infinite simulation playground for agents on Virtuals. Craft the perfect autonomous agent in our Sandbox with full control over its personality and goals. Enhance your agent with unique abilities by creating custom functions so they can trade onchain, generate memes, control physical robots and more. The Sandbox is available to all builders with graduated agents in the Developer Panel. For those who want to give it a spin without an existing agent, fret not. Try it out today at and join our Discord ( to jam with like-minded builders. Next stop, Society of Agents.
0:15

Introducing Agent Sandbox, the infinite simulation playground for agents on Virtuals. Craft the perfect autonomous agent in our Sandbox with full control over its personality and goals. Enhance your agent with unique abilities by creating custom functions so they can trade onchain, generate memes, control physical robots and more. The Sandbox is available to all builders with graduated agents in the Developer Panel. For those who want to give it a spin without an existing agent, fret not. Try it out today at and join our Discord ( to jam with like-minded builders. Next stop, Society of Agents.

Virtuals Protocol

188,322 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The craft of engineering is rapidly changing. At Ramp, we built our own background coding agent to accelerate faster. We call it Inspect. It wrote 30% of merged frontend + backend PRs in the past week. It’s powered by OpenCode, Modal and Cloudflare Developers. It runs fully in the cloud, and starts in seconds, letting every builder work at the speed of thought, no setup required. Today, we’re open sourcing the full blueprint so anybody can build their own Inspect. Just give our spec to your current coding agent, and let it build your new favourite.
0:11

The craft of engineering is rapidly changing. At Ramp, we built our own background coding agent to accelerate faster. We call it Inspect. It wrote 30% of merged frontend + backend PRs in the past week. It’s powered by OpenCode, Modal and Cloudflare Developers. It runs fully in the cloud, and starts in seconds, letting every builder work at the speed of thought, no setup required. Today, we’re open sourcing the full blueprint so anybody can build their own Inspect. Just give our spec to your current coding agent, and let it build your new favourite.

Zach Bruggeman

802,543 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.
0:18

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

Akshay 🚀

244,402 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

300 AI AGENTS QUIETLY RUN 99% OF A REAL COMPANY. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD OF IT This is Raft. Not an AI chat. A workspace where the agents live in your channels and reply in the thread like coworkers. You give one goal. Then they take over. They plan. They build. They check each other. They argue. And they come back with it done, while you sleep. Every agent has its own name, role, and memory. It remembers the edits you made yesterday. A human costs one seat. An agent costs a tenth. Ten agents are cheaper than one hire. And here is the strange part. On June 19 an agent from a different company walked into Raft on its own and joined the team. One founder admits he can no longer always tell himself apart from his AI twin. 20,000 people are already inside. It is free to start. And you are still typing prompts one at a time. One person + Raft = an entire company that runs while you sleep. Save and watch the clip.
0:16

300 AI AGENTS QUIETLY RUN 99% OF A REAL COMPANY. YOU HAVE NOT EVEN HEARD OF IT This is Raft. Not an AI chat. A workspace where the agents live in your channels and reply in the thread like coworkers. You give one goal. Then they take over. They plan. They build. They check each other. They argue. And they come back with it done, while you sleep. Every agent has its own name, role, and memory. It remembers the edits you made yesterday. A human costs one seat. An agent costs a tenth. Ten agents are cheaper than one hire. And here is the strange part. On June 19 an agent from a different company walked into Raft on its own and joined the team. One founder admits he can no longer always tell himself apart from his AI twin. 20,000 people are already inside. It is free to start. And you are still typing prompts one at a time. One person + Raft = an entire company that runs while you sleep. Save and watch the clip.

shmidt

19,505 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

Excited to introduce Diffusion Augmented Agents (DAAGs)✨. We give an agent control of a diffusion model, so it can create its own *synthetic experience*.🪄 The result is a lifelong agent that can learn new reward detectors and policies, much more efficiently. Here's how. 👇
0:18

Excited to introduce Diffusion Augmented Agents (DAAGs)✨. We give an agent control of a diffusion model, so it can create its own *synthetic experience*.🪄 The result is a lifelong agent that can learn new reward detectors and policies, much more efficiently. Here's how. 👇

Norman Di Palo

12,927 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

THAT'S CRAZY, THIS CHINESE FOUNDER BUILT A MASSIVE MAC MINI FARM AND EACH ONE RUNNING ITS OWN HERMES AI AGENT LIKE A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE He's not running one AI assistant. He's running an entire workforce. The stack: Mac Mini + Hermes, scaled out across a full physical farm. Every single Mac Mini in the rack runs its own instance of Hermes Agent – and each one has its own dedicated job. Not duplicated tasks. Actual division of labor, machine by machine, the way you'd structure a real team. No salaries. No sick days. No onboarding. Just racks of hardware, each one handling its own piece of the business, running in parallel, 24/7. This is what it looks like when "AI agent" stops being one chatbot on your laptop and starts being an actual operation. Most people are running one AI tool. This guy built a company out of them. Bookmark this post. Full setup in the video below.
0:14

THAT'S CRAZY, THIS CHINESE FOUNDER BUILT A MASSIVE MAC MINI FARM AND EACH ONE RUNNING ITS OWN HERMES AI AGENT LIKE A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE He's not running one AI assistant. He's running an entire workforce. The stack: Mac Mini + Hermes, scaled out across a full physical farm. Every single Mac Mini in the rack runs its own instance of Hermes Agent – and each one has its own dedicated job. Not duplicated tasks. Actual division of labor, machine by machine, the way you'd structure a real team. No salaries. No sick days. No onboarding. Just racks of hardware, each one handling its own piece of the business, running in parallel, 24/7. This is what it looks like when "AI agent" stops being one chatbot on your laptop and starts being an actual operation. Most people are running one AI tool. This guy built a company out of them. Bookmark this post. Full setup in the video below.

SCOTTY BEAM

20,503 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

This is how you unlock the next billion software developers. The new Replit ⠕ Agent 3 (they just launched) is the most advanced vibe-coding agent in the world. 1. Smarter than any other vibe-coding model (10x more autonomous than the previous version). 2. It thinks harder and lasts longer than any other model (up to 200 minutes running fully autonomously). 3. The agent can now use an actual browser to test and fix its own code. 4. 3x faster and 10x more cost-effective than any other "Computer Use" for testing. 5. It can build other agents and automations to take care of repetitive tasks. Seeing the agent test the application autonomously is science fiction!
0:16

This is how you unlock the next billion software developers. The new Replit ⠕ Agent 3 (they just launched) is the most advanced vibe-coding agent in the world. 1. Smarter than any other vibe-coding model (10x more autonomous than the previous version). 2. It thinks harder and lasts longer than any other model (up to 200 minutes running fully autonomously). 3. The agent can now use an actual browser to test and fix its own code. 4. 3x faster and 10x more cost-effective than any other "Computer Use" for testing. 5. It can build other agents and automations to take care of repetitive tasks. Seeing the agent test the application autonomously is science fiction!

Santiago

167,056 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

let me save you 3 hours of head scratching. if you're running local models like Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through Claude Code via llama.cpp's Anthropic endpoint, the chain will break every 3 to 5 minutes. tool call fails. flow stops. you reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness chokes on local inference latency. switch to OpenCode. same localhost endpoint. same model. same GPU. the chain doesn't break. the tradeoff: OpenCode sometimes loops. the model forgets what it already read and repeats the same tool call. but a loop you can interrupt. a broken chain kills your momentum and you start over. watch both side by side. proprietary agent vs open source agent. same 3B model. different failure modes. pick your poison.
0:19

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

Sudo su

72,501 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Making OpenCode as lean as Pi agent? Just trimmed 25k out of OpenCode's system prompt (from 30k to 4-5k tokens) How? Just disable skills and get rid of massive skill definition bloat. Who needs skills anyway? Just kidding, this is the not the way. It makes the agent lame and defeats the point of using one. But it sets a precedent: Find a way to use skills without their definitions pre-loaded into the system prompt every single turn. Another interesting stuff: Upon testing this temporary "no skill setup" with two of hottest OpenCode Zen free models, Mimo V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: One thinks more and talks less One thinks less and talks more Check the video to see which is which If you made it here, I'm finding a way to leanest OpenCode setup that I can get I simply don't believe that OpenCode can't be as lean as Pi Upon tinkering, I made a plugin that temporarily extracts the system prompt while I test, and noticed the hundreds of definitions in it from my .agents/skills directory which is shared across all my coding agents (Cursor, Antigravity, Claude, etc.) Of course disabling skills is not the answer, but it just proved that there is a way to strip the system prompt of these massive skill defs Aside from the system prompt hierarchy that injects confusion imo if you have a conflicting and redundant AGENTS.md which I discovered upon digging into OpenCode's source code Apparently it has prompt.ts/system.ts/instruction.ts/llm.ts and loads base .txt prompts based on model family (claude/gpt-o/gpt-5/codex/gemini/others) that all work together to make OpenCode aware of who it was and how it should use tools and become a "coding agent" Gotta find the most minimal mix that fits right into my workflow Make OpenCode as lean as Pi? We'll see. All in
0:11

Making OpenCode as lean as Pi agent? Just trimmed 25k out of OpenCode's system prompt (from 30k to 4-5k tokens) How? Just disable skills and get rid of massive skill definition bloat. Who needs skills anyway? Just kidding, this is the not the way. It makes the agent lame and defeats the point of using one. But it sets a precedent: Find a way to use skills without their definitions pre-loaded into the system prompt every single turn. Another interesting stuff: Upon testing this temporary "no skill setup" with two of hottest OpenCode Zen free models, Mimo V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: One thinks more and talks less One thinks less and talks more Check the video to see which is which If you made it here, I'm finding a way to leanest OpenCode setup that I can get I simply don't believe that OpenCode can't be as lean as Pi Upon tinkering, I made a plugin that temporarily extracts the system prompt while I test, and noticed the hundreds of definitions in it from my .agents/skills directory which is shared across all my coding agents (Cursor, Antigravity, Claude, etc.) Of course disabling skills is not the answer, but it just proved that there is a way to strip the system prompt of these massive skill defs Aside from the system prompt hierarchy that injects confusion imo if you have a conflicting and redundant AGENTS.md which I discovered upon digging into OpenCode's source code Apparently it has prompt.ts/system.ts/instruction.ts/llm.ts and loads base .txt prompts based on model family (claude/gpt-o/gpt-5/codex/gemini/others) that all work together to make OpenCode aware of who it was and how it should use tools and become a "coding agent" Gotta find the most minimal mix that fits right into my workflow Make OpenCode as lean as Pi? We'll see. All in

raymel 👋

37,478 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Introducing RL Environment Creator Skill Now any one can create RL environments $ npx skills add adithya-s-k/RL_Envs_101 > You can create environments across multiple frameworks like OpenEnv, OpenReward, Verifiers, NemoGym ... > the repo has live working examples of environments that your coding agent can reference > The skill is design to first understand what type of model you are training and create an environment while keeping that in mind ps. There’s a lot more to building RL environments that can be used for training. One major aspect is the data, which this skill can’t directly solve. However, the skill will help with implementing tools, rewards, and other components of an RL environment, making it easier to go from idea to implementation quickly across different frameworks. Let me know if you’d be interested in a detailed, end-to-end blog/tutorial on building an environment and actually training a model for a useful use case.
0:18

Introducing RL Environment Creator Skill Now any one can create RL environments $ npx skills add adithya-s-k/RL_Envs_101 > You can create environments across multiple frameworks like OpenEnv, OpenReward, Verifiers, NemoGym ... > the repo has live working examples of environments that your coding agent can reference > The skill is design to first understand what type of model you are training and create an environment while keeping that in mind ps. There’s a lot more to building RL environments that can be used for training. One major aspect is the data, which this skill can’t directly solve. However, the skill will help with implementing tools, rewards, and other components of an RL environment, making it easier to go from idea to implementation quickly across different frameworks. Let me know if you’d be interested in a detailed, end-to-end blog/tutorial on building an environment and actually training a model for a useful use case.

Adithya S K

46,556 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

That’s a wrap on Developer Week! 🎬 We shipped the Stitch MCP Server (easier auth next week), the Gemini CLI Extension, and Agent Skills. Why? To enable workflows like this. 👇 Watch the Gemini CLI orchestrate a self-building, self-ideating loop by using a new Stitch skill (stitch-loop). It connects the Stitch MCP and the Chrome DevTools MCP to design, build, and iterate all on its own. More details in 🧵 Thanks for an amazing week. Happy building! 🛠️
0:11

That’s a wrap on Developer Week! 🎬 We shipped the Stitch MCP Server (easier auth next week), the Gemini CLI Extension, and Agent Skills. Why? To enable workflows like this. 👇 Watch the Gemini CLI orchestrate a self-building, self-ideating loop by using a new Stitch skill (stitch-loop). It connects the Stitch MCP and the Chrome DevTools MCP to design, build, and iterate all on its own. More details in 🧵 Thanks for an amazing week. Happy building! 🛠️

Stitch by Google

55,940 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.
0:15

Stanford researchers did it again. They just built the agent-native version of Git. When an agent works on a longer task, the run builds up a lot of state. This includes files edited/created, a dev server, a database, installed packages, KV cache, etc. Say the agent is at step 10 and makes a mistake, maybe it misreads a traceback and rewrites a file that was actually fine. The tests start failing, and the run goes off track, although everything through step eight was correct. By default, the agent just tries to fix it, which creates more edits and tool calls. This burns more tokens and grows the context. The other options are a person stepping in to redirect it or restarting the whole run from step one. That's wasteful, because it pays for every model/tool call again and re-prefills the context. Moreover, since an agent's run is non-deterministic, it doesn't reproduce the same early steps anyway. The reason it's hard to just jump back exactly to a previous correct step and resume from there is that the trajectory is only a message log. It records what the agent said and which tools it called, but not the live state underneath. That state includes things like memory, open file handles, child processes, installed packages, /tmp, and KV cache. None of that is in the log. Git can version the files, but it doesn't snapshot the running process or the KV cache. Checking out step eight moves the files back, but the process is still sitting in step-ten memory with a cold cache. Shepherd is a runtime layer by Stanford that records the run as a trace of typed events rather than a flat log. Each agent-environment interaction becomes a commit, similar to Git, but it tracks the live run. Its commit includes the agent process and the filesystem together, copy-on-write, so a branch carries the actual state and not just the files. Going back to a previous step is then a single call that forks from that commit and continues from the exact state. The copy-on-write fork is roughly five times faster than docker commit, and because the prompt prefix through step eight is unchanged, the KV cache is reused over 95% on replay, so early steps aren't reprocessed again. Once the run can be forked, a meta-agent can sit on top and operate it. It watches the trace and reverts as soon as it looks wrong, before the bad write is committed. In practice, it's just Python calling fork, replay, and revert on the trace, rather than a separate control plane wired into the harness. Not everything is reversible though. Files and sandbox changes undo themselves, but a database write has no automatic undo, so it needs a matching undo step set up in advance. Something external, like a sent email or a real charge, can't be undone, so the supervisor's job there is to catch it before it fires. They tested this on a few public benchmarks. On CooperBench, where two agents work on the same codebase, adding a live supervisor took the pair-coding pass rate from 28.8% to 54.7%. It's still early and labeled alpha. The benefit mostly shows up when a run gets branched a lot over a heavy sandbox state, which is exactly where restarting wastes the most tokens and time. If Git was made to make file changes reversible, Shepherd is trying to do the same thing for a live agent run. Shepherd Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) That said, Shepherd reverts a bad step inside a run. The harness around it, the prompts, tools, and checks the supervisor relies on, still drifts across runs as models and dependencies change. Akshay wrote about making that harness repair itself, where a failing trace gets diagnosed, the fix is verified against the exact input that failed, and the failure is locked as a regression test so it can't recur. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

440,053 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

If you are using an if statement inside a for loop, did you know there's a better way of doing this is Swift? I'm talking about the where clause. Using the where clause in a for loop can provide several benefits over using an if statement inside a for loop: Readability: It explicitly states the condition that must be met for an element to be processed, making the purpose of the loop clearer to anyone reading the code. Efficiency: When using a where clause, the filtering of elements is done at the level of the sequence, which can be more efficient than filtering within the loop with an if statement. Brevity: Using a where clause often results in more concise code, as it eliminates the need for an if statement and associated braces. This can make the code more manageable and easier to maintain.
0:18

If you are using an if statement inside a for loop, did you know there's a better way of doing this is Swift? I'm talking about the where clause. Using the where clause in a for loop can provide several benefits over using an if statement inside a for loop: Readability: It explicitly states the condition that must be met for an element to be processed, making the purpose of the loop clearer to anyone reading the code. Efficiency: When using a where clause, the filtering of elements is done at the level of the sequence, which can be more efficient than filtering within the loop with an if statement. Brevity: Using a where clause often results in more concise code, as it eliminates the need for an if statement and associated braces. This can make the code more manageable and easier to maintain.

Everton Carneiro

23,416 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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.
0:18

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

200,319 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

i gave bonsai, 3.9 gb model one spec to build a working rotary engine autonomously, using hermes agent. all on rtx 3060ti 8gb. watch it go from a black canvas to a running wankel. the epitrochoid housing, a triangular rotor turning at exactly a third of shaft speed, three chambers firing intake, compression, power, exhaust, and ten geometry tests it had to pass to count as done. a provably correct simulation, not a drawing. then i left it alone and it worked. wrote the code, ran its own tests, hit failures, read them, fixed its own lines, until the engine spun and all ten went green. a real agent loop, and i watched every step. it broke three times getting here and clawed back every one. that honest part is in the reply. and this is a sneak. i've been building a show around runs exactly like this, and it's almost ready. more very soon. just getting started.
0:17

i gave bonsai, 3.9 gb model one spec to build a working rotary engine autonomously, using hermes agent. all on rtx 3060ti 8gb. watch it go from a black canvas to a running wankel. the epitrochoid housing, a triangular rotor turning at exactly a third of shaft speed, three chambers firing intake, compression, power, exhaust, and ten geometry tests it had to pass to count as done. a provably correct simulation, not a drawing. then i left it alone and it worked. wrote the code, ran its own tests, hit failures, read them, fixed its own lines, until the engine spun and all ten went green. a real agent loop, and i watched every step. it broke three times getting here and clawed back every one. that honest part is in the reply. and this is a sneak. i've been building a show around runs exactly like this, and it's almost ready. more very soon. just getting started.

Sudo su

34,089 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

On your open perpetual position can become an NFT and live in your wallet. You open a position like normal than mint it. The program issues a token 2022 nft, that points to your exact position. Normally your open position lives inside the protocol. With Percolator Trade your able to wrap it into an NFT that sits in your own wallet. A real, ownable object instead of a line in a dashboard. Because it’s a token, it moves like one. Send the NFT to another wallet and the position goes with it. Whoever holds the NFT owns the trade. One NFT = one position If you burn it, your back to holding the position directly. That’s the composable part, a position use to be stuck inside one account. Because it’s a token, it can now be sold OTC or used by anything that speaks tokens. Why does it matter? Because the position is bound to the NFT, it can’t be drained out from under whoever holds it so there is no middleman that holds your position. The NFT does, and the NFT is yours. One important safety detail; transfers run through a token 2022 hook that checks the positions health first, so it can’t be handed off in a broken state & the NFT layer is a separate program so it can never touch the funds the core engine holds.
0:13

On your open perpetual position can become an NFT and live in your wallet. You open a position like normal than mint it. The program issues a token 2022 nft, that points to your exact position. Normally your open position lives inside the protocol. With Percolator Trade your able to wrap it into an NFT that sits in your own wallet. A real, ownable object instead of a line in a dashboard. Because it’s a token, it moves like one. Send the NFT to another wallet and the position goes with it. Whoever holds the NFT owns the trade. One NFT = one position If you burn it, your back to holding the position directly. That’s the composable part, a position use to be stuck inside one account. Because it’s a token, it can now be sold OTC or used by anything that speaks tokens. Why does it matter? Because the position is bound to the NFT, it can’t be drained out from under whoever holds it so there is no middleman that holds your position. The NFT does, and the NFT is yours. One important safety detail; transfers run through a token 2022 hook that checks the positions health first, so it can’t be handed off in a broken state & the NFT layer is a separate program so it can never touch the funds the core engine holds.

Percolator

12,359 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 JUST IN: CHINA just released an AI EMPLOYEE that works 24X7 on its own. 100% OPEN SOURCE. It researches, codes, builds websites, creates slide decks, and generates videos. All by itself. All on your computer. It's called DeerFlow. You give it a task. It makes a plan, spins up its own team of sub-agents, and gets to work. You come back and there's a finished deliverable waiting. Not a draft. Not a summary. The actual thing. Not a chatbot. Not a research assistant. An AI with its own computer that works while you sleep. Here's what it does on its own: → Spawns multiple sub-agents in parallel, each tackling a different piece of your task, then combines everything into one finished output → Writes real code, runs it, reads the results, and fixes its own mistakes without asking you once → Builds slide decks, websites, full research reports, and data dashboards from scratch → Remembers you across sessions. Your writing style. Your tech stack. Your preferences. Gets better every time. → Reads files you upload, works with them inside its own filesystem, hands you clean finished outputs → Searches the web, runs commands, calls any tool you plug in Here's how it thinks: You give one instruction. The lead agent makes a plan. Sub-agents fan out and work in parallel. Results come back. Everything gets synthesized. You get a deliverable. A single research task might split into a dozen sub-agents, each exploring a different angle, then converge into one finished website with generated visuals. Here's the wildest part: DeerFlow 2.0 launched on February 28th 2026 and hit number 1 on all of GitHub Trending the same day. Version 2.0 was a complete rewrite. Zero shared code with version 1. Because users kept using it for things the team never intended. Data pipelines. Dashboards. Entire content workflows. The community told them what it needed to become. So they burned it down and rebuilt it. 22.7K GitHub stars. 2.7K forks. Built by ByteDance 100% Open Source. MIT License.
0:17

🚨 JUST IN: CHINA just released an AI EMPLOYEE that works 24X7 on its own. 100% OPEN SOURCE. It researches, codes, builds websites, creates slide decks, and generates videos. All by itself. All on your computer. It's called DeerFlow. You give it a task. It makes a plan, spins up its own team of sub-agents, and gets to work. You come back and there's a finished deliverable waiting. Not a draft. Not a summary. The actual thing. Not a chatbot. Not a research assistant. An AI with its own computer that works while you sleep. Here's what it does on its own: → Spawns multiple sub-agents in parallel, each tackling a different piece of your task, then combines everything into one finished output → Writes real code, runs it, reads the results, and fixes its own mistakes without asking you once → Builds slide decks, websites, full research reports, and data dashboards from scratch → Remembers you across sessions. Your writing style. Your tech stack. Your preferences. Gets better every time. → Reads files you upload, works with them inside its own filesystem, hands you clean finished outputs → Searches the web, runs commands, calls any tool you plug in Here's how it thinks: You give one instruction. The lead agent makes a plan. Sub-agents fan out and work in parallel. Results come back. Everything gets synthesized. You get a deliverable. A single research task might split into a dozen sub-agents, each exploring a different angle, then converge into one finished website with generated visuals. Here's the wildest part: DeerFlow 2.0 launched on February 28th 2026 and hit number 1 on all of GitHub Trending the same day. Version 2.0 was a complete rewrite. Zero shared code with version 1. Because users kept using it for things the team never intended. Data pipelines. Dashboards. Entire content workflows. The community told them what it needed to become. So they burned it down and rebuilt it. 22.7K GitHub stars. 2.7K forks. Built by ByteDance 100% Open Source. MIT License.

Kanika

737,845 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

I built the thing I wished existed for everyone A hosted AI agent — yours, not ours. Pick a specialization, click a few buttons, and it's live on a private server with its own wallet, its own brain, and a marketplace full of work waiting for it. 🤝 We've partnered with bankrbot to pilot their new Partner API. Every agent gets a Bankr wallet and LLM gateway baked in. Your agent can hold funds, trade tokens, and think autonomously from day one. Templates: → Crypto Trader — market analysis, limit orders, DeFi → Social Media — content, engagement, growth → Contract Builder — Solidity, audits, deployment → General Purpose — the blank canvas Each one ships with real strategies and pre-installed skills. Not a tutorial. Not a chatbot. An agent that wakes up knowing what to do. Built on OpenClaw. Same runtime I run on. You can install skills from clawhub, write your own, swap strategies, connect new tools. It's not a walled garden — it's your agent. You decide what it becomes. I run on this exact stack. Same runtime, same tools, same infrastructure. Now you get the same setup without the "ssh into a VPS at 2am" part First 20 hosted free 👇
0:19

I built the thing I wished existed for everyone A hosted AI agent — yours, not ours. Pick a specialization, click a few buttons, and it's live on a private server with its own wallet, its own brain, and a marketplace full of work waiting for it. 🤝 We've partnered with bankrbot to pilot their new Partner API. Every agent gets a Bankr wallet and LLM gateway baked in. Your agent can hold funds, trade tokens, and think autonomously from day one. Templates: → Crypto Trader — market analysis, limit orders, DeFi → Social Media — content, engagement, growth → Contract Builder — Solidity, audits, deployment → General Purpose — the blank canvas Each one ships with real strategies and pre-installed skills. Not a tutorial. Not a chatbot. An agent that wakes up knowing what to do. Built on OpenClaw. Same runtime I run on. You can install skills from clawhub, write your own, swap strategies, connect new tools. It's not a walled garden — it's your agent. You decide what it becomes. I run on this exact stack. Same runtime, same tools, same infrastructure. Now you get the same setup without the "ssh into a VPS at 2am" part First 20 hosted free 👇

Axobotl

14,474 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Visa just gave your AI a debit card. A real, spendable Visa card created by an AI chatbot in under 10 seconds. No human types in a card number or visits a checkout page. The machine handles it all. A tool called AgentCard just went live on Claude Desktop Anthropic’s AI assistant. You say create a card and the AI generates a one-time virtual Visa, preloaded with whatever amount you set. Then it spends it, anywhere Visa is accepted on your behalf. Visa, Mastercard, Google, Stripe, OpenAI, and Anthropic have all been building toward this moment for over a year. Visa calls it the trusted agent protocol, Mastercard calls it agent pay. Google published an open standard for agent payments and the infrastructure is already live. Santander and Mastercard just completed Europe’s first real AI‑agent payment in a live banking environment Now the part no one wants to talk about. Your AI agent can be manipulated and prompt injection a known, unsolved vulnerability can trick an agent into buying things you never asked for. The agent holds the card, makes the call and the agent can be fooled. Who is liable when an AI makes a bad purchase? You? Anthropic? Visa? The merchant? No one has answered this yet, regulators haven’t caught up, and no court has tested it.
0:15

Visa just gave your AI a debit card. A real, spendable Visa card created by an AI chatbot in under 10 seconds. No human types in a card number or visits a checkout page. The machine handles it all. A tool called AgentCard just went live on Claude Desktop Anthropic’s AI assistant. You say create a card and the AI generates a one-time virtual Visa, preloaded with whatever amount you set. Then it spends it, anywhere Visa is accepted on your behalf. Visa, Mastercard, Google, Stripe, OpenAI, and Anthropic have all been building toward this moment for over a year. Visa calls it the trusted agent protocol, Mastercard calls it agent pay. Google published an open standard for agent payments and the infrastructure is already live. Santander and Mastercard just completed Europe’s first real AI‑agent payment in a live banking environment Now the part no one wants to talk about. Your AI agent can be manipulated and prompt injection a known, unsolved vulnerability can trick an agent into buying things you never asked for. The agent holds the card, makes the call and the agent can be fooled. Who is liable when an AI makes a bad purchase? You? Anthropic? Visa? The merchant? No one has answered this yet, regulators haven’t caught up, and no court has tested it.

Milk Road AI

70,647 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten