Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

your agent doesn't need a graph. it needs a verifier that isn't doing five jobs at once. a loop is already a graph - one node, one edge back to itself. you add a node when you'd hire a specialist. not before. here is the list of all 5... show more

Rohit

24,377 subscribers

16,004 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

24 Yorum

Uzeb Khan profil fotoğrafı

Uzeb Khan2 ay önce

A great share

leopardracer profil fotoğrafı

leopardracer2 ay önce

nice share Rohit!

Rohit profil fotoğrafı

Rohit2 ay önce

Thanks, Leo! This is a really great piece to understand why you should not over-engineer.

Saman Ahmed profil fotoğrafı

Saman Ahmed2 ay önce

Knowing when not to add another one is the real engineering skill.

Vipul Kumar Kewat profil fotoğrafı

Vipul Kumar Kewat2 ay önce

This is an important point. Adding complexity too early can make agent systems harder to maintain. A simple loop with strong verification can often outperform an over-engineered graph.

wandermist profil fotoğrafı

wandermist2 ay önce

thanks for sharing this homie!

Rohit profil fotoğrafı

Rohit2 ay önce

It is really well written article

Himanshu profil fotoğrafı

Himanshu2 ay önce

Thanks for sharing

Rohit profil fotoğrafı

Rohit2 ay önce

Have you tried graph engineering with your agent, or do you prefer just simple loops?

Himanshu profil fotoğrafı

Himanshu2 ay önce

i prefer peace

Avid profil fotoğrafı

Avid2 ay önce

this is awesome thanks for sharing

Rohit profil fotoğrafı

Rohit2 ay önce

Thanks for the comment, avid. I often see people over engineering, as they think lots of node and edges means better engineering. There should be a proper parameter based on which they should add extra nodes and even go for graph engineering.

Avid profil fotoğrafı

Avid2 ay önce

I mean people have increased verbosity in the llm era

‏عادل | مبرمج profil fotoğrafı

‏عادل | مبرمج2 ay önce

Thanks for sharing

TTD 🇮🇩 profil fotoğrafı

TTD 🇮🇩2 ay önce

Agreed

veve profil fotoğrafı

veve2 ay önce

Bener, satu yang fokus aja lebih masuk akal daripada langsung ramai.

Dhawal Yogesh Bhanushali profil fotoğrafı

Dhawal Yogesh Bhanushali2 ay önce

Are you saying one verifier for all the specialists?

Lee_1909 profil fotoğrafı

Lee_19092 ay önce

Complex reasoning requires specialized agent functions.

Robin Sun profil fotoğrafı

Robin Sun2 ay önce

Nice sharing. May I know what the tool you used to build the graph?

Manish | Skygnosis profil fotoğrafı

Manish | Skygnosis2 ay önce

Don’t build a graph because you can. Build one because the problem demands it.

Louis Wharmby profil fotoğrafı

Louis Wharmby2 ay önce

I think people just like to try and coin the next buzzword at this point. If you've been using claude code etc on a daily basis and refining your workflows, you're probably already running the 'graph' approach. Totally agree on the verifier, it's one of the most important parts to do right. Models are inherently biased towards their own work.

Lee_1909 profil fotoğrafı

Lee_19092 ay önce

This seems like a strong opinion on agent design.

Siddharth profil fotoğrafı

Siddharth2 ay önce

well said

Rohit profil fotoğrafı

Rohit2 ay önce

Did you try setting up graphs for your agent ?

Benzer Videolar

🎉 IT'S HERE, Node-It Add-On is LIVE! The wait is over. Node-It is officially released! Whether you're a Blender beginner or a pro, this node toolkit will change the way you create. Node-It is here to boost your creativity and speed up your process. (hellyeah) More in the coms>>

🎉 IT'S HERE, Node-It Add-On is LIVE! The wait is over. Node-It is officially released! Whether you're a Blender beginner or a pro, this node toolkit will change the way you create. Node-It is here to boost your creativity and speed up your process. (hellyeah) More in the coms>>

Pierre Lazarevic

17,256 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Harness vs. Graphs, clearly explained! a harness is great, and most people think it is the whole thing: retries, timeouts, a sandbox, a log, the context it assembles before every call. all of that is real work, and all of it wraps exactly one call. run it a hundred times and you have one call, made very safely, a hundred times. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how safely one call is made, but which calls exist to be made at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the harness is everything around one call. the graph is everything between them. ↳ around one call: retry, timeout, sandbox, log, assemble the context, hand back a result ↳ between calls: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the harness does not go away when you build a graph. it moves under each node, and now there are five of them, each wrapping a call you would never have made by hand. the trick is knowing which layer a failure belongs to. turn a piece off and run it again. if the call still works, it was the harness. if the wrong step runs at all, it was the graph. people spend weeks hardening a harness around a node that should not have existed. one thing to know before you scale it. most of what people call their agent is a harness with a chat box on it. ↳ it retries, it times out, it logs, it assembles context, it holds one call up beautifully ↳ it has never once decided that a second call should exist, and that is the entire difference that last one catches careful people. a harness that never fails is not evidence the system is right. it is evidence one call went well, which is the smallest possible claim. and the one that eats whole nights: a harness cannot save you from the wrong step running. you can retry a bad decision three times with a clean log and perfect isolation, and all you bought was three copies of it. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Harness vs. Graphs, clearly explained! a harness is great, and most people think it is the whole thing: retries, timeouts, a sandbox, a log, the context it assembles before every call. all of that is real work, and all of it wraps exactly one call. run it a hundred times and you have one call, made very safely, a hundred times. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how safely one call is made, but which calls exist to be made at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the harness is everything around one call. the graph is everything between them. ↳ around one call: retry, timeout, sandbox, log, assemble the context, hand back a result ↳ between calls: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the harness does not go away when you build a graph. it moves under each node, and now there are five of them, each wrapping a call you would never have made by hand. the trick is knowing which layer a failure belongs to. turn a piece off and run it again. if the call still works, it was the harness. if the wrong step runs at all, it was the graph. people spend weeks hardening a harness around a node that should not have existed. one thing to know before you scale it. most of what people call their agent is a harness with a chat box on it. ↳ it retries, it times out, it logs, it assembles context, it holds one call up beautifully ↳ it has never once decided that a second call should exist, and that is the entire difference that last one catches careful people. a harness that never fails is not evidence the system is right. it is evidence one call went well, which is the smallest possible claim. and the one that eats whole nights: a harness cannot save you from the wrong step running. you can retry a bad decision three times with a clean log and perfect isolation, and all you bought was three copies of it. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

51,536 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, but they have a ceiling: a loop makes one unit of work better. it cannot decide which units exist. so you end up with a very good agent running the wrong three steps, in the wrong order, one at a time. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: what runs, what runs at the same time, and what never runs at all. you need both. here's how it works: a graph splits your system into two kinds of decision. ↳ inside a unit: the loop. produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: the graph. split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs you get parallel work, isolated contexts, and steps that stop running when nothing needs them. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. a graph where every edge is an agent pays rent on its own wiring. one thing to know before you scale it. a graph has two return paths, and almost everyone builds one. ↳ the correction edge is short. a gate rejects one unit back to the step that produced it, and it fixes the run you are in ↳ the learning edge is long. an accepted result goes back to the splitter as a constraint, and it fixes every run after skip the second and you get a graph that is fast and never gets smarter. next week it starts from the same place with the same blind spots. and a smaller one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, but they have a ceiling: a loop makes one unit of work better. it cannot decide which units exist. so you end up with a very good agent running the wrong three steps, in the wrong order, one at a time. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: what runs, what runs at the same time, and what never runs at all. you need both. here's how it works: a graph splits your system into two kinds of decision. ↳ inside a unit: the loop. produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: the graph. split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs you get parallel work, isolated contexts, and steps that stop running when nothing needs them. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. a graph where every edge is an agent pays rent on its own wiring. one thing to know before you scale it. a graph has two return paths, and almost everyone builds one. ↳ the correction edge is short. a gate rejects one unit back to the step that produced it, and it fixes the run you are in ↳ the learning edge is long. an accepted result goes back to the splitter as a constraint, and it fixes every run after skip the second and you get a graph that is fast and never gets smarter. next week it starts from the same place with the same blind spots. and a smaller one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

73,867 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

LOOPS VS GRAPHS: THE ONE DISTINCTION THAT GETS YOU PROMOTED IN 2026 ask ten engineers running Claude which one they're using. eight won't know. that's the gap. > loop - you set the frame, the agent finds the path. best when nobody knows the route yet > graph - you draw the path, the agent fills each node. best when it's the same job every day loops flex. you can't test them. graphs test clean. but the map has to exist first. skip the company brain - tickets, policy, docs - and the agent relearns your business every run Fable 5 for the messy loop. Opus 4.8 for the daily graph - frontier tier, cheaper, runs all day. freeze a loop into a graph the second it stops surprising you say that once in a planning meeting and you've stopped doing tickets. you're designing the system which one is your setup actually running on?

LOOPS VS GRAPHS: THE ONE DISTINCTION THAT GETS YOU PROMOTED IN 2026 ask ten engineers running Claude which one they're using. eight won't know. that's the gap. > loop - you set the frame, the agent finds the path. best when nobody knows the route yet > graph - you draw the path, the agent fills each node. best when it's the same job every day loops flex. you can't test them. graphs test clean. but the map has to exist first. skip the company brain - tickets, policy, docs - and the agent relearns your business every run Fable 5 for the messy loop. Opus 4.8 for the daily graph - frontier tier, cheaper, runs all day. freeze a loop into a graph the second it stops surprising you say that once in a planning meeting and you've stopped doing tickets. you're designing the system which one is your setup actually running on?

Mr. Buzzoni

25,638 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

I still don't understand why everyone is still running agents in a line. I switched to graphs three weeks ago and my fleet finished in the time my single agent used to spend on step two. what slows every agent system I have seen is not intelligence. it is geometry. and almost nobody is talking about it. one engineer used this to rewrite 535,000 lines of code in 11 days. a manual rewrite of that scale could take close to a year. it cost $165,000 in tokens. the graph was not cheap. it was just faster than a human year. a node is one agent with one job. research one competitor. review one file. check one claim. the moment a node owns two independent jobs you lose the ability to parallelize them cleanly, verify them independently, and debug them in isolation. an edge is a dependency. it only exists when data actually moves across it. everything else is a fake edge. a wait you invented that costs time and produces nothing. find the fake edges and the line collapses into something wider. jobs that can run at the same time run at the same time. what used to take the sum of forty steps now finishes in the time of the slowest layer. the pattern behind every serious agent system looks like a diamond. fan out to gather breadth, one agent per angle, all at once. reduce with plain code, no model tokens spent. verify with a fresh skeptic on every finding. synthesize once from what survived. Claude's own research feature uses a very similar pattern in production. the part nobody warns you about: the verifier needs clean context. give it the same conversation the worker had and it is not checking anything. it is nodding along to itself in a different window. a graph of agents sharing one context is a single loop in a costume. it breaks the same way, just later and more expensively. one rule that holds at every scale. a worker and its verifier must never share a context. your agents are not too slow. they are waiting in a line that did not need to exist. full guide in the article. save it before you build your next agent from scratch.

I still don't understand why everyone is still running agents in a line. I switched to graphs three weeks ago and my fleet finished in the time my single agent used to spend on step two. what slows every agent system I have seen is not intelligence. it is geometry. and almost nobody is talking about it. one engineer used this to rewrite 535,000 lines of code in 11 days. a manual rewrite of that scale could take close to a year. it cost $165,000 in tokens. the graph was not cheap. it was just faster than a human year. a node is one agent with one job. research one competitor. review one file. check one claim. the moment a node owns two independent jobs you lose the ability to parallelize them cleanly, verify them independently, and debug them in isolation. an edge is a dependency. it only exists when data actually moves across it. everything else is a fake edge. a wait you invented that costs time and produces nothing. find the fake edges and the line collapses into something wider. jobs that can run at the same time run at the same time. what used to take the sum of forty steps now finishes in the time of the slowest layer. the pattern behind every serious agent system looks like a diamond. fan out to gather breadth, one agent per angle, all at once. reduce with plain code, no model tokens spent. verify with a fresh skeptic on every finding. synthesize once from what survived. Claude's own research feature uses a very similar pattern in production. the part nobody warns you about: the verifier needs clean context. give it the same conversation the worker had and it is not checking anything. it is nodding along to itself in a different window. a graph of agents sharing one context is a single loop in a costume. it breaks the same way, just later and more expensively. one rule that holds at every scale. a worker and its verifier must never share a context. your agents are not too slow. they are waiting in a line that did not need to exist. full guide in the article. save it before you build your next agent from scratch.

rvaniaaa

257,546 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

Found a setup that replaces a team of researchers with 300 AI agents and one shared graph. the interesting part is what happens after all 300 come back with different pieces of the answer. because now you don’t have 300 agents. you have: 300 outputs → hundreds of sources → repeated entities → overlapping claims → contradictions → thousands of possible relationships and all of that has to collapse into one structure. that’s what the context graph is doing. instead of: agent → report you get: agents → sources → entities → edges → contradictions → verification → one graph every source becomes a node. every shared entity creates a connection. 300 agents can create information. the graph is what turns that information into memory the next agent can actually use. that’s the anatomy behind the setup ↓

Found a setup that replaces a team of researchers with 300 AI agents and one shared graph. the interesting part is what happens after all 300 come back with different pieces of the answer. because now you don’t have 300 agents. you have: 300 outputs → hundreds of sources → repeated entities → overlapping claims → contradictions → thousands of possible relationships and all of that has to collapse into one structure. that’s what the context graph is doing. instead of: agent → report you get: agents → sources → entities → edges → contradictions → verification → one graph every source becomes a node. every shared entity creates a connection. 300 agents can create information. the graph is what turns that information into memory the next agent can actually use. that’s the anatomy behind the setup ↓

Ricker

19,999 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, and they have a ceiling you can watch happen: a loop goes around. it produces, checks, corrects, and goes around again. after six passes you have one job, done very well. after six hundred passes you still have one job, done very well. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how well one job gets done, but which jobs exist to be done at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the loop lives inside a node. the graph lives between them. ↳ inside one unit: produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the loop does not go away when you build a graph. it moves inside, and now there are three of them running at once on three things you would never have thought to run. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. one thing to know before you scale it. a loop that cannot fail is not a loop, it is a repeat with a bill attached. and the check people write is almost always the wrong kind. ↳ the test suite exits 0 is a check. the diff touches only the files in the plan is a check ↳ the output looks good, the model says it is confident, no errors were raised, none of those are checks that last one catches careful people. absence of an error is not evidence of correctness, and a loop built on it will confidently repeat a mistake until the budget runs out, with a clean log the whole way. and the one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, and they have a ceiling you can watch happen: a loop goes around. it produces, checks, corrects, and goes around again. after six passes you have one job, done very well. after six hundred passes you still have one job, done very well. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how well one job gets done, but which jobs exist to be done at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the loop lives inside a node. the graph lives between them. ↳ inside one unit: produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the loop does not go away when you build a graph. it moves inside, and now there are three of them running at once on three things you would never have thought to run. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. one thing to know before you scale it. a loop that cannot fail is not a loop, it is a repeat with a bill attached. and the check people write is almost always the wrong kind. ↳ the test suite exits 0 is a check. the diff touches only the files in the plan is a check ↳ the output looks good, the model says it is confident, no errors were raised, none of those are checks that last one catches careful people. absence of an error is not evidence of correctness, and a loop built on it will confidently repeat a mistake until the budget runs out, with a clean log the whole way. and the one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

128,779 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

Graph Convolutional Network by hand ✍️ ~ 12 steps walkthrough below Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), introduced by Thomas Kipf and Max Welling in 2017, are the tool for data shaped like a graph: social networks, recommendations, biological networks, drug discovery, molecular chemistry. I drew and calculated a simple GCN entirely by hand. Goal: run a two-layer GCN, then a small classifier, on a five-node graph, filling in every cell yourself. 1. Given A graph of five nodes, A to E, with edges between some of them. 2. Adjacency matrix (neighbors) Put a 1 wherever two nodes share an edge, in both directions. 3. Adjacency matrix (self) Add 1s down the diagonal, one self-loop per node. That is just adding the identity matrix. 4. Messages Multiply each node's embedding by the weights and biases, then ReLU. Negatives become 0. 5. Pooling Multiply the messages by the adjacency matrix. Each node gathers the messages of its neighbours and itself. 6. Visualize Node A pools [3,0,1] + [1,0,0] = [4,0,1]. 7. Second GCN layer Messages again: weights, biases, ReLU. 8. Pooling again Pool over each node and its neighbours, once more. 9. Visualize Node C pools [1,2,4] + [1,3,5] + [0,0,1] = [2,5,10]. 10. Fully connected layer Weights, biases, ReLU. This time there are no neighbours to pool, just the node itself. 11. Linear layer One more: weights and biases. 12. Sigmoid Squash each score to a probability (≥ 3 → 1, 0 → 0.5, ≤ -3 → 0). That is the classification for each node. You have just classified every node in the graph by hand. ✍️ The outputs: A: 0 (very unlikely) B: 1 (very likely) C: 1 (very likely) D: 1 (very likely) E: 0.5 (neutral) The takeaway: a GCN layer is two parts. The top part pools each node with its neighbours through the adjacency matrix. The bottom part is an MLP that transforms each node on its own. A transformer layer has the same two parts, with an attention matrix where the adjacency matrix was. Both matrices do one job, mixing across positions: attention over tokens, adjacency over nodes. In my class I call the GCN the transformer's little cousin: a bit more stubborn, because its attention is fixed by the graph rather than computed from Q, K, and V. Draw the two side by side and the resemblance is hard to miss. 💾 Save this post! #AIbyHand #GraphNeuralNetworks #DeepLearning

Graph Convolutional Network by hand ✍️ ~ 12 steps walkthrough below Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), introduced by Thomas Kipf and Max Welling in 2017, are the tool for data shaped like a graph: social networks, recommendations, biological networks, drug discovery, molecular chemistry. I drew and calculated a simple GCN entirely by hand. Goal: run a two-layer GCN, then a small classifier, on a five-node graph, filling in every cell yourself. 1. Given A graph of five nodes, A to E, with edges between some of them. 2. Adjacency matrix (neighbors) Put a 1 wherever two nodes share an edge, in both directions. 3. Adjacency matrix (self) Add 1s down the diagonal, one self-loop per node. That is just adding the identity matrix. 4. Messages Multiply each node's embedding by the weights and biases, then ReLU. Negatives become 0. 5. Pooling Multiply the messages by the adjacency matrix. Each node gathers the messages of its neighbours and itself. 6. Visualize Node A pools [3,0,1] + [1,0,0] = [4,0,1]. 7. Second GCN layer Messages again: weights, biases, ReLU. 8. Pooling again Pool over each node and its neighbours, once more. 9. Visualize Node C pools [1,2,4] + [1,3,5] + [0,0,1] = [2,5,10]. 10. Fully connected layer Weights, biases, ReLU. This time there are no neighbours to pool, just the node itself. 11. Linear layer One more: weights and biases. 12. Sigmoid Squash each score to a probability (≥ 3 → 1, 0 → 0.5, ≤ -3 → 0). That is the classification for each node. You have just classified every node in the graph by hand. ✍️ The outputs: A: 0 (very unlikely) B: 1 (very likely) C: 1 (very likely) D: 1 (very likely) E: 0.5 (neutral) The takeaway: a GCN layer is two parts. The top part pools each node with its neighbours through the adjacency matrix. The bottom part is an MLP that transforms each node on its own. A transformer layer has the same two parts, with an attention matrix where the adjacency matrix was. Both matrices do one job, mixing across positions: attention over tokens, adjacency over nodes. In my class I call the GCN the transformer's little cousin: a bit more stubborn, because its attention is fixed by the graph rather than computed from Q, K, and V. Draw the two side by side and the resemblance is hard to miss. 💾 Save this post! #AIbyHand #GraphNeuralNetworks #DeepLearning

Tom Yeh

16,956 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

If it wasn't for the many thousands of node runners, the #Bitcoin network would not be what it is 🫡 We're leveling up our node content to help inspire the next generation of node runners 👇 Do you run a node? What should people know about running one?

If it wasn't for the many thousands of node runners, the #Bitcoin network would not be what it is 🫡 We're leveling up our node content to help inspire the next generation of node runners 👇 Do you run a node? What should people know about running one?

River

15,460 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, and the ceiling is one you can watch turn: a loop is a gear. it produces, checks, corrects, and comes back around. after six turns you have one job, done very well. after six hundred turns you still have one job, done very well. the teeth are perfect. they are touching nothing. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how well one gear turns, but what it is meshed into. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the loop lives inside a node. the graph lives between them. ↳ inside one unit: produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the loop does not go away when you build a graph. it moves inside, and now there are three of them turning at once on three things you would never have thought to run. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. one thing to know before you scale it. a loop that cannot fail is not a loop, it is a repeat with a bill attached. ↳ the test suite exits 0 is a check. the diff touches only the files in the plan is a check ↳ the output looks good, the model says it is confident, no errors were raised, none of those are checks that last one catches careful people. absence of an error is not evidence of correctness, and a loop built on it will confidently repeat a mistake until the budget runs out, with a clean log the whole way. and the one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Loops vs. Graphs, clearly explained! loops are great, and the ceiling is one you can watch turn: a loop is a gear. it produces, checks, corrects, and comes back around. after six turns you have one job, done very well. after six hundred turns you still have one job, done very well. the teeth are perfect. they are touching nothing. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how well one gear turns, but what it is meshed into. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: the loop lives inside a node. the graph lives between them. ↳ inside one unit: produce, check, correct, repeat until green ↳ between units: split, fan out, merge, gate, send back Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the loop does not go away when you build a graph. it moves inside, and now there are three of them turning at once on three things you would never have thought to run. the trick is being selective about what becomes a node. only spend a model where judgment lives. merging, ranking, deduping and schema checks are edges, and edges are code. free, instant, and they cannot be argued out of a verdict. one thing to know before you scale it. a loop that cannot fail is not a loop, it is a repeat with a bill attached. ↳ the test suite exits 0 is a check. the diff touches only the files in the plan is a check ↳ the output looks good, the model says it is confident, no errors were raised, none of those are checks that last one catches careful people. absence of an error is not evidence of correctness, and a loop built on it will confidently repeat a mistake until the budget runs out, with a clean log the whole way. and the one that eats whole nights: when a unit fails, return that unit, not the batch. send back four slices because one failed and you have just rewritten three correct ones. do it twice in a run and the run never converges. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

32,701 görüntüleme • 18 gün önce

one agent → a loop → a graph → a system that throttles itself Google just put the whole ladder in one free course. most people never leave the first rung. 2 hours 4 minutes, taught by two Google Cloud engineers. no signup, no paywall. 17:55 - build your first agent 39:55 - loop engineering: iterate, check, break 1:13:25 - graph engineering 1:35:27 - agents that throttle themselves 1:56:19 - the full graph for multi-agent systems the fourth one is the step nobody talks about. an agent that cannot throttle itself is not autonomous, it is just unattended. everyone builds one agent and calls it done. this is the version where the agents wire themselves into a graph and decide their own rate. and the thing that decides when one of them is allowed to stop is not in the course. that part you build yourself. bookmark and watch it today, then read the eval setup below

one agent → a loop → a graph → a system that throttles itself Google just put the whole ladder in one free course. most people never leave the first rung. 2 hours 4 minutes, taught by two Google Cloud engineers. no signup, no paywall. 17:55 - build your first agent 39:55 - loop engineering: iterate, check, break 1:13:25 - graph engineering 1:35:27 - agents that throttle themselves 1:56:19 - the full graph for multi-agent systems the fourth one is the step nobody talks about. an agent that cannot throttle itself is not autonomous, it is just unattended. everyone builds one agent and calls it done. this is the version where the agents wire themselves into a graph and decide their own rate. and the thing that decides when one of them is allowed to stop is not in the course. that part you build yourself. bookmark and watch it today, then read the eval setup below

Hanako

53,692 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

97,154 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

ComfyUI Tutorial for Beginners: Text-to-Image & Image-to-Image Workflows One graph, two workflows and Module 2 is where you build it node by node instead of loading someone else's. We start from a blank canvas and wire every connection, then change a single value and turn the same graph into image-to-image. What you'll learn: → The 5 core nodes, connected one at a time — checkpoint, CLIP encode, KSampler, empty latent, VAE decode → Why the data flows the way it does, not just where the wires go → Every KSampler setting: seed, steps, CFG, sampler, scheduler → Denoise from 0.9 to 0.0 — the one value that decides how much of your source survives → Locking seeds and generating takes instead of chasing one perfect image → Preview vs. save, and why every image carries the graph that made it → Reopen any result in your asset library as a live workflow → The 6 errors that break Comfy most often → How to read a red node like a sentence Click the links below to run the workflow ⬇️

ComfyUI Tutorial for Beginners: Text-to-Image & Image-to-Image Workflows One graph, two workflows and Module 2 is where you build it node by node instead of loading someone else's. We start from a blank canvas and wire every connection, then change a single value and turn the same graph into image-to-image. What you'll learn: → The 5 core nodes, connected one at a time — checkpoint, CLIP encode, KSampler, empty latent, VAE decode → Why the data flows the way it does, not just where the wires go → Every KSampler setting: seed, steps, CFG, sampler, scheduler → Denoise from 0.9 to 0.0 — the one value that decides how much of your source survives → Locking seeds and generating takes instead of chasing one perfect image → Preview vs. save, and why every image carries the graph that made it → Reopen any result in your asset library as a live workflow → The 6 errors that break Comfy most often → How to read a red node like a sentence Click the links below to run the workflow ⬇️

ComfyUI

58,853 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

New ways to make your nodes happy. → Connect many to one Select multiple nodes and connect them all at once. → Connect one to many Pick a node, hold Shift, and hover all the nodes you want to connect it to. → Create a prompt from handle Double click a node's handle. A prompt node magically appears.

New ways to make your nodes happy. → Connect many to one Select multiple nodes and connect them all at once. → Connect one to many Pick a node, hold Shift, and hover all the nodes you want to connect it to. → Create a prompt from handle Double click a node's handle. A prompt node magically appears.

Figma Weave

11,543 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Introducing - Agents Most AI tools are a prompt box. You ask for a thing, a thing appears. No idea what happened in between. The Customuse AI agent isn't. You hand it a goal. It builds the actual node graph in front of you, with nodes you can see, rewire, edit. A real creative collaborator. Live Now.

Introducing - Agents Most AI tools are a prompt box. You ask for a thing, a thing appears. No idea what happened in between. The Customuse AI agent isn't. You hand it a goal. It builds the actual node graph in front of you, with nodes you can see, rewire, edit. A real creative collaborator. Live Now.

Customuse

1,099,046 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

the loop is not the agent it is one layer of the system LOOP vs GRAPH vs HARNESS ENGINEERING LOOP ENGINEERING controls repetition turns retries budgets exits success checks no progress use durable execution when the run must survive failure → GRAPH ENGINEERING controls topology nodes edges state branches checkpoints handoffs build stateful agents as explicit graphs → analyze the topology without putting a model in the loop → HARNESS ENGINEERING controls the blast radius tools permissions memory sandboxes evals traces humans isolate generated code from the host → test behavior before it reaches users → keep one trace across every model node and tool call → without loop control it never stops without graph structure you cannot see the path without harness control it can touch anything the loop lives inside the graph the graph lives inside the harness the model is not the system debug the layer that owns the failure save this

the loop is not the agent it is one layer of the system LOOP vs GRAPH vs HARNESS ENGINEERING LOOP ENGINEERING controls repetition turns retries budgets exits success checks no progress use durable execution when the run must survive failure → GRAPH ENGINEERING controls topology nodes edges state branches checkpoints handoffs build stateful agents as explicit graphs → analyze the topology without putting a model in the loop → HARNESS ENGINEERING controls the blast radius tools permissions memory sandboxes evals traces humans isolate generated code from the host → test behavior before it reaches users → keep one trace across every model node and tool call → without loop control it never stops without graph structure you cannot see the path without harness control it can touch anything the loop lives inside the graph the graph lives inside the harness the model is not the system debug the layer that owns the failure save this

elune

50,189 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

#b3d tip: To keep complex node trees organised, you can use Node Groups. They reduce part of a node tree to a single node, which you can enter/exit by pressing TAB. You can also create inputs, so that you can control values inside the Node Group without having to open it.

#b3d tip: To keep complex node trees organised, you can use Node Groups. They reduce part of a node tree to a single node, which you can enter/exit by pressing TAB. You can also create inputs, so that you can control values inside the Node Group without having to open it.

Jan van den Hemel

39,380 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Workflows vs. Graphs, clearly explained! workflows are great, and almost everyone has one. here is the ceiling: a workflow decides every step before it runs. you drew eight boxes in March. six months later the same three fire, every single time, and the other five have never once been reached. then a case arrives that nobody drew, and it goes to the closest wrong box. quietly, with a green status, because from the inside that looks exactly like success. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision: not what the steps do, but when the steps get chosen. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: a workflow decides the steps before it runs. a graph decides them while it runs. ↳ drawn in advance: the boxes, the branches, the order, the error path ↳ decided at runtime: how many units exist, what each one is allowed to see, which ones get created at all Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs branches do not make it a graph. the branches were drawn in advance too, which means every one of them is a case you already thought of. the trick is knowing which part is allowed to be fixed. the node kinds are fixed. a splitter is a splitter, a gate is a gate, a merge is code. what is not fixed is how many of them exist this run, and that is decided after something has been read. one thing to know before you scale it. a workflow fails in a way that never pages anyone. ↳ the wrong branch ran, every check inside it passed, and the output is well formed ↳ nothing errored, because routing to the wrong box is not an error, it is a route that last one catches careful people. you cannot test your way out of it either, because the test suite was written from the same diagram that has the gap in it. and the one that eats whole nights: a workflow that has never surprised you is not stable, it is narrow. if it has run four hundred times and produced the same three shapes, it is not handling your work. it is handling the part of your work that fits it, and you have quietly stopped sending it the rest. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Workflows vs. Graphs, clearly explained! workflows are great, and almost everyone has one. here is the ceiling: a workflow decides every step before it runs. you drew eight boxes in March. six months later the same three fire, every single time, and the other five have never once been reached. then a case arrives that nobody drew, and it goes to the closest wrong box. quietly, with a green status, because from the inside that looks exactly like success. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision: not what the steps do, but when the steps get chosen. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: a workflow decides the steps before it runs. a graph decides them while it runs. ↳ drawn in advance: the boxes, the branches, the order, the error path ↳ decided at runtime: how many units exist, what each one is allowed to see, which ones get created at all Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs branches do not make it a graph. the branches were drawn in advance too, which means every one of them is a case you already thought of. the trick is knowing which part is allowed to be fixed. the node kinds are fixed. a splitter is a splitter, a gate is a gate, a merge is code. what is not fixed is how many of them exist this run, and that is decided after something has been read. one thing to know before you scale it. a workflow fails in a way that never pages anyone. ↳ the wrong branch ran, every check inside it passed, and the output is well formed ↳ nothing errored, because routing to the wrong box is not an error, it is a route that last one catches careful people. you cannot test your way out of it either, because the test suite was written from the same diagram that has the gap in it. and the one that eats whole nights: a workflow that has never surprised you is not stable, it is narrow. if it has run four hundred times and produced the same three shapes, it is not handling your work. it is handling the part of your work that fits it, and you have quietly stopped sending it the rest. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

16,810 görüntüleme • 21 gün önce

Orchestrators vs. Graphs, clearly explained! orchestrators are great, and everyone builds one first. here is the ceiling: an orchestrator sits above the work and routes every message. five agents report to it. it reads all five. it decides what each one does next, and reads all five replies. that is ten trips through one context, and by the fifth agent that context has read four reports, five instructions and its own reasoning about all of them. Graph engineering fixes this by removing the seat: not a better router, but no router at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: an orchestrator sits above the work and holds all of it. a graph is the shape of the work, and holds none of it. ↳ above the work: one context that has to see everything before anything ships ↳ inside the work: a splitter that hands out and lets go, and a merge that reads nothing Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the coordination did not disappear. it moved into the edges, where it costs nothing and cannot get tired. the trick is noticing what you actually built. if one node has to see every result before the run can finish, you did not remove the bottleneck. you hired it, gave it the longest context in the system, and made it the thing you were counting on to stay sharp. one thing to know before you scale it. an orchestrator degrades in the one way nothing catches. ↳ it does not crash, time out or return an error. it stays up and keeps routing ↳ it just starts routing worse, somewhere around the fifth report, and every downstream agent does exactly what it was told that last one catches careful people. you can have perfect isolation on every worker and still have one window quietly drifting at the top, and the traces will all look clean because each worker did its job. and the one that eats whole nights: the merge is where this shows up first. ranking five findings is not judgment, it is a sort. if a model is doing it, you are paying a model to read five reports so it can put them in an order that three lines of code would have got right, and now that model has read everything too. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Orchestrators vs. Graphs, clearly explained! orchestrators are great, and everyone builds one first. here is the ceiling: an orchestrator sits above the work and routes every message. five agents report to it. it reads all five. it decides what each one does next, and reads all five replies. that is ten trips through one context, and by the fifth agent that context has read four reports, five instructions and its own reasoning about all of them. Graph engineering fixes this by removing the seat: not a better router, but no router at all. you need both, and here is the sentence that resolves the whole confusion: an orchestrator sits above the work and holds all of it. a graph is the shape of the work, and holds none of it. ↳ above the work: one context that has to see everything before anything ships ↳ inside the work: a splitter that hands out and lets go, and a merge that reads nothing Prompts → Context → Harness → Loops → Graphs the coordination did not disappear. it moved into the edges, where it costs nothing and cannot get tired. the trick is noticing what you actually built. if one node has to see every result before the run can finish, you did not remove the bottleneck. you hired it, gave it the longest context in the system, and made it the thing you were counting on to stay sharp. one thing to know before you scale it. an orchestrator degrades in the one way nothing catches. ↳ it does not crash, time out or return an error. it stays up and keeps routing ↳ it just starts routing worse, somewhere around the fifth report, and every downstream agent does exactly what it was told that last one catches careful people. you can have perfect isolation on every worker and still have one window quietly drifting at the top, and the traces will all look clean because each worker did its job. and the one that eats whole nights: the merge is where this shows up first. ranking five findings is not judgment, it is a sort. if a model is doing it, you are paying a model to read five reports so it can put them in an order that three lines of code would have got right, and now that model has read everything too. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

44,226 görüntüleme • 20 gün önce