Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 247 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#101

Post by seanmcdirmid »

I'm using what I call "hermetic agents", where completely sandboxed agents write code and tests from the same specification, where the code writer can't see the test and the test writer can't see the code. The idea is that we can get better quality this way (by avoiding confirmation bias between code and tests). It is more painful to set up however, since you have to distill a spec and guides that the agent would normally hook into using RAG.

It is more like people (agent?) management than coding though. I'm setting up and debugging processes, rather than writing code. I spend a lot of time cursing at and arguing with the agents I'm using to set up hermetic agents (who I can't argue with obviously, but I can have conventional agents go over their logs to figure out how to improve their sandboxed-context).

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#102

Post by danmaz74 »

cuttothechase wrote: post #80
danmaz74 wrote: post #46

Yes, like many others I've been experimenting a lot. What I've got so far is a harness-of-harnesses - ie, a harness which sits on top of Claude Code, Codex or OpenCode. I still use Claude Code or Codex directly for the initial planning of features, to investigate issues, and for small fixes, but whenever there's something even just a bit complex to do, I use my second-level harness. Summarizing it a lot, what it does…

what is of really good use is a super factory. The super factory drives the factory which builds the harness of harnesses.

Wait until you hear about the giga-factories...

But seriously, if you care, this is just like using an existing library to do the lower level development work which I think is already pretty well done by the existing agents. It's not a design decision.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#103

Post by danmaz74 »

pigpop wrote: post #94
danmaz74 wrote: post #46

Yes, like many others I've been experimenting a lot. What I've got so far is a harness-of-harnesses - ie, a harness which sits on top of Claude Code, Codex or OpenCode. I still use Claude Code or Codex directly for the initial planning of features, to investigate issues, and for small fixes, but whenever there's something even just a bit complex to do, I use my second-level harness. Summarizing it a lot, what it does…

I think this is a really good insight. It's definitely the back and forth in Claude Code or whatever harness you use that breaks flow and leads to frustration. This seems to be what Fable is solving since it is capable of doing much larger chunks of work without needing input constantly. Having a much more involved planning session than just turning on plan mode and then handing that off to be implemented is a much b…

I've read several comments in the last few months citing this kind of approach. What I'm trying to do is to make the implementation phase more reliable.

By the way, if you're not doing that yet, something that can really help when doing UI/UX work is to have the agent create some mockups, and then tests based on those - I'm using Cucumber with some extra sauce for this. It's a very nice way to guide the agent in a falsifiable way.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#104

Post by worik »

Interesting

I have noticed this too, but have a different problem

The "flow state" has never been where I want to be, it is where I make my worst mistakes and where the details swamp the bigger picture. A "cannot see the wood for the trees" problem

I am developing a practice for agentic coding, involving plans, reviews and check points. But the "twirling my thumbs" waiting for the agent to do its thing is a related problem for me

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#105

Post by leetrout »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #101

I'm using what I call "hermetic agents", where completely sandboxed agents write code and tests from the same specification, where the code writer can't see the test and the test writer can't see the code. The idea is that we can get better quality this way (by avoiding confirmation bias between code and tests). It is more painful to set up however, since you have to distill a spec and guides that the agent would nor…

I did a thing sorta like this between app and infra. My app agent sends messages to the infra agent for what it needs and they go back and forth to sort things out. They invented their own working process on top of it and wrote their own tool. It's interesting watching all this work. Feels like the future more than a lot of things I've seen in the past few years. Shame we're doing this to the detriment of the environment and the economy.

  """
  Claude Code mesh: gossip-based multi-instance coordination.
  
  Usage:
    mesh.py register --id ID --repo PATH --keyword KEYWORD
    mesh.py list
    mesh.py send --from ID --to ID MESSAGE
    mesh.py broadcast --from ID MESSAGE
    mesh.py watch --id ID
    mesh.py forward --id ID MESSAGE_JSON
    mesh.py peers --id ID [--n N]
    mesh.py clean
  """

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#106

Post by pigpop »

I've had the same experience and it has really put me off working on personal projects using AI quite a few times, though I keep coming back. My recent experience with Fable and the latest Sonnet have actually been very positive though. They seem to be capable of working for much longer stretches without constantly stopping and requiring further prompting to finish up large features. The place where I feel flow the most now is when I'm planning large feature sets and I use the Claude web app as a sounding board while doing this and prompt it to not write any code but focus only on asking questions and clarifying aspects that I haven't fully thought out. This results in a very detailed plan for implementation which seems to work very well with Fable or even Sonnet 5. I can then actually leave my computer and go do other things without the constant nagging feeling that I need to check if its stopped and needs nudging. After its done I review the changes and do QA and testing and then formulate a plan for the next set of tasks. It feels like this problem is getting solved, which is wonderful.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#107

Post by pigpop »

danmaz74 wrote: post #103
pigpop wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a really good insight. It's definitely the back and forth in Claude Code or whatever harness you use that breaks flow and leads to frustration. This seems to be what Fable is solving since it is capable of doing much larger chunks of work without needing input constantly. Having a much more involved planning session than just turning on plan mode and then handing that off to be implemented is a much b…

I've read several comments in the last few months citing this kind of approach. What I'm trying to do is to make the implementation phase more reliable. By the way, if you're not doing that yet, something that can really help when doing UI/UX work is to have the agent create some mockups, and then tests based on those - I'm using Cucumber with some extra sauce for this. It's a very nice way to guide the agent in a fa…

I have experimented with that a bit but not in a rigorous way, it's good to know that there is value in doing it so I'll try to integrate it into my process. Thanks for the tip!

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#108

Post by seanmcdirmid »

leetrout wrote: post #105
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #101

I'm using what I call "hermetic agents", where completely sandboxed agents write code and tests from the same specification, where the code writer can't see the test and the test writer can't see the code. The idea is that we can get better quality this way (by avoiding confirmation bias between code and tests). It is more painful to set up however, since you have to distill a spec and guides that the agent would nor…

I did a thing sorta like this between app and infra. My app agent sends messages to the infra agent for what it needs and they go back and forth to sort things out. They invented their own working process on top of it and wrote their own tool. It's interesting watching all this work. Feels like the future more than a lot of things I've seen in the past few years. Shame we're doing this to the detriment of the environ…

That's sort of crazy.

My agents are completely locked down and their communication channels are limited. For example, a QA agent can give feedback to the coder or tester agents, but it can't reveal information to them that they shouldn't know about.

It also prevents them from going off the rails, since they can't really do anything outside of their specified tasks (tools are locked down as well).

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone experimenting with different ways of using LLMs for coding?

#110

Post by m_ke »

I mostly use claude code on mobile and desktop with remote sessions and do most of my coding on the go now.

I have been tempted to distill something like GLM 5.2 into a smaller html + css only model for super fast interactive UI editing, because right now it's really annoying to do with large slow models. I'm sure it would be doable to do the same for individual language / frameworks, including potentially doing a final few steps on your own code base with some LoRAs that could be kept up to date to avoid having the model have to explore the code base each time.

Doing UI work with composer 2.5 and live reload is a way different experience than slogging through it with opus 4.8

Post reply on HN