41–50 of 248 posts
On the project itself, I don't really find it exciting at all, I'm sorry. It's just another wrapper for a 3rd party model, and the fact that you can 1) describe the entire workflow in 3 paragraphs, and 2) built it and launched it in around 4 months, emphasizes that.
Congrats on launch I guess.
Allowing LLMs to execute unrestricted commands without human review is risky and insecure.
Yes, this is a good point. I think not asking to run commands is maybe the most controversial choice we've made so far. The reason we don't ask for human review is simply: we've found that it works fine to not ask. We've had a few hundred users so far and usually people are skeptical of this at first, but as they use it they find that they don't want it to ask for every command. It enables cool use cases where Codebu…
Could you please explain a bit how you are sure about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty good for complex projects imo because codebuff can understand the structure of your codebase and which files to change to implement changes. It still struggles when there isn't good documentation, but it has helped me finish a number of projects
> It still struggles when there isn't good documentation @Codebuff team, does it make sense to provide a documentation.md with exposition on the systems?
Codebuff natively reads any files ending in "knowledge.md", so you can add any extra info you want it to know to these files.
For example, to make sure Codebuff creates new endpoints properly, I wrote a short guide with an example on the three files you need to update, and put it in backend/api/knowledge.md. After that, Codebuff always create new endpoints correctly!
> One user racked up a $500 bill by building out two Flutter apps in parallel. Is that through the Enterprise plan?
Nope, if you go over the allotted credits on the $99 plan, then you pay per usage (with a 5% discount). We actually ended up not charging this guy since there was a bug where we told him he got 50,000 credits instead of 10,000. Oops!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is a good point. I think not asking to run commands is maybe the most controversial choice we've made so far. The reason we don't ask for human review is simply: we've found that it works fine to not ask. We've had a few hundred users so far and usually people are skeptical of this at first, but as they use it they find that they don't want it to ask for every command. It enables cool use cases where Codebu…
> it won't do that. Claude is trained to be careful about this stuff and we've further prompted it to be careful. Could you please explain a bit how you are sure about it?
I think we have many other users who are similar. To be fair, sometimes after watching it install packages with npm, people are surprised and say that they would have preferred that it asked. But usually this is just the initial reaction. I'm pretty confident this is the way forward.
Quality of code wise, is it worse or better than Cursor? I pay for Cursor now and it saves me a LOT of time to not copy files around. I actually still use the chatGPT/claude interfaces to code as well.
We might have a bit of an advantage because we pull more files as context so the edit can be more in the style of your existing code.
One downside to use pulling more context is we burn more tokens. That's partly why we have to charge $99 whereas cursor is $20 per month.
Allowing LLMs to execute unrestricted commands without human review is risky and insecure.