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

ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

zcode.z.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 382 posts

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#61

Post by bredren »

toddmorey wrote: post #15

Does anyone use an agnostic TUI or harness for development tasks that can fairly seamlessly switch between providers? I'm wanting local context in the spirit of "here are 3 AI providers available, for coding tasks use this one... and for writing prose use this one... and for generating images use this one..." etc.

I’ve written a skill for codex and Claude code that designates an orchestrator on the primary worktree and is agnostic about what type of AI workers are on the N supporting worktrees.

The orchestrator knows which AI client is running in any given worktree, so it would be fairly easy to designate which AI should receive what kind of tasks.

You run either Claude or Codex in tabs for each work tree. I do have some AI TUI specific instructions, for instance codex is primitive at monitoring compared to CC. So, there are additional notes for Codex workers on how to properly monitor for new "mail."

You work with the orchestrator on the primary worktree and allow it to delegates tasks to the workers and answer their smaller questions.

It surfaces results and assisting them with context clearing when needed.

The orchestrator and workers communicate using a simple shared file system under tmp/* and together they can handle a big and varied workload.

I use iterm2, so I’ve also added iterm2 specific python that allows the orchestrator to “kick” a worker or perform tasks otherwise veto'd by the TUIs (ie /clear) by modifying the input and submitting it.

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#62

Post by d3m0t3p »

maxloh wrote: post #51

I don't find a closed-source Chinese agent system trustworthy. It is essentially a black box with full user permissions, meaning you are just handing over your entire system to a Chinese-owned server. With OpenCode and its GLM provider, at least I can monitor which files were read, which were edited, and what commands were executed. Not to mention that Chinese national security laws legally obligate companies to coop…

This is exactly the same with providers from the USA.

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#63

Post by qaz_plm »

d3Xt3r wrote: post #30

For GLM Coding Plan subscribers, quota consumed via Coding Plan for GLM-5.2 in ZCode is discounted by the coefficients below — the same usage draws down less quota, roughly 1.5x the effective allowance. Peak hours (14:00–18:00 daily) 3x -> 2x Off-peak (remaining 20 hours) 1x -> 0.67x I wonder whether that is referring to local time, or CST (UTC+8)?

Peak hours are 14:00–18:00 (UTC+8)

https://docs.z.ai/devpack/overview

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#64

Post by gck1 »

gtirloni wrote: post #43
gck1 wrote: post #40

It's sad to see that the teams that have the most resources that can contribute to development of next-gen harnesses are essentially copying the same exact thing from each other, with no meaningful changes. And most of the advancement and experimentation happens in some random 0-star github repos.

Could you share some of these 0-star github repos?

I've been working on my own private harness for the past 8 months, and I've been collecting ideas from such repos I've stumbled upon.

pi-tmux is one such example (seems to be archived now) which inspired me to use tmux as communication layer and provide visibility of subagents of multiple models in their native harnesses [1].

There's also herdr, which is not 0-stars, but is super interesting but lesser known project [2]. This also has interesting substrates to allow agent coordination.

None of these are harnesses per se, but they're pointing towards clear gaps in existing harnesses. For example, we've known for a while now that compounding knowledge of different class of models achieves better performance. Why is there no harness where this is a native functionality? And there's no harness where subagents are first class citizens both in terms of capabilities and UX.

[1] https://github.com/offline-ant/pi-tmux

[2] https://github.com/ogulcancelik/herdr

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#66

Post by dadoum »

d3Xt3r wrote: post #30

For GLM Coding Plan subscribers, quota consumed via Coding Plan for GLM-5.2 in ZCode is discounted by the coefficients below — the same usage draws down less quota, roughly 1.5x the effective allowance. Peak hours (14:00–18:00 daily) 3x -> 2x Off-peak (remaining 20 hours) 1x -> 0.67x I wonder whether that is referring to local time, or CST (UTC+8)?

From https://z.ai/subscribe#code-plans-container:

> Explanation and Recommendations Regarding Usage for Plan-Supported Models

> Note: Peak hours are from 14:00 to 18:00 daily (UTC+8).

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#67

Post by embedding-shape »

bogdan wrote: post #57
LaurensBER wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might be sending some user requests to Anthropic to gather trading data for their own models. If they do so, perhaps they need to add some tracer to request that they prefer to hide.

Source? Or is it "trust me bro"?

Literally just FUD unless someone has code to point at.

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#68

Post by InsideOutSanta »

SwellJoe wrote: post #29
seizethecheese wrote: post #11

I'm somewhat surprised that this is not open source (from what I can tell). Compare to Mimo Code https://github.com/XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-Code (which is a CLI, while this is a desktop app).

I don't even know what I would do with a desktop app. I'm running these things in headless VMs, so I can run them with `--dangerously-skip-permissions` or whatever. I don't trust them, even without that flag, on my desktop/laptop.

Zcode allows you to connect to a Docker container, or to a VM using ssh.

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#69

Post by andy99 »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #34
owentbrown wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your experience, is it comparable to Claude Code with Opus 4.8? How does it feel? How do the two differ?

It's comparable, but not the same. For some tasks, it's better. Opus refuses tasks for me pretty regularly. GLM 5.2 has never refused a task. So for anything security-related or that touches on topics that trigger Opus's safety guardrails, I use GLM 5.2. OTOH, for anything related to UI design, I use Opus 4.8. It's much better at taking relatively vague descriptions of user interfaces and a mockup of a related UI and…

Do you guys use it through open router? Do you have any concerns about how the data you send is being intercepted? Not that I trust Anthropic but it’s widely agreed that it’s kosher to use them for commercial work, I can’t see comfortably sending any customer data to openrouter.

Edit- I see down-thread you use z.ai directly. Same concern, aren’t you worried about using it for professional stuff.

Re: ZCode – Harness for GLM-5.2

#70

Post by drschwabe »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #58
drschwabe wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you micromanaging your GLM costs? It seems the best bang for buck strategy right now is a Opencode Go subscription to get the subsidized rate and then switch to Openrouter's model above and beyond that + make use of a dual model strategy by having GLM 5.2 do planning and Deepseek V4 Flash for implementation.

No. I got the yearly highest-end GLM subscription when it was available for a few hundred bucks. I haven't run into quota limits even once.

Nice, lucky! The Opencode Go GLM 5.2 quota gets used up so fast. It's an expensive model. And while impressive for being open weight, it seems slower than Opus and GPT. So I typically only use it after exhausting quotas of discounted GPT5.5 or Opus 4.6^ paid plans.
Post reply on HN