21–30 of 121 posts
I kind of have a different idea of agents. I totally believe in a deterministic scaffold but I really think that an agent should be as deterministic as possible - the more code, the better. Think of a typical loop we may ask of Claude Code today (assume we are not using TDD): run some test suite with fail fast mode, diagnose if the failure is due to recent feature changes (pass reference to backend/frontend, github i…
I kind of have a different idea of agents. I totally believe in a deterministic scaffold but I really think that an agent should be as deterministic as possible - the more code, the better. Think of a typical loop we may ask of Claude Code today (assume we are not using TDD): run some test suite with fail fast mode, diagnose if the failure is due to recent feature changes (pass reference to backend/frontend, github i…
I’m definitely on the deterministic code train as well. All of my success for long running tasks has been around wrapping the agentic harness (cc, codex-cli, etc.) in a deterministic workflow with deterministic gates. We need a name for this outer layer. In my mind that is the true harness because it constrains the agents failure mode. I think flow engineering has been proposed. Maybe it’s the agentic exoskeleton?
I kind of have a different idea of agents. I totally believe in a deterministic scaffold but I really think that an agent should be as deterministic as possible - the more code, the better. Think of a typical loop we may ask of Claude Code today (assume we are not using TDD): run some test suite with fail fast mode, diagnose if the failure is due to recent feature changes (pass reference to backend/frontend, github i…
I know it's a type of blasphemy here, but deterministic workflows such as what you describe is where langgraph really shines imo.
What I am saying is the opposite - use Claude Code or whatever else - generate actual "programs". Basically scripts. We have tons of ways for "programs" to interact with each other. Then have clearly defined edge case handlers - think "try/catch". How far do you want to go down the rabbit hole in the "catch"? Do you want to re-write a new version of the "program" itself? I do not know, but this type of a system is what Unix already is, with the addition of programs themselves reaching out to LLMs in well defined edge case handlers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Awesome work! This is really impressive. I gave a GitHub star. { aislop pitch} > Again, great work. i can bet you didnt actually read the op. i hate these comments so much. selfish and rude.
I did indeed read every word. And read the code. Don't be rude.
your comment exclusively about your aislop project
I kind of have a different idea of agents. I totally believe in a deterministic scaffold but I really think that an agent should be as deterministic as possible - the more code, the better. Think of a typical loop we may ask of Claude Code today (assume we are not using TDD): run some test suite with fail fast mode, diagnose if the failure is due to recent feature changes (pass reference to backend/frontend, github i…
100% agree that the more deterministic code the better up to the limit where you need the LLM's ability to be non-deterministic to kick in. There is this ACM blog post called "Manual Work is a Bug" [0] that was originally written to help humans automate processes using code. I find it just as applicable today as when it was written. You and the LLM look at what has to be done and then figure out the scripts/tools to…
I kind of have a different idea of agents. I totally believe in a deterministic scaffold but I really think that an agent should be as deterministic as possible - the more code, the better. Think of a typical loop we may ask of Claude Code today (assume we are not using TDD): run some test suite with fail fast mode, diagnose if the failure is due to recent feature changes (pass reference to backend/frontend, github i…
I’m definitely on the deterministic code train as well. All of my success for long running tasks has been around wrapping the agentic harness (cc, codex-cli, etc.) in a deterministic workflow with deterministic gates. We need a name for this outer layer. In my mind that is the true harness because it constrains the agents failure mode. I think flow engineering has been proposed. Maybe it’s the agentic exoskeleton?
I kind of have a different idea of agents. I totally believe in a deterministic scaffold but I really think that an agent should be as deterministic as possible - the more code, the better. Think of a typical loop we may ask of Claude Code today (assume we are not using TDD): run some test suite with fail fast mode, diagnose if the failure is due to recent feature changes (pass reference to backend/frontend, github i…
OP's idea "everything is a text file" is good and I use it too. My plans are saved as task.md files, numbered and named. Work items are checkboxes inside the file, closed work items are checked and a comment is added on the same line to provide feedback about the implementation.
I also keep a current-state-of-the-world document, it should be Something I never saw anyone else do - I save all user messages in a chat_log.md file which is referenced for intent alignment and state recovery. I consider the chat log on the one hand, and coded tests on the other hand as the two walls, the agent works in the mid section between them.
https://horiacristescu.github.io/claude-playbook-plugin/docs...
How much do the labs post-train on the harness inputs & outputs? That's a critical piece to understand if a "generic" harness is at all possible