61–70 of 107 posts
> We upstreamed it to omp For those not sufficiently cracked... what is omp? Is there a way I can have this command or workflow in Cursor / Claude Code? I tried going to the homepage ( https://stencil.so/ ). It didn't really help.
This is really smart, like the author said, old idea but cleverly applied. In case anyone wants a summary: don’t one shot, don’t use plan mode and hand off the plan to cheap executors, ask the frontier model to explore, create a todo list, and then start when it feels confident; stop it after first code edit, then prefill the context to cheap executor to continue.
How is that different than just having the frontier model write a build plan and store it, then have a cheaper model execute? That’s pretty normal practice. The build plan should be better than the context that generated it since it strips out wrong turns and other noise. I think?
This is really smart, like the author said, old idea but cleverly applied. In case anyone wants a summary: don’t one shot, don’t use plan mode and hand off the plan to cheap executors, ask the frontier model to explore, create a todo list, and then start when it feels confident; stop it after first code edit, then prefill the context to cheap executor to continue.
This is really smart, like the author said, old idea but cleverly applied. In case anyone wants a summary: don’t one shot, don’t use plan mode and hand off the plan to cheap executors, ask the frontier model to explore, create a todo list, and then start when it feels confident; stop it after first code edit, then prefill the context to cheap executor to continue.
How is that different than just having the frontier model write a build plan and store it, then have a cheaper model execute? That’s pretty normal practice. The build plan should be better than the context that generated it since it strips out wrong turns and other noise. I think?
Can someone explain to me the difference between this approach and using planning with a larger model, then just switching to a small model for implementation without clearing the context? I understand that it specifically does the first edit as well either way the larger model. Is there some other difference I am missing here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that different than just having the frontier model write a build plan and store it, then have a cheaper model execute? That’s pretty normal practice. The build plan should be better than the context that generated it since it strips out wrong turns and other noise. I think?
The article actually explains it better than I can but essentially you do not want the agent to get desperate which causes it to burn extra tokens. Planning phase doesn't test assumptions by going straight in the code and testing out parts of the ideas to execute so it has to consider way more in planning than it would if it could go quicker into the coding phase.
I guess the way to formalize this would be to add a “make minimal change to confirm approach” instruction to the build planning prompt. Probably can even parallelize that so as the build planning prompt iterates subagents get launched to validate, similar to what research modes do.
I’m a little skeptical, but will give it a try.
Good stats but how does this work with models like Claude where a lot of the context or relevant information is stored in its "memory", other coding agents can't use it.
The author is probably only evaluating their own harness with different models, so Claude-Code-specifics like memory aren't part of their evaluation.