Live data from Hacker News

Agent Skills

addyosmani.com

161–170 of 239 posts

Re: Agent Skills

#161
post #68

Snake oil. Good to read for sure. Seems all plausible too. But snake oil nevertheless. Here's why: The slot machine can drop any hard requirement that you specifically in your AGENTS.md, memory.md or your dozens of skill markdowns. Pretty much guaranteed. These harnesses approaches pretend as if LLMs are strict and perfect rule followers and the only problem is not being able to specify enough rules clearly enough. T…

> The slot machine can drop any hard requirement that you specifically in your AGENTS.md, memory.md or your dozens of skill markdowns. Pretty much guaranteed.

Indeed. That said, I’ve had some success with agent skills, but I use them to make the LLM aware of things it can do using specific external tools. I think it is a really bad idea to use this mechanism to enforce safety rules. We need good sandboxing for this, and promises from a model prone to getting off the rails is not a good substitute.

But I have taught my coding agent to use some ad hoc tools to gather statistics from a directory containing experimental data and things like that. Nobody is going to fine tune a LLM specifically for my field (condensed matter Physics) but using skills I still can make it useful work. Like monitoring simulations where some runs can fail for various reasons and each time we must choose whether to run another iteration or re-start from a previous point, based on eyeballing the results ("the energy is very strange, we should restart properly and flag for review if it is still weird", this sort of things). I don’t give too many rules to the agent, I just give it ways of solving specific problems that may arise.

Re: Agent Skills

#162
post #138
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snake oil may be a bit strong, because snake oil never works (except maybe as placebo?) whereas anything with an LLM, even though stochastic, has a pretty high chance of working. > ... you also realize that promised productivity gains are also snake oil because reading code and building a mental model is way harder than having a mental model and writing it into code. Not really, though it depends on the code; reading…

Pretty high chance isn’t what the intent or impression the end user often has.

Indeed, and it is a complicated problem to solve. A GUI or CLI can hide footguns or make them less likely to be misused. But an AI agent is perfectly happy to use a wrecking ball to put a nail without any second thought or confirmation.

Re: Agent Skills

#163

What makes this better/different than spec-kit? It seems to have a very similar philosophy. I wonder if they could work together? Or would they just be duplicative? https://github.com/github/spec-kit

Nothing, they’re the same garbage for developers who can’t be bothered to mindfully use AI when writing code, and then complain about mass layoffs

Re: Agent Skills

#164
post #122
post #68

Snake oil. Good to read for sure. Seems all plausible too. But snake oil nevertheless. Here's why: The slot machine can drop any hard requirement that you specifically in your AGENTS.md, memory.md or your dozens of skill markdowns. Pretty much guaranteed. These harnesses approaches pretend as if LLMs are strict and perfect rule followers and the only problem is not being able to specify enough rules clearly enough. T…

Snake oil may be a bit strong, because snake oil never works (except maybe as placebo?) whereas anything with an LLM, even though stochastic, has a pretty high chance of working. > ... you also realize that promised productivity gains are also snake oil because reading code and building a mental model is way harder than having a mental model and writing it into code. Not really, though it depends on the code; reading…

Not only "has a high chance of working", but you can pay more to make it more reliable. It really is striking trying to run a harness openClaw thing on a smaller or quantised model, really makes you realise how much we take for granted from SOTA models that was totally impossible just a year ago, in terms of complex, generally reliable tool use.

Re: Agent Skills

#165
post #68

Snake oil. Good to read for sure. Seems all plausible too. But snake oil nevertheless. Here's why: The slot machine can drop any hard requirement that you specifically in your AGENTS.md, memory.md or your dozens of skill markdowns. Pretty much guaranteed. These harnesses approaches pretend as if LLMs are strict and perfect rule followers and the only problem is not being able to specify enough rules clearly enough. T…

A slot machine isn't snake oil.

Slot machine give you rewards when star aligns, snake oil never do :)

Re: Agent Skills

#166
post #62
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because usually the people who lose their jobs are people who do not adapt to the market. Right now it's not clear in which direction everything is involving and that's why people experiment with handing all their data to random agents, figuring out how to store and access context, re-use prompts and other attempts to harness this tech. Most of these will maybe be useless in a year as they might be deeply integrated…

People are building bots to do the most legible thing possible which is feature in X amount of time. But it doesn't matter if the bottleneck is human thinking time required to output quality code rather than X amount of code written.

I am so much faster with the bots. If you're not faster with the bots then either you write very very little code, or you're doing it very wrong. Tactically they outsmart me 10-100x if you account for the write speed. Even if you just consider the knowledge of languages, libraries, patterns they clearly outperform me. Strategically I do not trust them at all, poor things suck at it, mainly because they always try to take the shortest possible path to the current destination.

And if you think that your personal protest against the automation will in any way affect the direction in which the industry goes then you're delusional. You would have to start something like a political party and collect way more people.

Re: Agent Skills

#167
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are building bots to do the most legible thing possible which is feature in X amount of time. But it doesn't matter if the bottleneck is human thinking time required to output quality code rather than X amount of code written.

I am so much faster with the bots. If you're not faster with the bots then either you write very very little code, or you're doing it very wrong. Tactically they outsmart me 10-100x if you account for the write speed. Even if you just consider the knowledge of languages, libraries, patterns they clearly outperform me. Strategically I do not trust them at all, poor things suck at it, mainly because they always try to…

Wake me up when LLMs help me write better code and let me understand the codebase, and not before. Not faster, not more productive, but a more comprehensible codebase that I can reason in my own head.

Otherwise, if they write so much better code, than it's pointless to have a human in the loop.

Re: Agent Skills

#168
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me, what do you measure? Changes shipped? Lines of code? Customer satisfaction? Defect rate? MTTR? New engineer onboarding time/TTFC? Security/compliance audit turnaround time? Uptime? Employee retention? Rollback/forward-fix rates? Linter errors? Test coverage? Meaningful test coverage?

Depends on the clients maturity, but some places all of the above.

What are the numbers you are getting?

Re: Agent Skills

#170

Cant wait for everyone to realize they've wasted a year + messing with agents and experiencing a feeling of psuedo productivity.

if i wanted to find out the answer to my question, i would need to:

- open the browser

- google "john repo"

- find the website

- copy the repo name

- open the terminal

- cd

- git clone

- try to find the file i want

- read the whole file to find the answer

= answer

i now do:

- "john repo question" = answer

Post reply on HN