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

Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

#21

Post by slopinthebag »

tcballard wrote: post #15
slopinthebag wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLM generated comments go against site guidelines.

I wrote this, I just spend enough time with LLMs to sound like one

Come on man, you did not. Your profile is full of LLM generated comments. If you're not a native English speaker I understand the motivation, but still...

Re: Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

#22

Post by slopinthebag »

watermarkhu wrote: post #16
tcballard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this, I just spend enough time with LLMs to sound like one

Yeah every same human would use m-dashes in their sentences — it just makes sense

It's not the em dashes, it's the sentence flow and the incorrect use of terms like "load-bearing".

Also this user created an even newer account at the same time as posting this to drive engagement. /tinfoil-hat off

Re: Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

#25

Post by okhobb »

slopinthebag wrote: post #21
tcballard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this, I just spend enough time with LLMs to sound like one

Come on man, you did not. Your profile is full of LLM generated comments. If you're not a native English speaker I understand the motivation, but still...

It seems naive to suppose you might get an LLM to admit it is one just in a HN comment exchange.

Re: Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

#26

Post by throw1234567891 »

watermarkhu wrote: post #16
tcballard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this, I just spend enough time with LLMs to sound like one

Yeah every same human would use m-dashes in their sentences — it just makes sense

I use em-dashes. Just get over the fucking thing. Wow, you're so money supermarket. And if you're going to use one to drive the point—use it correctly because you come across as an ignorant.

Re: Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

#27

Post by slopinthebag »

okhobb wrote: post #25
slopinthebag wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on man, you did not. Your profile is full of LLM generated comments. If you're not a native English speaker I understand the motivation, but still...

It seems naive to suppose you might get an LLM to admit it is one just in a HN comment exchange.

The point isn't really to get it to admit to being an LLM, it's more that I don't want my favourite social media site which I value for the exchanges I have with other people to be overrun by bots. So I feel that pointing it out when it occurs can improve the overall discourse. Maybe I am naive in thinking that it would make a difference, but I'd rather be naive than to cynically resign in defeat. And perhaps in the long-term, open networks like this will lose the war. And at that point I will seek alternatives.

Re: Lore – Give your coding agent the decisions your team made

#30

Post by vlindhol »

tcballard wrote: post #3

Author here! Coding agents kept reworking decisions we'd already settled - reviving an approach we ruled out in an ADR, redoing something a requirement already pinned. The context was in the repo; the agent had no current view of it. Lore serves your team's durable knowledge - requirements, decisions, designs, roadmaps, prompts - all as typed Markdown, read-only to Claude Code / Cursor over MCP, so the agent cites yo…

Hi! What I'm not quite getting from a cursory overview of the docs is how does RAC overlay overlapping decisions over each other? My mental model is a Docker overlay filesystem where RAC somehow manages to construct a cohesive view of the entire set of decisions over time, but how does that happen deterministically?

Let's say ADR 1 specifies users are unique by e-mail and should be soft-deleted, and ADR 2 says users are unique by username. Will RAC pick up on the fact that users still need to be soft-deleted? Is there a lot of manual "reference ADR 1 from ADR 2" to help with determinism?

Post reply on HN