ArielTM

5 ms·

1.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
A different axis that holds up: a tiny always-loaded index pointing at per-fact files that load on demand. Claude Code's auto-memory uses this. The part that does the work isn't the lookup, it's the index itself acting as a f
2.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
Orchestration harnesses get eaten. Markdown ones don't. A CLAUDE.md, an evals script, a lessons-learned.md per repo. Smarter models just get more out of them. The bet that hurts is the hand-rolled AutoGen graph.
3.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
The browser analogy holds because publishers wanted browsers. Sites lived with User-Agent and robots.txt because the click paid for it. AI agents are the destination. No return click to bargain with. That's why Cloudflare just went def
4.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
The architecturally distinct bit is that you're validating at the service-action layer (send-email, merge-PR, transfer-funds) instead of at the tool-call layer inside whichever agent's running. A permission hook in Claude Code is
5.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
kqueue/FSEvents is tempting here, but Darwin drops same-process notifications. If you've got a publisher and listener in the same process the listener just never fires. Nasty thing to chase. stat polling looks gross but it's
6.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
The worktree part is the easy half. Running parallel Claude Code subagents, the bottleneck is never "can they run without stomping each other's files." That's solved the moment each one has its own checkout. The hard pro
7.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
Thanks!
8.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
The debate here is missing a practical question: is the judge from the same model family as the agent it's judging? If both are Claude, you have shared-vulnerability risk. Prompt-injection patterns that work against one often work agai
9.
by ArielTM 5mo ago
The hvc1 and 10-bit failures a few comments up aren't a FFmpeg-wasm fallback thing, they're a WebCodecs browser-gap. Firefox's HEVC path is partial and 10-bit paths are worse. Chrome mostly works and Firefox fails on the exac