renan_warmling

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by renan_warmling 4mo ago

   I personally don't like antigravity very much, because in some hallucinations the AI ends up removing important parts of your code. It doesn't have a continuous learning engine for your project; if you switch users you may exper
2. 2.▲
   by renan_warmling 5mo ago

   The idea seems good, but the system lacks snapshots and data enrichment for each file iteration. If the code breaks or has a bug, the agent could roll back the code and generate enrichment explaining the reason for the rollback, thus genera
3. 3.▲
   by renan_warmling 5mo ago

   Maybe yes, I usually use it for small implementations and bug fixes, so I can't give you a more definitive answer. As for the user interface, my system is built with a Next renderer for graphics processing, so I can't give you mor
4. 4.▲
   by renan_warmling 5mo ago

   I believe the choice to use customized tools is more about the capabilities that Claude can control than the quality itself.
5. 5.▲
   by renan_warmling 5mo ago

   I'm also developing solutions with this, and everything will depend on how you contextualize the agents so they understand how your product should work within your market vision. Generating consistent and decent code works, but you nee
6. 6.▲
   by renan_warmling 5mo ago

   The framing of p_step^N is useful, but it points to a deeper architectural problem: verification fails because it samples from the same distribution as the generator. The real fix isn't better prompting — it's independent verifica