ramoz

The friction of agents having to monitor CLI is just too annoying right now

Thus, this is ultimately:

  1. a harness problem (or harness orchestrator)
  2. a protocol problem 

With 2. we require native adapters in clients. MCP has the necessary things coming down the chain to enable real integrated push events to agents. Push events means bi-directional in-and-out of the agent.

Look to build your tooling in MCP once it lands! Just sharing my opinion, having built something similar last year. https://github.com/eqtylab/real-a2a

A harness is a part of the intelligence stack. It's no longer about raw access to the model

Also, I have seriously used most harnesses - One feels like it's being built in a place that truly understands AI and where agentic engineering is headed. You might not like it, but peak performance exists in CC when it comes to orchestration of bulk parallel work / subagents. The open source agents are catching up or accell in different way (Im preferable to pi.dev), but I'm not sure they're architecting orchestration the right why.

5.6?

I don't think your sprinkled AI hints help your pitch if they immediately show injected into the diff.

Also, I think the guided review presents the opportunity to skim the code versus read the full diff - as semantic overview of multiple files/diffs, as well as file change description, give you the opportunity to green light anything you don't really need to read into, or give you enough context that you should dive in. i.e. https://x.com/thdxr/status/2073238046296924466?s=20

As crazy as it may sound, my workflow today does not look too different from a year ago - where I was already heavy into claude code.

Im not certain things will look too different a year from now either. We still have serious bottlenecks in terms of focus/attention you have for both delegating agent work and being able to review it. Even if we solve the "trust what ai does" problem, these cognitive deficit issues still exist - for teams coordinating work, even users adopting new shit, etc.

As an industry we are leaning heavy into accepting "slop" as the status quo - we care more about efficiency of output right now. Slop will get better & we can become more adaptive to living with the paradox of amazing yet delicate systems generated by AI. But I feel big shifts coming in this regard and if/when it does we may find ourselves in the dystopia of broader unemployment with worse net outcomes.

I do think the teams that ship quality with AI will do so by learning to slow down

https://mariozechner.at/posts/2026-03-25-thoughts-on-slowing...

Pandoc might be able to do this, found this:

https://gist.github.com/plembo/409a8d7b1bae66622dbcd26337bbb...

Retro bowl (& goal) theme spotted

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newstargam...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.newstargam...

Okay, this is the one of the more useful thing sin my agentic engineering arsenal right now.

I mean, I didn't mean specifically every agent, and I also did not mean as a experiment. I see real at scale uses for this. Agents operating on their own networks, cross-team agents, my own agents on my own laptop, etc. Sharing context only gets more important the better these things get.

Ive been prototyping with Iroh for awhile.

I think this tech (modern p2p) represents what agent-to-agent (a2a) should be built on.

Every agent should be reachable to each other without hosting itself as an http server.

related prototypes

https://github.com/eqtylab/agentbeam

https://github.com/eqtylab/real-a2a

integrated agent review surfaces with https://github.com/backnotprop/plannotator

HTML/artifact canvases have a lot of potential

https://x.com/backnotprop/status/2064951065439834378?s=20

https://x.com/backnotprop/status/2065436433985474726?s=20

https://github.com/plannotator/effective-html

Shared context workspaces are important

https://plannotator.ai/workspaces/

https://github.com/plannotator/tot

I've been generating these types of interactive diagrams with Fable 5 and found success with this skill:

https://github.com/plannotator/effective-html

https://nitter.net/backnotprop/status/2065479594023829619#m

Claude Code, Codex, Pi clis all for varying levels of work. VS Code when needed.

I review agent messages, some specs/plans, and conduct local code reviews with Plannotator [1].

For skills, I have a bunch of custom ones for my own workflow. and for public skills I really only use the interrogate skill from cursor's lauren [2].

Key workflow stuff:

- Almost all work I do gets done in a git worktree.

- ghostty + Mac OS gives me all the organization I need for multi-agenting

- turn off all agent memory, this has only ever caused problems for me.

[1] https://plannotator.ai

[2] https://github.com/cursor/plugins/blob/main/pstack/skills/in...

I do think Cloudflare probably institutes a similar manual review process as well. I have a handful of fairly vocal and supportive engineers I stay in contact with around https://plannotator.ai (there is an integrated code review surface that creates a feedback loop with your local agent).

agents do a good job of looping over PR comments

This is the easy part. Most harnesses enable some sort of integration now, so you can actually create a smooth local experience around this as well - better code before it ships to more costly review or bloats PR threads.

guided, educational code review tool

This is a bit tougher, and I find the main harness chat tends to work best. I learn better when I'm more engaged and aware of what I'm asking. It's easy to stick a code tour type of thing on a screen. It's hard to really nail the right attention and learning mechanism around it.

The vast enterprise industry (non-technical) is now aware of Claude/Anthropic.

good feedback, thanks!

we're going to end up speaking past each other - but generally I do agree with you and am not denouncing the importance of formal verification methods. I do think abstractions are going to dominate the human ux above them

yes, am familiar with the "code is spec" trope.

Shame us all for moving away from something so perfect, precise, and that "doesn't have edge cases."

Hey - if you invent a programming language that can be used in such a way and create guaranteed deterministic behavior based on expressed desires as simple as natural language - ill pay a $200/m subscription for it.

If I had to roll out such a development process today, I’d make a standardized Markdown specification the new unit of knowledge for the software project. Product owners and engineers could initially collaborate on this spec and on test cases to enforce business rules. Those should be checked into the project repositories along with the implementing code. There would need to be automated pull-request checks verifying not only that tests pass but that code conforms to the spec. This specification, and not the code that materializes it, is what the team would need to understand, review, and be held accountable for.

The constant urge I have today is for some sort of spec or simpler facts to be continuously verified at any point in the development process; Something agents would need to be aware of. I agree with the blog and think it's going to become a team sport to manage these requirements. I'm going to try this out by evolving my open source tool [1] (used to review specs and code) into a bit more of a collaborative & integrated plane for product specs/facts - https://plannotator.ai/workspaces/

[1] https://github.com/backnotprop/plannotator

I was about to comment: "HTML creates too much friction after doing all sorts of visual explainers" ... thanks for articulating it well.

As a layer of abstraction, it also creates more requirements: need a browser, likely need includes/cdn libs to avoid bloat, all sorts of other things. Markdown is consumable, diffable, shareable in raw form - and you can add enrichment layers on top without much effort.

He's already within the consulting sphere around hospitals in his area.

He's already in the whole consulting sphere around these hospitals in his area.

I don't have time for that. I just told him he needs to hire somebody

A non-technical friend of mine has just won some hospital contracts after vibecoding w/ Claude an inventory management solution for them. They gave him access to IT dept servers and he called me extremely lost on how to deploy (cant connect Claude to them) and also frustrated because the app has some sort of interesting data/state issues.

Yea that's fine and understandable.

But like I said, this is something for those users. I launch many review processes locally with `claude -p`

This is much of a something burger for users who actively use `claude -p` under their subscription. Users will have to do their own math, but that 200 could come and go quite fast and then you're hitting normal API rates versus what you had previously been hitting.

https://x.com/jeremyphoward/status/2054682882753597603?s=20

Happy to change the title if there is explicit clarity on what my `claude -p` usage costs me today & it not differing from what it'll cost me once the change is in effect.

I wasn't able to post the official links because it was already posted by simple reposters who didn't understand, and titled their HN posts as "you get credits" basically

this is the original thread https://x.com/ClaudeDevs/status/2054610152817619388?s=20

The wording in the press is very confusing. Not sure if deliberate.

If you're an active `claude -p` user, it will now cost you API rates vs being able to user your subscription.

UPDATE: https://x.com/lydiahallie/status/2054650920768807313?s=20

Still confused.