HN user

venturin

6 karma

software engineering @ SkipLabs

Posts3
Comments5
View on HN

Strong agreement on the thesis. The piece is most useful for naming what's bankrupt about prompt chains. Where it stops short is what the verification checkpoints should actually verify.

One way to slice it: there are three kinds of underspecification an agent has to close.

Intent: what the user wanted (JWT vs cookies, should free users see this feature). Verification can't close this and probably shouldn't try.

Structural e.g. null, types, exhaustiveness, ownership. Sound static analysis closes this by construction.

Domain e.g. auth on every route, error propagation, contract stability. A domain-shaped apparatus closes this because it knows what kind of program is being built.

Babysitter, auditor, prayer is the right taxonomy of bad options. The fourth option is making the LLM a component inside an apparatus that handles structural and domain statically, and leaving the human on intent.

We just released new capabilities in Skip to make reactive services scale easily and efficiently across machines. Skip’s core is a native reactive computation graph that minimizes unnecessary recomputation—great for real-time apps—but now you can also scale horizontally using a leader/follower architecture.

We’ve open-sourced an example service (yes, it's called hackernews) you can try locally or on Kubernetes. It supports seamless scaling via kubectl scale, with zero downtime and no changes to your backend logic.

Blog post with diagrams and code here: https://skip.dev/blog/dynamic-scaling

GitHub repo: https://github.com/skiplang/skip To try it:

   npx create-skip-service hackernews --example hackernews --verbose  
   docker compose -f hackernews/compose.distributed.yml up --build  
Curious to hear your thoughts or feedback!