I think the github readme repo is more for people who heard about it, but you're absolutely right, it is lacking in context and explanation.
lxdlam 53 minutes ago [-]
I have read the underlying paper, and found it may be useful, but not that useful.
For those who want to know what it achieves: it adds hot-reload and dynamic enable/dispose capabilities to a plugin system, like the one in Pi agents, though they push the boundaries further, to the UI components and so on.
For those who want to know what it does: if you have some PLT knowledge, ask your agent to explain the algebra to you better; for those who aren't familiar, the framework requires each plugin to provide how it initializes and how it destructs (like C++'s RAII, Rust's Drop trait and so on), and the runtime will then properly handle the lifecycle events and the common pitfalls. In addition, it provides a clean way to declare the dependencies between plugins, and the runtime will also properly process the lifecycle changes on a broader plane.
I think it's worth reading if you are not familiar with OSGi, iPOJO, React's useEffect and so on (which the paper itself mentions); for others, a skim is enough: it does point out the gotchas for some common problems, but the algebra may not help you further.
lalitmaganti 2 minutes ago [-]
This is basically similar to what bb (https://getbb.app/) is also doing. It's interesting to see many different people exploring things in this space...
grommz 11 minutes ago [-]
The paper mentions agent harness self improvement as one of the use cases. I don't know what's the advantage vs. iterating over a monolithic harness.
scotty79 6 minutes ago [-]
It's modular by default so you can experiment freely, in-session. If you don't like some plugin you built, just disable it and move on. No need for tracking changes, reverting and so on if you keep your plugins focused.
scotty79 8 minutes ago [-]
> it adds hot-reload and dynamic enable/dispose capabilities to a plugin system, like the one in Pi agents, though they push the boundaries further, to the UI components and so on.
That actually sounds amazing.
esafak 48 minutes ago [-]
For all the high-powered theory it looked just like every other harness! I was expecting more.
If anybody has tried it, does it let you preview components in any frontend framework with perfect fidelity? That would be a big win.
slopinthebag 34 minutes ago [-]
Uh, it’s big idea is a destructor? This is considered significant in 2026 and the era of vibe coding?
Game_Ender 30 minutes ago [-]
Don’t sell it short, it’s big idea is also to support dependency injection style explicit linkage between dynamically added components.
invaliduser 26 minutes ago [-]
«It uses an architecture where everything is a plugin»
Ok, that's enough for me. I have developped over the year a plugin fatigue.
Every product relying on "community plugins" for their features implies it works fine the 6 first months, then it's a nightmare of incompatible, deprecated, incompatible plugins, with no consistency and no governance.
I understand how attractive it can be to companies to think, hey, let's make a very small product and rely on other people to make features, and I hope it works, but I'm personally staying away from that.
prettyblocks 19 minutes ago [-]
This works pretty well for these coding harnesses though (see Pi). I like the model where the harness ships with minimal tools and you can spin up plugins for extra functionality. You can usually have the model/harness you're using just create the model that you need for you. The advantage of this is that these harnesses aren't optimized for their frontier models like claude/codex are so you can fine tune your environment and burn less tokens... having said all that, I haven't tried this one yet.
curreylabs 23 minutes ago [-]
Plugins are the right solution for software that needs to strictly isolate a stable core domain from an unpredictable long-tail of niche integrations.
NBJack 19 minutes ago [-]
That can work great when the core plugin interface offered is actually stable.
orbital-decay 20 minutes ago [-]
Everything about harness design is still experimental and janky. Throw everything in a pit and let the fittest survive. Large opinionated software is unlikely to survive and more likely to give you a migration fatigue
bdcravens 17 minutes ago [-]
Most vendors that create a plugin-based system end up creating a large library of plugins to kickstart the ecosystem, which many users end up trusting those more because they're "official", so they essentially created an mono-vendor ecosystem with extra steps.
scotty79 16 minutes ago [-]
If everything is a plugin it means plugins can do everything.
AI can write custom plugins for you. So this means the tool is infinitely flexible for you, even without any community.
Compare this to Zed where I can't make a hexviewer for binary files or player for audio files for myself without recompiling Zed's source code.
wltr 21 minutes ago [-]
Sounds like a Linux architecture, innit?
bdcravens 14 minutes ago [-]
Many of the libraries and executables in Linux are cross-compilable with other ecosystems. It's the difference between opening the door to an existing ecosystem and birthing one.
rco8786 1 hours ago [-]
But like, what is it? Odd that this reached #1 on HN. The README is pretty bare outside of installation instructions and a link to "Cordis", which is "A Meta-Framework of Spatiotemporal Composability." and "under active development. The API is not yet stable and may change without notice.".
kamranjon 1 hours ago [-]
New coding harness that seems to have some novel concepts and one of the pretty cool things on their landing page for it here: https://deepseek.com/harness/en/ is the Every Run is Traceable view:
"Everything the model sees is recorded in an append-only session log: system prompts, reasoning, tool calls and results, subagent scheduling, and every context injection. In the Trajectory view, you can inspect these records by source. Resume, fork, search, and replay all operate on the same event stream."
Seems pretty helpful - have sort of wanted something similar (I use Pi).
They also released this research paper that backs their whole plugin composability system that seems pretty cool: https://github.com/cordiverse/paper
rco8786 23 minutes ago [-]
I promise this isn't meant to be snarky, but is that not just...logs?
nottorp 15 minutes ago [-]
It's only logging if an obsolete human does it.
But the future is here and thus it's called "Agentic causality's reified temporal traceability."
scotty79 3 minutes ago [-]
Logs that aren't missing anything out of the box. I'd say it's pretty underused concept in time of 8TB consumer SSD drives.
marstall 53 minutes ago [-]
is it just for coding? the docs don't mention code, just "agents"
A "harness" is basically what you call Claude Code and such, i.e. a TUI to run the agent.
1 hours ago [-]
a3w 1 hours ago [-]
TUI?
Aren't VS Code, Claude Code, Hermes Agent, Goose or Letta harnesses, but with UI, too?
francislavoie 1 hours ago [-]
Can be a TUI, can be a GUI.
edgyquant 1 hours ago [-]
VSCode at least is a GUI
kaicianflone 54 minutes ago [-]
Which it’s kind of strange VSCode ghcp lacks basic attributes like context % used compared to some TUIs where it’s default.
u8080 27 minutes ago [-]
There is a round icon at the right bottom, where white arc is how much context used - hover for extra info.
tokai 1 hours ago [-]
I thought the harness was mainly a TAI (tangible AGENT interface). Its a harness for the agent, not a user interface. That is bolted on top of the harness.
dormento 26 minutes ago [-]
> A Meta-Framework of Spatiotemporal Composability
Good to know I was not the only one confused. Reads like word salad!
1 hours ago [-]
bpodgursky 30 minutes ago [-]
Hacker News will mindlessly upvote anything they see as a threat to US AI labs. It's not more complicated than it having "DeepSeek" in the name.
JSR_FDED 6 minutes ago [-]
You don’t think it’s because titanic battles are interesting and here’s a company that (a) gives you the weights to a frontier model for free, (b) publishes great papers with LLM architecture innovations, (c) is insanely cheap?
huqedato 3 minutes ago [-]
Please somebody explain what is this good for. Is it a similar tool with Claude Code or Antigravity ?
syntaxing 1 hours ago [-]
Is there a reason why so many of these agent harness are written in node.js?
Wowfunhappy 31 minutes ago [-]
Because:
1. The first significant agentic harness was made by Anthropic.
2. One of the most senior developers of client-side software at Anthropic is Felix Rieseberg, one of the original creators of Electron. [1]
3. After Claude Code blew up, everyone else copied Anthropic.
out of the box an agent only needs to be able to do http requests and call tools (which might again be just http requests or shelling out)
there is no inherent reason for why an agent has to be in JavaScript or Typescript
but they are popular languages and come with runtimes and libraries for http requests, steaming, TUI (terminal ui) and so on which can help
m_ke 1 hours ago [-]
1. it's built for async
2. runs everywhere
3. interpreted, making it fast to iterate on
4. decent performance
5. most popular language, llms are decent at writing it
skeledrew 19 minutes ago [-]
That actually don't like you're describing Python. I've been working on a couple JS/TS projects and it's like the models I use (Claude Sonnet and DeepSeek v4 Flash) continually struggle to do coherent work; I have to always keep close watch to reduce sloppiness. I go to Python and it's smooth sailing with minimal prompting (and reduced token burn) for acceptable outcomes.
kzsh 1 hours ago [-]
An additional benefit of interpreted, I think, is to make plugins easier to distribute and incorporate. With a compiled language you’d need message passing or something.
nurumaik 34 minutes ago [-]
dynamic linking was invented pretty long time ago
platinumrad 25 minutes ago [-]
You know that dlopen does not compare.
gf000 1 hours ago [-]
JVM has real and virtual threads and arguably just as good if not better on all these points.
(I actually have/am writing a harness in Java fwiw, but mostly as a hobby/experimentation)
cmrdporcupine 49 minutes ago [-]
JVM apparently has the advantage that nobody under the age of 40 wants to touch it anymore. I admit I haven't worked in it in 20 years, but I do think it's a marvel of engineering and unfairly maligned. It used to be my career but I wanted to be closer to the metal.
Having Oracle's tramp-stamp on it may have been the final kiss of death in terms of totally-superficial "coolness" factor.
rescbr 22 minutes ago [-]
The JVM has a fixed size heap which for me it is wasteful.
IMHO, Microsoft made the correct approach on .NET.
For LLMs, I prefer C# and C++ instead of TypeScript, JavaScript or Python as the static + compiled language factor keeps the coding agents on track. Plus, they have a true threading/async implementation.
knowaveragejoe 50 minutes ago [-]
But have you considered that java is gross and nodejs is sexy?
altmanaltman 1 hours ago [-]
aren't 3 and 4 a tradeoff though? Yes you have 3 but "decent performance" cannot be an extaled value as compared to "runs everywhere". If its used as a counter balance to 3 then it shouldn't be its own unique point basically saying 4 is true despite 3 in this case.
m_ke 1 hours ago [-]
when you're waiting for network or LLM inference the raw performance doesn't matter at all
kingstnap 54 minutes ago [-]
You would think raw performance wouldn't be a problem given most of whats happening is waiting for network calls and streaming tokens.
But modern bloat manages perfectly well to make apps that wait for network calls run poorly enough to give you a bad experience.
eglintondust 1 hours ago [-]
This line of thinking I feel like assumes it's the only program running on your computer. Using less of my CPU and memory means my computer can do more things in parallel, or even run more instances of the harness. My laptop is sweating when I got 5+ claude code sessions running.
jaapz 59 minutes ago [-]
Is it actually claude using those CPU cycles though, or the agent running test suites and what not?
Honestly I would not be surprised when it actually IS claude using those resources... It is very clearly vibed
Jtarii 35 minutes ago [-]
This is so very, very incorrect.
altmanaltman 1 hours ago [-]
yeah fair enough, my entire point is not about the application itself but the contradiction on using superlative terms for all points but a compromising/normal term for one. Like if performance is not revelant why include it in the list of benefits.
0xbadcafebee 17 minutes ago [-]
decent performance, lol! compared to what? a shell script? "i'll only take up 200MB of disk and 4GB of RAM to output flickering text on a terminal. boy this is high performance"
fast iteration is for POCs. once you have the app built and working, you need performance and stability much more than fast iteration
pohl 1 hours ago [-]
Probably for the ease of coding extensions — which strikes me as outdated thinking: if it’s open source and you’re outsourcing the coding to LLMs, why not use a compiled, safe language?
There’s an interesting counter example for DeepSeek called CodeWhale, though:
I don’t think so. The ChatGPT app was, which is the “Classic” app now. The Codex app that they’re carrying forward is an Electron app and if you forget to quit it before you walk away it’ll make even your M5 Max unresponsive eventually. Sad days.
Wowfunhappy 8 minutes ago [-]
Sorry, I meant the Codex CLI harness. I don't understand why OpenAI decided to start using the "Codex" name for everything.
hocuspocus 1 hours ago [-]
Codex, Kiro, Grok Build. Pi has a clone in Rust too.
edgyquant 1 hours ago [-]
I don’t think so it’s an npm package iirc
ceehex 51 minutes ago [-]
you can install binaries with npm too, not just limited to js
Zambyte 1 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure why specifically Javascript instead of something like Python or other options, but using an interpreted environment minimizes the friction for implementing extension systems, which are an important feature in AI harnesses.
hedora 1 hours ago [-]
Python basically requires containers unless you are OK with it bit-rotting every six months or so. At least, this used to be the case for trivial python, and recently was the case for stuff that uses cuda.
I stopped paying attention the third time they redefined matrix arithmetic semantics. That happened to be around the 100th time I was sent a script and it only ran on the author’s machine. Maybe they will fix it some day. When they do, I will not believe it.
In contrast, TS has a much nicer type system and better async support. It runs well on web, mobile, desktop and server. Yes, sometimes you have to ship node.js or a whole web browser, but the tooling for that is slightly less insane than the analogous tooling for python.
Its language interoperability story is slightly nicer too (invoke native code, or use wasm). It’s UI story is much, much better since it reuses all the web stuff.
Pip practically invented the supply chain attack; npm perfected it. That’s probably a draw.
Of course, if you care about performance, then other choices make more sense. If you’re training a model then python probably still wins, but very few customers have a $1M+ machine.
ubercore 1 hours ago [-]
`uv` helps but it's new, and I don't think it has the same mindshare yet on "I just globally want to install this thing that needs an interpreter/runtime", so Python probably just doesn't come first to mind.
svachalek 1 hours ago [-]
I'd put it on this. In my experience Python is fine for scripting your own machine but an obnoxious platform to distribute code on. It's very fragile to version changes, in both directions; I don't know how many things I've seen that only run on 3.10, not 3.9 or 3.11. Its packaging system is global by default which only compounds this because everything needs a specific version but they're all dumped in the same place. And it tends to have a lot of native code as dependencies, leading to all the issues of needing to either have the right build environment or a runtime environment that's already been built for.
jesse_dot_id 1 hours ago [-]
TypeScript is great and its ecosystem is easy to work within.
nimsarajay 1 hours ago [-]
I gotta same problem.
game_the0ry 1 hours ago [-]
npm as a distribution tool works well and typescript has types.
Any reason why it should not be written in nodejs?
sarjann 1 hours ago [-]
Might be easier to do cross platform.
2afTq 1 hours ago [-]
Skill issue. Their models don't work for serious programming so everyone just copies Electron apps from each other.
Is there a comparison of harness somewhere? Like, the same prompt to the same model, but with different harnesses, and comparing the quality of the results.
I am trying to run as much as possible only on free software, so I always only used Zed plugged with anthropic models, but I am wondering what is the quality of Zed harness compared to the one of claude code or pi or others... I would love some feedback.
bobleer 29 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
mring33621 18 minutes ago [-]
I just installed DeepSeek Harness with the latest Bun version and am using it with a local 9B, speculative decoding Qwen 3.x variant, running in llama.cpp and it works GREAT for small python projects, so far.
It was very easy to connect the harness to the local model and it seems to run quite fast, compared to other harnesses that I have tried.
hmokiguess 1 hours ago [-]
Tangential but, are there benchmarks out there on how languages affect latent spaces and performance of these models?
This other day I was looking at that “caveman” skill, and was shocked to see it evolved to become a company, and, in one of its modes, the highest form of compression seems to be “Wenyan” which is Classical Chinese.
Should I get started on learning Chinese?
wongarsu 27 minutes ago [-]
There are lots of papers on the topic. I think the best summary is "it's complicated". Typically models perform slightly better in English, typically best in either professional English or very rude English. Though this varies by model, not all react well to rude English, and I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese was on the rise
Also, "less tokens" is not always straight forward. I doubt it's a coincidence that the cavemen skill (or now proxy, I guess) has lots of numbers, but not a single benchmark on model performance or actual per-task token savings
For example one paper I remember found that without CoT, just stating your prompt twice increases model performance. With CoT, the same function is served by the CoT restating the important parts of your question. Something about which tokens can affect which other tokens in attention implementations
hmokiguess 4 minutes ago [-]
Very interesting, can you link some of the papers if you don't mind? I'm curious about this space.
I'm finding more and more there seem to be sort of niche prompting skills that are important to be aware of
jbellis 43 minutes ago [-]
And that's it, that's the last lab releasing models worth coding with that didn't have a first party harness that its models are trained to use.
I'm curious what peolle are finding with first party vs 3red party harnesses for coding.
Do the first party harnesses really have an advantage when paired with the maker's model?
dsrtslnd23 1 hours ago [-]
I hear that often but to me it does not feel like it. I built my own framework around pi.dev harness and run all kind of different LLMs with it. Sometimes also use the vendor harnesses and they don't feel better adapted.
marstall 49 minutes ago [-]
i've been using Cascade (a third party harness) since the 3 week period in 2023 when it was hot. I think it's called something else now. Devin? Things got confusing there for a second and I stopped paying attention.
Anyway very happy with it, I use it as a plugin to RubyMine and Webstorm.
One of the primary advantages is being able to choose your model - and it often has free deals for newer models that are running promotions. Whenever I switch to Claude Code it seems clunky. Would rather use Claude with Cascade.
1 hours ago [-]
softwaredoug 1 hours ago [-]
I use OpenCode and I like knowing the direct token spend for doing tasks. A healthy repo can get a lot done with Luna + fresh context. Then I can spend $1-$2 a day when I'm doing development, and costwise honestly it beats a $200 / month plan.
I also just do a bit of hand-coding to guide the agent still.
I worry the $200 / month plans are loss-leaders encouraging you to maximize token usage to churn out slop, rather than thoughtfully use coding agents in a way that still engages your brain, and produces good software.
bmurphy1976 41 minutes ago [-]
Tracing what it actually did. Who would have thought that's a good idea, instead of trying to obfuscate everything.
32 minutes ago [-]
1 hours ago [-]
yipinwong 41 minutes ago [-]
Good idea, ugly landing page
0xbadcafebee 24 minutes ago [-]
> It uses an architecture where everything is a plugin
Did they discover Unix pipes?
217 2 hours ago [-]
if it's not better than omp im not trying it
skeledrew 26 minutes ago [-]
How will you know if it's better or not without trying it?
esafak 47 minutes ago [-]
What's its best feature?
m00dy 1 hours ago [-]
it looks like we're leaving md files and instead use cordis plugins ?
WhereIsTheTruth 51 minutes ago [-]
In the age of LLMs, if your new hires are pushing npm slop, with all the cargo culting and security pwn issues it brings, your hiring process has failed you
In the court of law, the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
You need to provide the proof instead of accusations.
What if DeepSeek never copied anything from anyone? They cannot prove something they haven't done.
Same here, you gotta provide the proof or at least trace of where DS might have done so.
---
Also in this field, nothing is original. Everything builds on another's ideas (unless the idea is copyrighted. Paid for it? then ok, stolen? no)
catigula 19 minutes ago [-]
Does China have courts or do you just get black-bagged in the middle of the night if you watch an episode of Winnie the Pooh?
m00dy 1 hours ago [-]
this is a very dangerous question.
catigula 1 hours ago [-]
Why?
hedora 45 minutes ago [-]
You’re implying the open weight model providers are behind the US companies, so they cannot do anything right.
Instead, they currently own the entire Pareto frontier — they have the lowest cost model (in terms of inference and training) at every commercially-available level of output quality.
We saw the same attitude from Silicon Graphics, Sun, etc vs Linux and Windows during the 1990s. It led to those companies’ ruin.
Concretely, I remember lots of arguments that the Linux kernel team would stall out once they implemented posix, since that was the end of the “copy for the sake of compatibility” runway.
While making such claims, none of the Unix vendors produced anything vaguely price-competitive with whitebox PCs (they were slightly better for niche workloads at 10x the cost, with crippling guardrails, er, license gated features).
Those vendors even tried getting the US government to intervene with procurement regulations, etc.
Anyone that was paying attention during the dotcom era should know how the current bubble ends.
The documentation, built from repo, is available here: https://deepseek-harness.github.io/deepseek-harness/en/guide... (I find the development and reference sections easier to read and navigate)
For those who want to know what it achieves: it adds hot-reload and dynamic enable/dispose capabilities to a plugin system, like the one in Pi agents, though they push the boundaries further, to the UI components and so on.
For those who want to know what it does: if you have some PLT knowledge, ask your agent to explain the algebra to you better; for those who aren't familiar, the framework requires each plugin to provide how it initializes and how it destructs (like C++'s RAII, Rust's Drop trait and so on), and the runtime will then properly handle the lifecycle events and the common pitfalls. In addition, it provides a clean way to declare the dependencies between plugins, and the runtime will also properly process the lifecycle changes on a broader plane.
I think it's worth reading if you are not familiar with OSGi, iPOJO, React's useEffect and so on (which the paper itself mentions); for others, a skim is enough: it does point out the gotchas for some common problems, but the algebra may not help you further.
That actually sounds amazing.
If anybody has tried it, does it let you preview components in any frontend framework with perfect fidelity? That would be a big win.
Every product relying on "community plugins" for their features implies it works fine the 6 first months, then it's a nightmare of incompatible, deprecated, incompatible plugins, with no consistency and no governance.
I understand how attractive it can be to companies to think, hey, let's make a very small product and rely on other people to make features, and I hope it works, but I'm personally staying away from that.
AI can write custom plugins for you. So this means the tool is infinitely flexible for you, even without any community.
Compare this to Zed where I can't make a hexviewer for binary files or player for audio files for myself without recompiling Zed's source code.
"Everything the model sees is recorded in an append-only session log: system prompts, reasoning, tool calls and results, subagent scheduling, and every context injection. In the Trajectory view, you can inspect these records by source. Resume, fork, search, and replay all operate on the same event stream."
Seems pretty helpful - have sort of wanted something similar (I use Pi).
They also released this research paper that backs their whole plugin composability system that seems pretty cool: https://github.com/cordiverse/paper
But the future is here and thus it's called "Agentic causality's reified temporal traceability."
Aren't VS Code, Claude Code, Hermes Agent, Goose or Letta harnesses, but with UI, too?
Good to know I was not the only one confused. Reads like word salad!
1. The first significant agentic harness was made by Anthropic.
2. One of the most senior developers of client-side software at Anthropic is Felix Rieseberg, one of the original creators of Electron. [1]
3. After Claude Code blew up, everyone else copied Anthropic.
---
1: https://daringfireball.net/2026/07/claudes_criminally_bad_ma...
smol has implementations in Go, Python, Clojure, PHP
https://github.com/smol-env/smol
out of the box an agent only needs to be able to do http requests and call tools (which might again be just http requests or shelling out)
there is no inherent reason for why an agent has to be in JavaScript or Typescript
but they are popular languages and come with runtimes and libraries for http requests, steaming, TUI (terminal ui) and so on which can help
(I actually have/am writing a harness in Java fwiw, but mostly as a hobby/experimentation)
Having Oracle's tramp-stamp on it may have been the final kiss of death in terms of totally-superficial "coolness" factor.
IMHO, Microsoft made the correct approach on .NET.
For LLMs, I prefer C# and C++ instead of TypeScript, JavaScript or Python as the static + compiled language factor keeps the coding agents on track. Plus, they have a true threading/async implementation.
But modern bloat manages perfectly well to make apps that wait for network calls run poorly enough to give you a bad experience.
Honestly I would not be surprised when it actually IS claude using those resources... It is very clearly vibed
fast iteration is for POCs. once you have the app built and working, you need performance and stability much more than fast iteration
There’s an interesting counter example for DeepSeek called CodeWhale, though:
https://github.com/Hmbown/CodeWhale
I stopped paying attention the third time they redefined matrix arithmetic semantics. That happened to be around the 100th time I was sent a script and it only ran on the author’s machine. Maybe they will fix it some day. When they do, I will not believe it.
In contrast, TS has a much nicer type system and better async support. It runs well on web, mobile, desktop and server. Yes, sometimes you have to ship node.js or a whole web browser, but the tooling for that is slightly less insane than the analogous tooling for python.
Its language interoperability story is slightly nicer too (invoke native code, or use wasm). It’s UI story is much, much better since it reuses all the web stuff.
Pip practically invented the supply chain attack; npm perfected it. That’s probably a draw.
Of course, if you care about performance, then other choices make more sense. If you’re training a model then python probably still wins, but very few customers have a $1M+ machine.
Any reason why it should not be written in nodejs?
https://github.com/cordiverse/paper
It was very easy to connect the harness to the local model and it seems to run quite fast, compared to other harnesses that I have tried.
This other day I was looking at that “caveman” skill, and was shocked to see it evolved to become a company, and, in one of its modes, the highest form of compression seems to be “Wenyan” which is Classical Chinese.
Should I get started on learning Chinese?
Also, "less tokens" is not always straight forward. I doubt it's a coincidence that the cavemen skill (or now proxy, I guess) has lots of numbers, but not a single benchmark on model performance or actual per-task token savings
For example one paper I remember found that without CoT, just stating your prompt twice increases model performance. With CoT, the same function is served by the CoT restating the important parts of your question. Something about which tokens can affect which other tokens in attention implementations
I'm finding more and more there seem to be sort of niche prompting skills that are important to be aware of
this looks like a genuinely new one
Do the first party harnesses really have an advantage when paired with the maker's model?
Anyway very happy with it, I use it as a plugin to RubyMine and Webstorm.
One of the primary advantages is being able to choose your model - and it often has free deals for newer models that are running promotions. Whenever I switch to Claude Code it seems clunky. Would rather use Claude with Cascade.
I also just do a bit of hand-coding to guide the agent still.
I worry the $200 / month plans are loss-leaders encouraging you to maximize token usage to churn out slop, rather than thoughtfully use coding agents in a way that still engages your brain, and produces good software.
Did they discover Unix pipes?
oof
Sadly no backwards direction
What if DeepSeek never copied anything from anyone? They cannot prove something they haven't done.
Same here, you gotta provide the proof or at least trace of where DS might have done so.
---
Also in this field, nothing is original. Everything builds on another's ideas (unless the idea is copyrighted. Paid for it? then ok, stolen? no)
Instead, they currently own the entire Pareto frontier — they have the lowest cost model (in terms of inference and training) at every commercially-available level of output quality.
We saw the same attitude from Silicon Graphics, Sun, etc vs Linux and Windows during the 1990s. It led to those companies’ ruin.
Concretely, I remember lots of arguments that the Linux kernel team would stall out once they implemented posix, since that was the end of the “copy for the sake of compatibility” runway.
While making such claims, none of the Unix vendors produced anything vaguely price-competitive with whitebox PCs (they were slightly better for niche workloads at 10x the cost, with crippling guardrails, er, license gated features).
Those vendors even tried getting the US government to intervene with procurement regulations, etc.
Anyone that was paying attention during the dotcom era should know how the current bubble ends.