You guys are describing wonderful things, but I've yet to see any implementation. I tried coding my own agents, yet the results were disappointing.

What kind of setup do you use ? Can you share ? How much does it cost ?

▲

throwaway7783 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We have a very uncomplicated setup with claude code. A CLAUDE.md with instructions and notes about the repo and how to run stuff. We also do code reviews with Claude Code, but in a separate session.

It works wonderfully well. Costs about $200USD per developer per month as of now.

▲

dworks 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

rlm-workflow does all that TDD for you: https://skills.sh/doubleuuser/rlm-workflow/rlm-workflow

(I built it)

▲

cheema33 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why make powershell a requirement? I like powershell, but Python is very common and already installed on many dev systems.

▲

_ink_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks for sharing. What does RLM stand for? Any idea why the socket security test fails?

	▲	stavros 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Recursive language models: https://github.com/doubleuuser/rlm-workflow

▲

aprdm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are not spending 5-10k dollars a month for interesting projects, you likely won't see interesting results

▲

cube00 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sounds a lot like paying for online ads, they don't work because you're not paying enough, when in reality bots, scrapers and now agents are just running up all the clicks.

You pay more to try and get above that noise and hope you'll reach an actual human.

The new "fast mode" that burns tokens at 6 times the rate is just scary because that's what everyone still soon say we all need to be using to get results.

	▲	zarzavat an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It feels like everyone's gone mad. Here I am mostly writing code by hand, with some AI assistant help. I have a Claude subscription but only use it occasionally because it can take more time to review and fix the generated code as it would to hand-write it. Claude only saves me time on a minority of tasks where it's faster to prompt than hand-write. And then I read about people spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a month on this stuff. Doesn't that turn your codebase into an unreadable mess?

▲

mrbungie 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't really tell if this is sarcasm or not.

▲

canadiantim 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Check out Mike Pocock’s work, he’s done excellent work writing about red green refactor and has a GitHub repo for his skills. Read and take what you need from his tdd skill and incorporate it into your own tdd skill tailored for your project.

▲

nojito 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is just ai slop. If you follow what the actual designers of Claude/GPT tell you it flys in the face of building out over engineered harnesses for agents.

▲

throwaway7783 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree with this. There is not a lot of harnesses/wrapping needed for Claude Code.

	▲	canadiantim 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You don't need a harness beyond Claude Code, but honestly it's foolish to think you shouldn't be building out extra skills to help your workflow. A TDD skill that does red-green-refactoring is using Claude Code exactly as how it's meant to be used. They pioneered skills.

▲

canadiantim 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Works better than standard claude / gpt, which doesn't do red-green-refactor. Doesn't seem like slop when it meaningfully changes the results for the better, consistently. Really is a game-changer. You should consider trying it.

▲

nojito 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I do do TDD but using skills in this way is an anti-pattern for a multitude of reasons.

	▲	canadiantim 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think just saying it's an anti-pattern for a multitude of reasons and then not naming any is sufficiently going to convince anyone it's an anti-pattern. This is in fact precisely what skills is meant for and is the opposite of an anti-pattern, but more like best practice now. It's explicitly using the skills framework precisely how it was meant to be used.