I find it hard to agree with the point that the content quality is low. Of course, that design does have some issues. But it is still valuable and worth reading.

The strengths are that the design forces Chain of Thought as a memory buffer and the TODO list in an FSM style. I think those are fine. The recovery strategy is also pretty good.

However, the problem is that the business logic does not run as Python code but lives inside the prompt. And it does not support parallel execution. But as a single run script, it is helpful enough for understanding the concept.

Of course, if I were to do the code properly, I would use a separate storage instead of in memory, and more carefully verify tool constraints and the actual scope limitations of the tools. But still, I think this is helpful enough.

▲

hilariously 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The recovery strategy in my mind would be what to do in case of a crash, which would just wipe out all the context here (scratch pad, todo list, etc) - it doesn't seem very recoverable.

	▲	jdw64 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is the difficult part of programming debates. What you mentioned is about the TODO list disappearing immediately when Python shuts down, right? What I was talking about is the point where the LLM retries when something goes wrong due to a mistake in the previous task. Actually, that's why I included the sentence 'If I were to do the code properly, I would use a separate storage instead of in memory.' I guess I unintentionally caused some confusion.