Linking to a github repo for a binary release (no source code related to the agent that I could see) is a bit iffy IMO. You should clarify your intentions or link to something else. Might confuse folks.

▲

OleksandrC 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I will leave this here: https://usehax.dev/ GitHub repo: https://github.com/OleksandrChekhovskyi/hax

This is a coding agent implementation I am working on, which delivers what this promises (at least on the "lean" part), except it's actually fully open source, and even more lean (few MBs of runtime memory usage).

MIT-licensed, written in C, multi-provider / multi-model, minimalist approach to system prompt and tools (think kinda like pi, but with a bit more "batteries included", like subagents and background tasks out of the box), polished presentation, inspectable (usable transcript view), etc.

	▲	ubermon 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		nice, good to see more contributor in this space

▲

lrvick 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was kind of excited for this until the binary blob. You want me to give your agent binary god access to my computer, and I am not even permitted to see the source code or use my own supply chain security hardened rust compiler stack? What a joke. Hard pass.

▲

queisoy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

	▲	ubermon 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I wonder my self, was notified by a friend, but I am grateful.. Probably because of the Meta's open model release?

▲

ubermon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

we are migrating to public repo. will first see how to ship a binary with source code attached. the release pipeline seem to use the preview repo for attaching source.

▲

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

we put it in the repo README, will add migrate more into public repo as soon as possible.

▲

lrvick an hour ago | parent [-]

It has to be 100% open source public code or we will have no way of proving this is not malware, or secretly swapped out for malware later when your CI/CD system or laptop is compromised. Supply chain attacks happen all the time and with closed code no one will be equipped to spot it when it happens.

Also, security aside, engineers want the freedom to modify and experiment with the tools we rely on.

Tools like this are too important to be closed. Do you want to be Internet Explorer or Firefox?

▲

ubermon 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

Oh no, definitely not Internet Explorer. Will figure out a way to ship with source first to address the security and concern and then figure out how to do the open source development in agentic era later, I was too carried away by the complexity of the latter and ignorant to the former.

	▲	lrvick 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		When it is 100% freely licensed open source software I can modify and compile myself, I will be happy to give it a shot.

▲

adastra22 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Linking to a binary is iffy from a security perspective. Linking to a GitHub repository is exactly what HN should do.