dude, if you try to do harness development yourself you will realize that most things said in this blogpost is shared with any ${sufficiently_advanced_harness}. this is not really claude-specific, this is just how this class of tools, OSS or not, works

▲

mccoyb 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not my complaint. I know well the concerns of agent harnesses. My complaint is that this is a low-dimensional projection of a system which I have no insight into, and therefore, I cannot evaluate the tips myself against their source.

Am I to believe the creators, knowing full well that the source will, as Boris Cherny put it in a recent interview, be deleted and rewritten from scratch at the release of the next big model?

Further: I'm responding to content in the blog post itself:

> Until pretty recently, the tools you wrote code with were a flat fee (or free). Your editor cost the same whether you fixed one test or fifty that afternoon, so an individual task didn't really have a price of its own.

I find this type of prose ridiculous. It conveys "this is the way things are now, get used to it".

Does that make sense?

	▲	runeblaze 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> which I have no insight into i guess you do? claude code is the commercial closed sourced version provides by ant. reading a mini version of vllm or sglang and then read codex source code or grok build source code will teach you all things taught by this article, fully in the open it is like saying that you have no insights into some $commercial_db_system which is kinda true but imagine if the article is to teach you indices, query normalization, etc..
	▲	bluefirebrand 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I find this type of prose ridiculous. It conveys "this is the way things are now, get used to it". This is absolutely what AI companies and AI lovers want you to believe