Have you noticed how every demo of "an AI agent" looks impressive in the video and falls apart the moment you ask a sharper question? The agent confidently does the wrong thing. It forgets what it just decided. It tries to call a tool that doesn't exist. It loops forever rewriting the same file. It calmly tells you the deployment succeeded when it didn't. These aren't failures of the model. They're failures of the workflow around the model. Because that's all an agent really is: a software workflow where a language model can pick the next step and call tools. The "intelligence" sits in the prompt and the orchestration around it, not in some secret agent-flavoured fairy dust. Strip the word "agent" away and you've got five pieces of plumbing: planning, tool use, memory, constraints, verification. Every production-grade agent stands or falls on those five. This is a long walk through each one. Not the marketing version. The kind of detail you actually need before you ship something that talks to your database. The Loop You're Actually Building Before we touch any pillar individually, hold the whole loop in your head. A useful agent does roughly this on every turn: Read the goal (and whatever memory is relevant to it). Decide the next action: answer directly, call a tool, ask a clarifying question, or stop. If it called a tool, observe the tool's result and feed it back in. Update memory if anything is worth remembering. Check constraints: are we over budget, out of iterations, touching something off-limits? Verify the output before declaring success. Loop until done or stopped. That's it. Every framework (LangGraph, OpenAI Agents SDK, Claude Agent SDK, smolagents, whatever ships next month) is a different shape of the same loop with different defaults. agent-loop.ts async function runAgent ( goal : string , ctx : AgentContext ) { const state = ctx . startState ( goal ); for ( let step = 0 ; step < ctx . maxSteps ; step ++ ) { const decision = await ctx . model . decid

I am a big Dragon Age fan and sunk hundreds of hours into Inquisition. It had this minigame called astrariums where you had to solve these shapes based on constellation guides by tracing stars. I'm a hobby game dev and wondered if I could procedurally generate these puzzles so they were always solvable. Turns out you can, so I built a space puzzle game around it with a colorful aesthetic. I released it in web form here but I'm currently working on getting it on Steam and mobile.

I'm building TTT -- a terminal text editor and IDE written in Go. Single binary, zero config, runs anywhere. Think VS Code but in your terminal. It has syntax highlighting, LSP integration, a plugin system, an integrated terminal, git integration, etc... The source is on GitHub and I develop it with Claude Code as my pair programmer. This is the story of how a frustrating limitation turned into something genuinely useful: a built-in scripted interaction system that lets AI agents (or anyone) drive the editor like Playwright drives a browser. The problem I was deep in revamping the widget system and building out a Lua plugin API. Phases of work stacking up -- widget rendering, panel support, tree views, input fields, command registration, keybinding hooks. The kind of work where you need to see what's happening. Click a tree node, check if it expands. Open a panel, verify focus moves correctly. Run a plugin, confirm the dialog appears. Here's the thing: Claude Code can run shell commands and read files. It cannot interact with a live TUI session. The editor launches, takes over the terminal, and that's it -- Claude is blind. Step 1: tui-use (what we had) The project already had functional tests using tui-use , a JavaScript library that drives a real terminal binary. It can type, press keys, wait for text to appear, and take snapshots: const tui = await start ( " bin/ttt " , [ " test-file.go " ]); await tui . waitFor ( " test-file.go " ); await tui . exec ( " editor.joinLines " ); const screen = await tui . snapshot (); expect ( screen ). toContain ( " joined line " ); This works. But it's slow -- each test spawns the binary, waits for screen renders, polls with timeouts, and parses terminal escape codes. And critically, it can't click . Mouse events aren't supported. For a widget system with tree views, buttons, and split panels, that's a dealbreaker. Step 2: Debug commands (the workaround) So we added a Debug: Simulate Click command to the editor itself. Open the co

I've been thinking about this problem for a while. Developers and businesses need quality websites fast — but the options are either overpriced custom builds, outdated templates, or starting from scratch every single time. So I decided to build the solution myself. Softchic is a premium template and ready-made website marketplace — production-ready, built on modern stacks, designed to actually look good. This is Week 1 of building it in public. Why Softchic The market exists. Developers need templates. Businesses need websites. But most template stores are either bloated, outdated, or built on stacks nobody wants to touch in 2026. Softchic is different — every template ships with: Modern stack (Next.js, TypeScript, Tailwind CSS v4) Clean, production-ready code Premium design out of the box The name went through 25+ candidates across multiple languages before landing here. Clean, available, memorable — Softchic. The Stack Framework: Next.js 14 (App Router) Language: TypeScript Styling: Tailwind CSS v4 Components: shadcn/ui Payments: Lemon Squeezy (international) + Paystack (Nigeria) Email: Resend Deployment: Vercel Design language: dark and premium — #0D0D0D background, #2563EB blue, #F97316 orange accents. Week 1 — What Got Built ✅ Waitlist page — designed and ready to deploy ✅ Navbar — responsive, dark-themed ✅ WaitlistForm — wired to Resend for email capture ✅ Brand system — colors, typography, full design identity locked ✅ Payment architecture — Lemon Squeezy + IP-based currency detection via ipapi.co with PPP pricing for global fairness The waitlist goes live very soon. Follow me here on Dev.to — I'll drop the link the moment it's live. Early subscribers get first access when the store launches. The launch goal: 200 waitlist subscribers before opening the store. That's the benchmark. No exceptions. What's Next Waitlist page goes live 🚀 Product listing page Template preview system First upload — a SaaS landing page template The Real Talk Building a marketplace fr

Active inference: curiosity emerges for free from minimizing surprise — 48% vs 100% on a foraging task. TL;DR: Most AI agents chase rewards — they pick whatever action scores the most points. I tried a different, brain-inspired goal: avoid surprises . Something neat happened — the agent became curious without being told to. It goes looking for information before acting, and that takes it from 48% to 100% on a simple task. ~100 lines. Two different ways to make decisions Most AI agents are "reward chasers." Give them points for doing well, and they'll pick whatever action they expect to score highest. Simple and effective. There's another idea from brain science: instead of chasing points, try to avoid being surprised — act so the world matches what you expected. It sounds almost too simple, but it leads to a surprising bonus: when you're trying not to be surprised, going and finding out what you don't know becomes valuable all by itself. In other words, curiosity isn't something you have to bolt on. It comes for free. This is called active inference , and in 2026 it jumped from neuroscience into AI as a serious approach ( here's a 2026 paper ). Here's the smallest demo that makes it click. The 10-second version The task: a reward is hidden behind either the LEFT door or the RIGHT door (50/50). There's also a hint you can check that tells you which door — if you bother to look. ❌ Reward-chaser ✅ Curious agent What it cares about getting the reward, right now getting the reward + not being unsure What it does guesses a door checks the hint first, then opens the right door Success (400 tries) 48% 100% Nobody told the second agent "go check the hint." It did it on its own, because being unsure bothered it. How it works Before acting, the agent scores each option on two things: Does this get me closer to the reward? Does this make me less unsure about what's going on? value_of_checking_the_hint = how_unsure_am_i # high when it's a total coin-flip value_of_just_guessing =

Theory of Mind and the Sally-Anne false-belief test, in ~60 lines of Python. TL;DR: There's a famous test that kids pass around age 4. It checks whether you understand that other people can believe things that aren't true. I built two AI agents: one that only knows "what's actually happening" (fails, like a toddler) and one that keeps track of what each person believes (passes). It's ~110 lines, and it's the foundation for agents that can actually work together . The test Sally puts her marble in the basket , then leaves the room. While she's gone, Anne moves the marble to the box . Sally comes back. Where will she look for her marble? If you said basket , nice — you just used something called "theory of mind." Sally never saw the marble move, so in her head it's still in the basket. What's actually true (it's in the box) and what Sally believes (it's in the basket) are two different things, and you kept them separate without even thinking about it. A 3-year-old says "box" — they can't yet separate what they know from what Sally knows. A 4-year-old says "basket." It's one of the most famous tests in child psychology, and in 2026 it's become a real test for AI agents too. The 10-second version ❌ Agent with no "theory of mind" ✅ Agent that models other minds What it tracks only what's actually true what each person believes, separately Where will Sally look? "box" "basket" Result FAIL (only knows reality) PASS How it works (the whole trick) The only difference between the two agents is one rule: a person's belief only updates when that person is actually in the room to see it happen. def someone_moves_the_marble ( new_place , who_is_watching ): for person in who_is_watching : # only people in the room beliefs [ person ] = new_place # update THEIR mental picture So when Anne moves the marble while Sally is out, only Anne's mental picture updates. Sally's is frozen at "basket." Ask the simple agent and it just reports reality ("box"). Ask the smarter agent and it answer

A sleep-like phase that consolidates noisy daily experience into durable memory — 75% vs 100% recall. TL;DR: There's a wave of 2026 research giving AI a "sleep" phase — time spent not answering questions, just tidying up what it learned that day. I built a 90-line demo of the idea. The agent that "sleeps" remembers 100% of what it learned. The exact same agent without sleep remembers only 75% and gets confused by bad info. Runs on a laptop. The memory problem every AI app hits If you've built anything with an LLM, you know the pain: the model only "remembers" what's in its current context window. Once the conversation gets long enough, the oldest stuff scrolls off the top and is just... gone. Forgotten. The usual fix is "make the context window bigger." But that's like fixing a messy desk by buying a bigger desk. It's expensive, and the model still gets worse as you cram more in (a real, measured effect — more text in the window can actually lower accuracy). Your brain doesn't work this way. You don't remember every sentence anyone said today. While you sleep, your brain replays the day, keeps the important bits as long-term memory, and dumps the rest. That's how you remember "I like coffee" without remembering every single cup. A couple of 2026 papers ask the obvious question: Do Language Models Need Sleep? Their answer: giving an AI a quiet "offline" phase to consolidate memories makes it remember better. So I built the simplest version that shows why. The 10-second version ❌ Agent with no sleep ✅ Agent that sleeps How it remembers keeps only the last N messages saves a tidy summary every night After 30 noisy days 75% recall 100% recall Tricked by bad info? yes no — it goes with what it saw most often Same experiences, same noise, same memory test. The only difference is whether the agent sleeps. How it works Each "day," the agent hears facts like Alice → drinks → coffee . To make it realistic, about 1 in 5 facts is wrong (people misremember, logs have errors). Th

A tiny Darwin Gödel Machine that edits itself and keeps only changes that verifiably score higher. TL;DR: I built a small program that improves itself . It looks at the tasks it's failing, edits its own code to fix them, and keeps a change only if the change actually makes it score better on a test. It goes from passing 1 of 8 tasks to 8 of 8 — and nobody wrote those fixes but the program itself. It runs on a laptop in under a second. No fancy hardware, no API key. The old dream: software that improves itself Normally, software only gets better when we make it better. You write code, you find a bug, you fix it, you ship again. The program never improves on its own. People have wanted "software that improves itself" for decades. The classic version (called a "Gödel Machine") had one rule that made it impossible to build: before the program could change a line of its own code, it had to mathematically prove the change would help. Proving that about real code is basically impossible, so the idea never worked. In 2025, researchers found a way around it with the Darwin Gödel Machine . They dropped the "prove it first" rule and replaced it with something every engineer already trusts: Try the change. Run the tests. If the score went up, keep it. If not, throw it away. That's it. It's basically how we all work — make an edit, run the test suite, keep what passes. The twist is that the program is the one making the edits. In the real paper, this let an AI coding assistant improve its own tooling and jump from solving 20% to 50% of a hard benchmark of real GitHub issues. I wanted to actually see this happen, so I built the tiniest version I could. The 10-second version Start After improving itself What it can do only uppercase learned 6 more skills on its own Test score 🔴 1 / 8 🟢 8 / 8 Who wrote the fixes? — the program did Start: ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 1/8 (only knows: uppercase) +reverse ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░ 2/8 +dedup_csv █████████░░░░░░░░░ 3/8 +sum_csv ████████████░░░░░░

Undisclosed 0-Days, OpenZL for Zero-Trust, and Reddit's Anti-Spam Architecture Today's Highlights This week's security highlights feature a critical mass-drop of zero-day exploits on GitHub, a new open-source library simplifying Zero-Knowledge Proofs for advanced privacy, and an in-depth look at Reddit's robust anti-spam defensive techniques. Anonymous GitHub account mass-dropping undisclosed 0-days (Hacker News) Source: https://github.com/bikini/exploitarium This news item highlights a GitHub repository, "exploitarium," maintained by an anonymous entity, which has been observed to be mass-dropping undisclosed zero-day exploits. The repository provides proof-of-concept code and details for vulnerabilities that have not yet been publicly documented or patched by vendors. This activity is highly significant for the security community as it immediately brings to light critical, unpatched flaws that could be actively exploited in the wild. For defenders, this serves as an urgent alert to the existence of new attack vectors, prompting immediate investigation and potentially proactive mitigation strategies. The practical nature of directly providing exploit code allows security researchers and penetration testers to understand the vulnerabilities in depth and develop appropriate detection and prevention mechanisms. Comment: This is a goldmine for security researchers and red teams, offering immediate access to newly exposed 0-days for analysis and defensive development. It's a double-edged sword, though, as it also provides attackers with fresh ammunition. OpenZL (Lobste.rs) Source: https://openzl.org/ OpenZL is an open-source library and framework dedicated to enabling the practical application of Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs). ZKPs are a cryptographic primitive that allows one party to prove to another that a statement is true, without revealing any information beyond the validity of the statement itself. This is foundational for building robust privacy-preserving and ze

I run an AI system that maintains itself on a schedule. One of its routines is supposed to do a job twice a week and save the result to a file. The scheduler swore it ran. Twice. lastRunAt right there - timestamped, green, smug. The file? Didn't exist. Not "saved in the wrong folder" - didn't exist anywhere. Here's the thing nobody warns you about when you wire up autonomous agents: "it ran" and "it worked" are different claims, and most of your dashboards only check the first one. The trap A scheduler firing a job tells you a process started . It tells you nothing about whether the job did the thing. My routine started, hit an early error reading a file that didn't exist yet, and just... ended. No crash. No red anywhere. It "ran." It produced nothing. For days. If I'd trusted the green checkmark, I'd still think it was fine. How I found it I stopped reading the status and went to the disk. Three checks, in order: Does the output actually exist? Not "did it run" - does the artifact it's supposed to produce exist, right now, where it claims to put it? If yes - is it fresh and non-empty? A stale or empty file is a silent failure wearing a costume. If no - read the raw run log. Not the summary. The actual transcript of what the agent did, tool call by tool call. That third check is where the truth was hiding. The summary said the routine was "episodic." The transcript said something blunter: it tried to read its own memory file, got "file does not exist," and never recovered to create it. Zero write calls the entire run. It never even tried to save anything. "Episodic" and "dies before it writes" lead to completely different fixes. The summary would've sent me down the wrong one. Steal these If you run anything autonomous: "Ran" is not "worked." Health is the artifact: it exists, it's fresh, it's not empty. Not a green dot from the thing that launched it. Described is not executed. What the spec says a routine does is a hypothesis. What's on disk is the fact. When they

Instagram users could soon see more ways to tune their content.

Teenage Engineering has already issued multiple substantial updates for its surprisingly capable $329 EP-133 KO II sampler. Its latest is one of the biggest yet. OS 2.5 adds audio over USB, selectable sample rates for lo-fi fun, sample reverse, an arpeggiator, equal-length autochopping, and it extends the maximum length of a sample from 20 seconds […]