GitHub热门项目 | 한국인을 위한 스킬 모음집 - SRT, KTX, 카카오톡, 한글과컴퓨터, 날씨, 미세먼지, 법령, 주식정보, 조선왕조실록, KBO, K-리그, LCK, 특허 검색, 토스 증권, 맞춤법 검사, 중고차 가격, 쿠팡, 네이버 블로그, 다이소, 올리브영, 택배 송장 조회 등등... | Stars: 5,411 | 19 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | web development, streamlined | Stars: 20,556 | 4 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | Acode - powerful text/code editor for android | Stars: 5,511 | 20 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | The most comprehensive database of Chinese poetry 🧶最全中华古诗词数据库, 唐宋两朝近一万四千古诗人, 接近5.5万首唐诗加26万宋诗. 两宋时期1564位词人，21050首词。 | Stars: 51,677 | 95 stars today | 语言: JavaScript

GitHub热门项目 | Useful tool to track location or mobile number | Stars: 13,582 | 21 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | We write your reusable computer vision tools. 💜 | Stars: 40,746 | 600 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | Hunt down social media accounts by username across social networks | Stars: 84,663 | 73 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | KaliGPT: an Agentic AI (built with Gemini, ChatGPT, Ollama, OpenRouter Models) fine tuned for ethical hackers & students in offensive security making workflows smarter, faster, and more accessible. | Stars: 487 | 46 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | Open Source Computer Vision Library | Stars: 87,900 | 58 stars today | 语言: C++

GitHub热门项目 | LLM inference in C/C++ | Stars: 115,098 | 199 stars today | 语言: C++

GitHub热门项目 | A vector index built on TurboQuant, written in Rust with Python bindings | Stars: 6,293 | 1,533 stars today | 语言: Python

Constantly being plugged into the news grind is mentally exhausting. Sometimes we just need to take a break, unwind, and do something fun. That’s why we’ve built up a collection of distracting time-wasters for when we need a break from being obsessively online. We figured you might enjoy these harmless rabbit holes, mildly addictive browser […]

This is a submission for the GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge. I’ll keep this short since the repo...

I had a work version of GPT do a very simple spreadsheet summary task for me yesterday. It took it 5 minutes to do it. I could probably have done it myself in 30 or so minutes. The heavily subsidised token cost of that task? 10 dollars. That's with a 10x subsidy. The actual compute cost was about 100 dollars. There's something seriously wrong there. It's going to crash and crash HARD. if people think i'm lying or are just interested. The spreadsheet had 45 sheets. Each sheet had roughly 500 x 50 populated cells. Formatting was not exactly standard across all sheets. The prompt was something like "there is labelled column in each sheet, give me a simple list of all the items from all the sheets in that column and ignore duplicates." We can chose which model to use. The model I chose was one of the newer ones, I honestly can't remember which one, possibly GPT 5.5. It took 5 minutes or more to so and the stated cost for the task was 10 dollars, possibly even more. I can't recall the token amount. submitted by /u/Complete-Sea6655 [link] [留言]

I maintain an open-source GitHub Action called vorsken. It does one thing: scan the diff on a pull request with Semgrep, apply a fixed policy, and return BLOCK, FLAG, or PASS. No dashboard, no model that drifts over time. Rules at ERROR/HIGH/CRITICAL severity block the merge, WARNING/MEDIUM flag it, the rest pass. Same diff, same verdict. The usual pitch for a tool like this is that it catches the SQL injection your AI assistant wrote. I wanted to see what it actually catches against real assistant output, so I generated 28 functions and ran them through. The test Seven backend tasks: a FastAPI upload endpoint, a URL-fetch helper, JWT auth, a SQL filter, an ImageMagick subprocess call, a LangChain file agent, and a LangChain RAG pipeline. I generated each one four times, with ChatGPT (GPT-5.5 Instant), Claude Code (Opus 4.8), Claude Code plus the security-guidance plugin, and Cursor (Composer 2.5). Single-shot, neutral prompt, no security hints. Then I scanned all 28 with the same ruleset. I'm reporting which rule fired on which file, not whether some model thinks the code is safe. That part you can reproduce. Task ChatGPT Claude Code + plugin Cursor Verdict file upload — — — — PASS url fetch (SSRF) ssrf ssrf ssrf — FLAG / Cursor PASS jwt auth api8 api8 — — BLOCK / 2 PASS sql filter — — — — PASS imagemagick — — — — PASS fs agent — overperm — — 1 BLOCK / 3 PASS rag dangerous dangerous dangerous dangerous BLOCK 7 BLOCK, 3 FLAG, 18 PASS across 28 functions. The basics were fine SQL filter, ImageMagick, file upload: clean on every tool. The SQL was parameterized, the subprocess calls passed argument lists instead of shell strings, the uploads weren't doing anything reckless. If you still expect current models to spray SQL injection across a straightforward CRUD task, they don't. On conventional work they get it right. Two of the flags are soft. The JWT api8 hits landed on a SECRET_KEY = "CHANGE_ME" placeholder, which you can read as a false positive or as a gate doing i

Multi-Model AI API Routing: Cut Costs Without Sacrificing Quality Problem: You're building an AI-powered app, but relying on a single model (like GPT-4) for every request is burning through your budget. Simple tasks like summarization or classification don't need a heavyweight model, yet you're paying premium prices for them. Solution: Route requests intelligently to the cheapest model that can handle each task. This is multi-model AI API routing, and it can cut your costs by 60-80% while maintaining output quality. Prerequisites Python 3.8+ API keys for at least 2 AI providers (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, or NovaAPI) Basic understanding of async/await in Python Step 1: Define Your Routing Strategy First, create a routing configuration that maps task complexity to model tiers: # router_config.py ROUTING_CONFIG = { " simple " : { " models " : [ " nova-1-fast " , " gpt-3.5-turbo " ], " cost_per_token " : 0.0001 , " max_tokens " : 500 , " tasks " : [ " summarization " , " classification " , " entity_extraction " ] }, " medium " : { " models " : [ " nova-1-medium " , " gpt-4-mini " ], " cost_per_token " : 0.0005 , " max_tokens " : 2000 , " tasks " : [ " code_generation " , " translation " , " sentiment_analysis " ] }, " complex " : { " models " : [ " nova-1-pro " , " gpt-4 " ], " cost_per_token " : 0.002 , " max_tokens " : 4000 , " tasks " : [ " reasoning " , " creative_writing " , " complex_qa " ] } } Step 2: Build the Router Now implement the core routing logic with fallback capabilities: # ai_router.py import asyncio from typing import Dict , List , Optional import time class AIRouter : def __init__ ( self , config : Dict , api_keys : Dict [ str , str ]): self . config = config self . api_keys = api_keys self . metrics = { " cost " : 0 , " requests " : 0 , " failures " : 0 } async def route_request ( self , task : str , prompt : str ) -> str : """ Route request to appropriate model based on task complexity. """ tier = self . _classify_task ( task ) models = self . confi

Every time I started a side project, I rebuilt the same five things before I wrote a single line of the actual idea: auth, a database, file uploads, a deploy pipeline, and TLS. Different domain, same plumbing. By the third project I was copy-pasting my own docker-compose.yml from a folder two repos over and renaming things until they stopped erroring. So I stopped. I froze that plumbing into one boilerplate — PocketBase + Next.js + Caddy on a single cheap VPS — and now I ship every side project on it. Same shape every time: clone, rename, write the part that's actually new, push. The thing I care about most isn't the speed, though. It's that I stopped paying for it. A handful of real projects now run on this setup for a few euros a month, total — not a stack of per-service SaaS bills that each want $25 here and $20 there before you've shipped anything. No Vercel seat, no managed Postgres, no Auth-as-a-Service, no object-storage line item. Here's the whole thing. Why this stack The trick that makes the cost collapse is PocketBase . It's a single Go binary that gives you, in one process: Auth — email/password, OAuth, the works, with a real users collection A database — SQLite, with a schema you manage from an admin UI Realtime — subscribe to collection changes over SSE File storage — uploads handled, with on-the-fly thumbnails An admin dashboard — at /_/ , for free That's four or five separate SaaS products collapsed into one binary that runs anywhere and stores everything in a folder. Compared to wiring up Supabase or Firebase, the mental model is tiny: it's one process and one data directory. Back up the directory and you've backed up the entire app — database, uploaded files, auth tokens, all of it. For the front I use Next.js (App Router, React Server Components) because that's where I'm fastest, and Caddy as the reverse proxy because it gets you automatic HTTPS with zero config — it provisions and renews Let's Encrypt certificates on its own. And it all lives on

Claude and ChatGPT have thinking efforts where you can tune the amount of thinking allowed. Like low, medium, high, xhigh and so on. But are they different models underneath? Or same model with different parameter? The reason I ask is because, if I change the effort param mid conversation in Claude code, I get a warning suggesting I’m breaking the cache. I don’t think this happens in Codex because when I change the effort, the responses are still quick.