Overview This guide shows you how to fix a critical Azure App Service configuration issue where the keyVaultReferenceIdentity property is hidden from the Azure Portal but required for accessing Key Vault secrets. Symptoms Developers encountering this issue typically observe: Key Vault references returning empty values instead of secret content Configuration entries showing "Not Resolved" error messages Application settings failing to fetch secret values from Key Vault Authentication errors when attempting to access protected secrets 401/403 errors from App Service attempting to validate Key Vault access Why This Happens Azure App Service uses Managed Identity authentication to access Key Vault secrets, but the keyVaultReferenceIdentity property is deliberately hidden from standard Azure Portal interfaces. This property only exists at the Azure Resource Manager (ARM) level, making it invisible through the typical Azure management UI. Technical Architecture App Service → Managed Identity → Azure AD → Key Vault Access Policy → Secret Store App Service attempts to authenticate using its assigned Managed Identity Azure needs explicit permission through the keyVaultReferenceIdentity property This permission exists only in the underlying ARM configuration Without this configuration, the authentication chain breaks Key Vault references resolve to empty values or error messages Why Portal Visibility is Limited Microsoft implements this design choice for several reasons: Security : Keeps identity-to-Key Vault mappings out of standard management interfaces Simplicity : Prevents accidental misconfigurations that could cause security issues Audit Trail : Ensures all identity configurations go through proper change management Resource Provider : Some properties require ARM-level configuration for consistency Prerequisites Required Azure Resources Azure Subscription : Active subscription with appropriate permissions Azure App Service : Existing Linux or Windows App Service User-As

In my previous post, Monitoring Claude Code hook watchdogs with launchd , I set up liveness monitoring for hooks — and immediately ran into the next question: a healthy hook means nothing if the product behind it is down. What I really wanted was a single page I could skim in five minutes every morning and know that everything is fine. That page is daily-brief.sh . launchd runs it three times a day (8:00, 10:30, and at login), and it compiles production HTTP probes, hook latency p95, launchd exit codes, 7-day API costs broken down by model, and per-project git status into one Markdown file appended to Obsidian. The problem: checking five places by hand every morning The more you automate, the higher the risk that something breaks silently. I used to open all of these manually every morning: The Vercel dashboard (production liveness) launchctl logs (scheduled job failures) Claude Code cost usage git status for each project The hook latency JSONL Just opening them took 3–5 minutes. Two incidents slipped through unnoticed (2026-06-11: GitHub Scout silently going blank, and a server configuration error in the autolike license API). Consolidating everything into one automatically delivered page makes missing things physically impossible. Overall design: 3 triggers → 1 Markdown file → append to Obsidian launchd ├─ StartCalendarInterval: 8:00 ├─ StartCalendarInterval: 10:30 └─ RunAtLoad: true（ログイン時） ↓ ~/.claude/scripts/daily-brief.sh ↓ ~/.claude/logs/daily-brief-YYYYMMDD.md ← 正本ログ ~/.claude/logs/daily-brief-latest.md ← 最新コピー ~/Desktop/Daily Brief/today-brief-YYYYMMDD.md ~/Documents/claude-obsidian/wiki/briefs/daily/today-brief-YYYYMMDD.md Even when the second run fires at 10:30, the marker <!-- daily-brief YYYYMMDD --> prevents duplicate appends (details below). The script opens like this: #!/usr/bin/env bash # launchd で毎日 8:00 / 10:30 / ログイン時 実行（再実行してもマーカーで二重追記しない）。 # 注意: Desktop / ~/Documents(vault) は TCC 保護領域 → plist は /bin/bash 直起動（FDA付与済み）。 # /bin/zsh 経由だと FDA 未付与で書き込

The moment you add a code quality gate to CI, something quietly changes on your team. Developers stop arguing about code style in reviews because the robot handles it. Static-analysis errors stop reaching production because they can't pass the gate. You stop inheriting other people's technical debt because new errors are blocked immediately, even if old ones exist. That last point is the PHPStan baseline trick. We'll get to it. The Code Quality Job This job runs on every push and is intentionally fast — no database, no migrations, just PHP and a vendor folder: quality: name: Code Quality runs-on: ubuntu-latest steps: - uses: actions/checkout@v4 - name: Setup PHP 8.4 uses: shivammathur/setup-php@v2 with: php-version: '8.4' extensions: mbstring, pdo, bcmath, zip, intl coverage: none tools: composer:v2 - name: Cache Composer dependencies uses: actions/cache@v4 with: path: api/vendor key: php-8.4-composer-${{ hashFiles('api/composer.lock') }} restore-keys: php-8.4-composer- - name: Install dependencies run: composer install --no-interaction --prefer-dist --no-progress - name: Check formatting (Laravel Pint) run: ./vendor/bin/pint --test - name: Static analysis (PHPStan) run: ./vendor/bin/phpstan analyse --memory-limit=2G --no-progress pint --test runs in read-only mode — it checks without modifying files. Exit code 1 if any file has style drift. Run ./vendor/bin/pint locally (without --test ) to auto-fix before pushing. Configuring PHPStan Add a phpstan.neon to your API root: parameters: level: 8 paths: - app - Modules excludePaths: - vendor ignoreErrors: - identifier: missingType.iterableValue - identifier: missingType.generics Level 8 is strict. On a fresh project, aim for it from day one. On an existing codebase, start at level 4 and raise it gradually. The Memory Problem PHPStan at level 8 on a large codebase needs more than 512MB of RAM. Use --memory-limit=2G in CI. Locally, add a shortcut to composer.json : "scripts": { "analyse": "php -d memory_limit=2G vendor/bi

Originally published on hexisteme notes . A new public repo showed up on 2026-07-14: mattpocock/skills , an MIT-licensed collection of Claude Code agent skills. It's the kind of thing that's easy to fall for in the first ten minutes — skim the READMEs, install the ones that sound useful, move on. I didn't do that. I ran it through the five deterministic gates in my adoption CLI, the same gates every Swift package and npm dependency in my stack has had to clear, extended for the first time to cover a Claude skill. The reason I bother with this at all: adoption decisions rot when they're vibes. "This looks solid" is not a claim you can revisit in six months and check whether you were right about. A score is. So is a pre-registered condition for when you'd bail on it. The rest of this post is what that machinery produced on a real decision, not a hypothetical one. Five gates, one score The CLI scores any candidate — package, library, or now, skill — on five gates: maturity (how long has this actually existed), dependency footprint (what does adopting it drag in), platform fit (native or third-party, and documented or not), policy and developer experience (documentation quality plus release stability), and trajectory (is it actively maintained right now). Each gate contributes points toward a 100-point total, and fixed thresholds turn that total into a verdict: ADOPT at 80 or above, TRIAL at 60 or above, HOLD at 40 or above, reject below that. No gate is a gut check — every one resolves to a number from a query I can rerun. Here's what mattpocock/skills scored, evaluated as of 2026-07-14: Gate Score Why G1 Maturity 4/20 First release 2026-06-17 — 27 days old at evaluation time. The repo itself was only created 2026-02-03, so the project as a whole is five months old. G2 Dependency footprint 20/20 Zero runtime dependencies. Skills are markdown prompt files — structurally, there's nothing to depend on. G3 Platform fit 10/20 Third-party, not built into the platform, but do

I run a public board that probes 16 LLMs on a frozen 35-task suite, once a day, and keeps every score. When a model drops against its previous run, it opens a GitHub issue by itself and writes me a draft post. Between 21 and 24 July it did that four times: 23 Jul Gemini 3.5 Flash -11.4 pts 24 Jul Gemini 3.1 Pro -2.9 pts 21 Jul Grok 4.3 -5.7 pts 22 Jul Llama 3.3 70B -2.9 pts Four regressions in four days, across three labs. That's a post that writes itself, and it would have been fast, legible, and wrong. None of those models got worse. Here's how I know, because the how is the only part worth reading. Two of them weren't the model Every point on the board carries a second number next to accuracy: reliability , the share of probe calls that actually came back. Look at the two Google alerts with that column showing: gemini-3.5-flash 22 Jul acc 1.000 reliability 1.000 23 Jul acc 0.886 reliability 0.914 <- "-11.4 pts" gemini-3.1-pro 22 Jul acc 0.914 reliability 0.943 23 Jul acc 0.886 reliability 0.914 <- "-2.9 pts" 24 Jul acc 0.971 reliability 1.000 <- next clean run Accuracy and reliability fell together. That's the signature of calls that never returned, not answers that got worse — a failed call has no answer to grade, and an ungraded task scores the same as a wrong one. I know this signature well because this board already published the lesson. On 20 July, Llama 3.3 70B appeared to fall 66 points overnight: api.groq.com -> 429: Rate limit reached for model ` llama-3.3-70b-versatile ` service tier `on_demand` ... requests per minute (RPM): Limit 30, Used 30 34 of 35 calls were rate-limited. The model didn't get dumber; a 429 scored as a zero. A rate limit scoring as a 0% is the single most misleading thing a drift tracker can do, because it looks exactly like the thing the tracker exists to catch. Gemini 3.1 Pro settles its own case: the next clean run came back at 97.1%, higher than before the "regression." The other two were one question The remaining two alerts ar

1. Introduction Hello from Japan! 🇯🇵 I am an active truck driver in Japan self-studying Python and Web technologies, leveraging my logistics domain knowledge to transition into a Web Engineer. (English is my second language, but I'm excited to share my progress with developers worldwide!) I started my learning journey on May 12, 2026. As of June 4, I have logged 24 days and 86 cumulative hours of study. This article documents my progress, learning roadmap, and project milestones chronologically. Check out my GitHub here👈️ (Note: Most repository documentation and commit messages are currently in Japanese.) 2. The 86-Hour Learning Roadmap A quick breakdown of my 86 hours: 80 hours were dedicated to hands-on development and implementation, and 6 hours were spent on environment configuration, documentation, and workflow optimization. Stages 1–3: Automation & Scraping Projects ① Fundamentals & Web Scraping (25 hours) Learned core Python syntax and built automated scripts to collect targeted web data. ② Puoppo Auto-Analysis System (15 hours) Implemented automated poll data retrieval and AI-powered text analysis on Lubuntu. ③ Bakery Sales Aggregation System (12 hours) Integrated web scraping with automated Excel processing to streamline sales data aggregation. Stage 4: Practical Ruby on Rails ④ rails_practice (23 hours) Explored MVC architecture in Ruby on Rails. Practiced configuration management and Git rebasing to build a solid foundation in web framework operations. Stage 5: Real-World System Integration ⑤ hiroshima-logistics-hub (5 hours) Built a web system to aggregate real-time weather and traffic conditions in the Hiroshima area. Technical Fix : To bypass build crashes on Render (Free Tier / 512MB RAM), I precompiled assets locally and configured SQLite3 database storage in writable directories before deployment. 3. Key Takeaways for Resource-Constrained Development Through these projects, I established three operational principles for developing efficiently within

This is a submission for DEV's Summer Bug Smash: Smash Stories powered by Sentry. I...

The company ticked off a few more boxes on the second Starship V3 flight, but appears to have had another issue relighting the booster's rocket engines.

The company has comitted to 10 natural gas plants since last year.

A bunch of companies that I spoke to had their own claude & codex OTel dashboards that showed spend + seats per month. However, none of the dashboards actually analyzed how the engineers worked with the tools and if there were any areas for improvement! That's why I created https://www.promptster.ai . Managers get aggregate level view of code quality and how that ties with team workflows (nothing on a per-engineer level). While engineers get personalized coaching on how they can save tokens whil

Starship is carrying 20 V3 Starlink satellites as payload for its 13th test flight.

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

AI agents purpose-built for Hospitality Discussion | Link

The European Commission found Google's search ranking and anti-steering violated the Digital Markets Act.