I ran the same 39 AI agent security samples through three scanners: AgentGuard, Semgrep, and CodeQL. The Results Scanner Detection Rate False Positives AgentGuard v0.6.4 100% (39/39) 0 Semgrep 0% (0/39) 0 CodeQL 0% (0/39) 0 Zero. Semgrep and CodeQL detected nothing. They have zero rules for AI agent security. AgentGuard has 17 detection rules covering all 10 OWASP ASI categories plus 4 novel attack vectors: Memory Poisoning, Tool Output Trust, Action Chain Amplification, and Multi-Agent Collusion. Real World AgentGuard found 332 critical vulnerabilities across Microsoft AutoGen and LlamaIndex. Issues reported directly: autogen#7917, autogen#7918, llama_index#22245. Reproduce git clone https://github.com/dockfixlabs/agentguard-benchmark cd agentguard-benchmark pip install dfx-agentguard python benchmark.py GitHub: https://github.com/dockfixlabs/agentguard PyPI: pip install dfx-agentguard

Every big social network locks audience data behind auth walls and anti-bot systems. Bluesky went the other way. The AT Protocol is open by design, so public profile data (bios, follower counts, full follower and following lists) is queryable through a documented API without logging in. The whole surface is basically two endpoints: GET https://api.bsky.app/xrpc/app.bsky.actor.getProfile?actor=HANDLE GET https://api.bsky.app/xrpc/app.bsky.graph.getFollowers?actor=HANDLE&limit=100 There's also getProfiles for batching 25 handles per call. Follower lists paginate with a normal cursor , which still works on the graph endpoints. Search is a different story, cursor pagination 403s there now, but that's a topic for another post. For one-off lookups, curl is honestly all you need. Where it gets tedious Bulk. Thousands of profiles, follower exports that run into six figures, weekly snapshots for tracking. Pagination, rate-limit backoff, and stitching the pages together is boring code that has to run reliably. I packaged that part as an Apify actor: Bluesky Profile Scraper . Paste handles or profile URLs, optionally turn on follower/following export, and you get JSON or CSV back with a sourceProfile field linking each follower record to the profile it belongs to. $2 per 1,000 records, runs on a schedule if you want snapshots over time. What people use this for Vetting an influencer's real audience before paying them. Exporting who follows a competitor and what their bios say. Charting follower growth from weekly runs. And enrichment: find who's talking about you with a mentions monitor , then profile those authors to see their actual reach. Bluesky is the only major network right now where any of this is straightforward and stable. Worth using while it lasts.

Osloq — ใช้ AI หาสาเหตุ bug แทน เวลา AI coding tools เสนอจะ "fix bug ให้" — เราได้แต่กด Accept หรือไม่ก็ Reject สองปุ่ม สองทางเลือก แต่เราไม่เคยรู้ว่า: AI รู้ได้ยังไงว่า bug เกิดจากตรงนี้? มัน reproduce แล้วหรือแค่อ่านโค้ดแล้วเดา? ถ้าเรา accept — มันจะพังของอย่างอื่นไหม? Osloq เลือกทางที่สาม: ไม่ใช่ "fix ให้" — แต่ " หาให้เจอแล้วบอกว่าเกิดอะไรขึ้น " Osloq คืออะไร Osloq เป็น AI agent ที่ทำหน้าที่ "นักสืบ bug" มีคนเปิด GitHub Issue → Osloq อ่าน → trace โค้ด → reproduce ใน sandbox → ส่งรายงานพร้อมหลักฐาน ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ GitHub Issue: "ปุ่ม submit กดไม่ติดบน Safari" │ └─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Osloq: │ │ 1. อ่าน issue → เข้าใจว่า "ปุ่มไม่ทำงาน" │ │ 2. trace โค้ด: จาก handler → service → DOM event │ │ 3. reproduce: รัน Safari ใน sandbox → ปุ่มไม่ติดจริง │ │ 4. จับหลักฐาน: logs, screenshots, call stack │ │ 5. สรุป: "event listener ใช้ 'click' แต่ Safari │ │ บน iOS 18 ไม่ bubble event — ต้องใช้ 'pointerdown' │ └─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Report บน GitHub Issue: │ │ 📸 screenshot ของ Safari ที่ปุ่มไม่ทำงาน │ │ 📋 console error: "Unhandled Promise Rejection" │ │ 🔗 code path: handler.ts:42 → form.ts:17 │ │ 💡 suggestion: เปลี่ยน event type │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ คุณอ่าน report → เข้าใจปัญหา → ตัดสินใจเอง ว่าจะแก้ยังไง ต่างจาก "AI Fix Everything" ยังไง Devin / Sweep AI Osloq แนวคิด "Fix the bug" "Find the cause" ทำงานยังไง เขียนโค้ดใหม่ → เปิด PR Reproduce → รายงาน evidence เราเห็นอะไร PR diff ภาพ, log, call stack, บทสรุป ใครตัดสินใจ AI (เราแค่ merge) เรา (AI บอกว่าอะไรผิด) ถ้าผิดพลาด โค้ดผิดเข้า main Report ผิด — ไม่กระทบโค้ด ความเสี่ยง สูง — AI แก้โค้ดโดยตรง ต่ำ — AI แค่แนะนำ ทำไมถึง "สบายใจกว่า" 1. คุณเห็นหลักฐาน — ไม่ใช่แค่ diff ❌ "Fixed button click handler — please review" → review 300 บรรทัด — ไม่รู้ว่าแก้ถูกไหม ✅ "Button

Ask ChatGPT or Perplexity "what's the best note-taking app" and you get a shortlist of three to five names. Either you're on it or you don't exist in that channel. And buying research keeps moving there. People call measuring this GEO or AEO tracking now. The way most teams do it is pasting questions into chatbots by hand and eyeballing the answers. That stops scaling at about ten questions, and you can't trend it week over week. Doing it programmatically Don't scrape the chat UIs. It's fragile, against ToS, and breaks weekly. The engines all have official APIs with web search: Perplexity's sonar models return answers with citations built in OpenAI has gpt-4o-search-preview for live web search Gemini's gemini-2.5-flash supports Google Search grounding One OpenRouter key covers all three through a single endpoint, which keeps the code boring. For each buyer question you care about, record four things per engine: was the brand mentioned, how early in the answer, was your domain cited as a source, and how often competitors appeared. That last one gives you share of voice. The packaged version I built this as an Apify actor: AI Brand Visibility Tracker . You give it a brand name, domain, competitors, and topics. It generates realistic buyer questions and returns one JSON row per check: brandMentioned , positionScore , brandCited , shareOfVoice , citedDomains , plus a per-engine summary. Schedule it weekly and you have an AI visibility trendline for client reports. $0.05 per check. The field that actually matters citedDomains is the actionable one. It tells you which sites the AI engines treat as sources for your category. Getting mentioned on those specific domains is how you move your visibility. It's link building, except the target list comes from the AI's own citations instead of a guess.

I just opened 3 security issues on two of the most popular AI agent frameworks on GitHub (combined 110K+ stars). The Issues microsoft/autogen#7917 : Docker code executor mounts host filesystem into sandboxed containers without trust boundary validation — container escape vector. microsoft/autogen#7918 : Agent self-modification patterns in Canvas memory module — agents can alter their own operating constraints during execution. run-llama/llama_index#22245 : 441 instances of unbounded recursive agent execution across 2,951 files — systemic resource exhaustion risk. All found with AgentGuard v0.6.2 (pip install dfx-agentguard), an open-source AI agent security scanner. Why Issues, Not Articles I have published 12 articles on Dev.to. Average views: 11. GitHub Issues on 50K+ star repos are read by thousands of developers and stay visible for years. This is the correct distribution channel for security findings — direct, unfiltered, and actionable. The Pattern The same vulnerability classes appear across all frameworks: Trust boundary violations (ASI10): agents crossing filesystem and network boundaries Agent recursion (ASI09): unbounded loops without circuit breakers Self-modification (ASI10): agents modifying their own state during execution These are not framework-specific bugs. They are systemic architectural gaps in how we build autonomous agents. Every framework needs guardrails for resource limits, trust boundaries, and behavioral constraints. AgentGuard detects all of them. 16 rules, 83 tests, 36 benchmark samples, 100 percent detection rate. pip install dfx-agentguard

I wanted to know when people mention a brand on Bluesky. Simple ask. Turns out Brandwatch, Mention, Hootsuite, basically every social listening tool, still doesn't cover it. They're all busy with X and Instagram while Bluesky sits at 27M+ monthly users. So I looked at doing it myself and found out something most people miss: you don't need to scrape anything. Bluesky runs on the AT Protocol, which is open by design. Public posts are searchable through a documented endpoint. No login, no API key. GET https://api.bsky.app/xrpc/app.bsky.feed.searchPosts?q=YOUR_BRAND&sort=latest&limit=100 That returns full post objects. Text, author handle, timestamps, like/repost/reply counts, embedded links, hashtags. Everything you need. Two things that broke my first version Worth writing down because most tutorials get this wrong now: The public.api.bsky.app host that older guides point to returns 403 for search. Use api.bsky.app instead. As of July 2026, unauthenticated search rejects cursor pagination. Page one works fine, page two gets you a 403 with "request forbidden by administrative rules". The nasty part is it looks like rate limiting, but it isn't. The workaround: paginate by time. Use sort=latest , then pass until= with the createdAt of the oldest post from the previous page. Dedupe on uri because the boundary post shows up twice. If you don't want to maintain any of that I packaged the whole job as an Apify actor: Bluesky Mentions Scraper . Keywords in, clean JSON out. It handles the pagination and retry stuff above, filters replies if you want, scores basic sentiment, and can pull follower counts for each author so you can sort mentions by reach. Runs on a schedule, exports CSV, plugs into Slack or n8n through Apify's integrations. It also works as an MCP tool inside Claude or Cursor. Pricing is per result, $4 per 1,000 mentions. No subscription. What I actually monitor Brand and product names plus the common misspellings. Competitor names, because share of voice on Blu

Fable and Opus may not be the most comfortable tools for engineers who learned to code by hand. I started thinking about this after reading Simon Willison's recent note . His point is simple: with a strong coding agent like Fable, it may be better to let the model exercise its own judgment than to spell out every condition yourself. Instead of writing detailed rules like "run tests for larger features, but not for small copy changes, except for design changes...," you can simply say: write and run tests where appropriate. The same applies to cost. Rather than deciding manually which tasks should go to which model, you can ask the agent to choose an appropriate lower-cost model and delegate the work to a subagent. Manual cars and automatics This is a rough analogy, but it feels similar to driving a car. People who enjoy driving often like manual cars. They want to choose the gear themselves. They want to feel the engine speed and have the car respond directly to their intent. For people who simply want to get somewhere, an automatic is easier. Software engineers are similar. If you have written code professionally for a long time, you usually have your own way of working. You may want to get the types right first. You may prefer small diffs. You may have a specific sense for how granular tests should be. You may even have an order in which you like to read an unfamiliar codebase. (At least, I hope you do.) For someone with that kind of style, a highly autonomous model like Fable or Opus can feel a little too automatic. The stronger the model, the more small instructions get in the way This is the same structure as management in human organizations. A junior member needs concrete instructions: read this document from this angle and summarize it in this format. A senior member can take a rougher assignment: I want to solve this problem, so investigate it, come up with an implementation plan, and move it forward. Of course this does not mean throwing work over the wall.