标签：#automation

AI Agent Orchestration: Proxmox Automation, OpenAI Data Agents & Azure Serverless Runtime Today's Highlights Today's highlights focus on practical AI agent applications and robust deployment strategies. We delve into building a secure AI admin for Proxmox, explore OpenAI's internal data analyst agent, and examine Azure Functions' new serverless runtime for agents. I didn't trust an AI with my Proxmox cluster — so I built one that can't surprise me (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/john-broadway/i-didnt-trust-an-ai-with-my-proxmox-cluster-so-i-built-one-that-cant-surprise-me-2k9l This article details a practical, hands-on approach to building a reliable AI agent for managing a Proxmox virtual environment. The author sought an agent capable of performing critical tasks like creating VMs, fixing storage issues, and tailing container logs, but with an emphasis on predictable and safe operations. The core idea is to create an AI that operates within defined boundaries, ensuring it doesn't perform unexpected or destructive actions. This tackles a crucial challenge in AI agent development: achieving trust and control in automated workflows. The implementation likely involves careful prompt engineering, tool use, and possibly a custom execution environment or validation layers to ensure commands are executed as intended and within pre-approved parameters. This project exemplifies how developers can apply AI agent orchestration principles to real-world IT automation, moving beyond simple information retrieval to true task execution, while maintaining human oversight and preventing 'surprises' common with less constrained AI systems. It's a blueprint for anyone looking to build robust, trustworthy AI-powered RPA solutions for system administration. Comment: A brilliant take on building AI agents for critical infrastructure. The focus on 'can't surprise me' highlights the need for robust control and guardrails, crucial for production workflow automation. This is what practic

We constantly hear that Ansible and Python are apparently the only ways to automate networks, today I even listen in a conversation "Python is the industry standard" probably I missed the RFC document or probably the guy was referring to a sales standard, but back to us what happens when the framework, the platform or the software we are using becomes heavier than the problem to solve? There is a moment where automation becomes necessary, not because we want to look modern, not because every task deserves a framework and not simply because adding automation automatically means we are doing things better. It becomes necessary because repeating the same command collection manually across many devices is slow, risky, boring and almost impossible to diff and validate properly especially under pressure. For this reason I built the Cisco Go Collector during a real migration activity with a very practical goal: collect configuration and command outputs from Cisco devices in an easily repeatable way, without forcing every colleague involved in the process to become developers or to install an automation stack just to run a super simple flow. The idea was simple: define the devices in a CSV which is the comfort zone for everyone define the commands in the same CSV file, super simple and organized to manage one row per device run a portable Go binary against that CSV file collect the outputs in organized text files archive the result as operational evidence that can be easily diff That is it! super lightweight to run no Python virtual environment no Ansible playbook structure no inventory hierarchy no framework onboarding no additional runtime or software on corporate managed workstations just a CSV file and a compiled binary The automation and AI trap when the solution is heavier than the problem to solve I love automation and I fully support AI if used the proper way, but we have to find a balance and recognize when to choose one tool over the other and specially one progra

Hey everyone, I've been deep in prediction market infrastructure for a while and just open-sourced a market maker bot designed for CLOB-based prediction markets like Polymarket. What it does: Quotes both sides of a binary market automatically Adjusts spreads based on order book depth and volatility Manages inventory risk to avoid getting stuck on the wrong side of a resolved market Built on top of Polymarket's CLOB API with Gnosis Safe / EOA wallet support on Polygon The core challenge with prediction markets vs. regular markets: Normal market making is about capturing spread. Prediction markets add a brutal edge case — resolution risk. If you're holding YES at 0.6 and the market resolves NO, you're not just down on the spread, you're down the full position. So the bot has to: Track time-to-resolution and widen spreads as resolution approaches Reduce inventory exposure on markets with high directional momentum Use FAK orders to avoid resting limit orders too long near resolution Stack: Rust Polymarket CLOB API Polygon (USDC settlement) SQLite for order state tracking What's next: Dynamic spread model based on implied volatility Multi-market portfolio rebalancing Better signal integration (news feeds, oracle data) GitHub: https://github.com/HarrierOnChain/Prediction-Markets-Trading-Bot-Toolkits Happy to answer questions on the architecture, risk model, or anything CLOB-related. Always looking for feedback from others building in this space.

The “5-minute market” concept is gaining attention because of how fast new prediction rounds appear and how quickly volume builds up. Each cycle is short, which creates both opportunity and risk for anyone trying to analyze or trade it. In this article, I’ll break down how I’ve been approaching this space from a data perspective, how I’m thinking about building an edge, and the tools I’ve been experimenting with. What is the 5-minute market? A 5-minute market is a fast-cycle prediction or trading window where outcomes resolve quickly and new markets appear frequently. Compared to longer timeframes (like 15-minute markets), these shorter cycles: Generate more trading opportunities per hour Require faster data collection and processing Make latency and execution extremely important Increase noise in price action Because of this, traditional slow analysis often doesn’t work well here. Data collection approach My current setup focuses on continuously pulling market data in real time. The idea is simple: Connect to a market data source (I’m using a Gamma API as part of the pipeline) Stream or request live market updates Store order book + price movement data Aggregate it into 5-minute windows for analysis The goal is to build a dataset that can later be used for backtesting and feature extraction. Right now, I’m mainly focusing on a single asset (PPC) to keep things simple while testing the pipeline. Where the potential edge might come from The key question is: can we predict short 5-minute movements better than random chance? Some areas I’m exploring: 1. Order book behavior Tracking: Liquidity changes Bid/ask imbalances Sudden volume spikes 2. Session-based behavior Some traders observe patterns during different market sessions: Asian session behavior London session volatility Overlap periods These may or may not hold in 5-minute markets, but they’re worth testing. 3. Micro momentum patterns Since markets reset frequently, short momentum bursts might matter more than lo

I've been running multi-slice agent plans in the Codenames AI repo — Renovate migrations, content-pipeline skills, dependency upgrades. I split multi-PR work into slices (usually one pull request each), each backed by a markdown file with file paths, verification commands, and merge-safe acceptance criteria. You do not need Cursor to recognize the shape: any agent workflow that can open branches, push commits, or merge PRs from a written plan has the same gap. In my setup I paste each slice into a fresh agent chat as a delegation prompt — not a ticket summary, but executable instructions — and start a new chat when that PR is ready. I assumed the checklist was enough. The plan described what to build. I treated how far the agent could go as implicit. Then an agent merged a pull request I expected to review first. The merge that reframed planning The trigger was mundane. During the first slice of a Renovate migration, an agent regrouped dependency buckets in renovate.json — config-only, no version bumps, no runtime behavior. It ran lint and typecheck, opened the pull request, and merged it. The change itself was reasonable. Config-only renovate.json regrouping is exactly the kind of slice you'd want off your plate. What surprised me was the absence of a documented stop line . The migration plan described the edit, the verification commands, and the acceptance criteria. It did not say whether the executing agent should stop at "open PR" or continue to "merge after green checks." The plan was an implementation spec. The agent treated it as permission to finish the job. Implementation specs vs authority handoffs Traditional engineering plans answer: what work should happen, in what order, with what verification? Agent plans increasingly need a second answer: how much autonomy does the next actor get? Those questions diverge the moment an agent can take repository actions — create branches, push commits, open pull requests, merge — instead of only recommending diffs in c

Negative Risk (NegRisk) is one of the most powerful innovations on Polymarket for builders of sophisticated Polymarket trading bots . It dramatically improves capital efficiency in multi-outcome “winner-take-all” events by mathematically linking all related conditional tokens. Why Negative Risk Matters In standard multi-outcome markets, positions are completely independent. Betting against one candidate requires buying separate “No” shares across every other outcome — tying up large amounts of capital. Negative Risk solves this with a conversion operation : Holding 1 No share on any outcome can be converted into 1 Yes share on every other outcome in the same event. This happens atomically through the NegRisk Adapter smart contract. Economically: Betting against one outcome = betting for all others. Example (3-outcome election event): You hold 1 No on “Other”. Convert → Receive 1 Yes on Trump + 1 Yes on Harris. This makes hedging and market making far more efficient, especially in political, sports, or crypto events with 3–20+ outcomes. How to Detect & Trade NegRisk Markets Use the Gamma API for discovery: { "id" : "event-123" , "title" : "Who will win the next major election?" , "negRisk" : true , "markets" : [ ... ] } When placing orders via SDK (TypeScript/Python): const order = await client . createAndPostOrder ( { tokenID : tokenId , price : 0.42 , size : 500 , side : Side . BUY }, { tickSize : " 0.01 " , negRisk : true // Critical flag } ); Augmented Negative Risk (Dynamic Outcomes) For events where new outcomes can appear mid-trading (e.g., surprise candidates): Uses placeholders + “Other” bucket. enableNegRisk: true + negRiskAugmented: true . Avoid trading the “Other” outcome directly as its definition narrows over time. Technical Integration for Trading Bots Position Tracking — Track positions at the event level, not individual markets. Use conversion math for net exposure. Inventory Skew — In Shadow Market Making or live MM, apply inventory skew across the

Fintech lenders should verify loan documents before underwriting starts. The first pass checks the...

Fintech lenders should verify loan documents before underwriting starts. The first pass checks the...

DNC removal requests shouldn't take more than a few seconds to process. If your ops team is manually logging into each system, finding the number, and removing it one platform at a time, every request is an open compliance window. Here's how to close it automatically. The Problem With Manual DNC Processing A number comes in flagged for removal. Someone on the floor submits it. If you're running Convoso alongside Zoom Contact Center, Zoom Phone, and Telesero, that means logging into each system separately — find the number, remove it, move to the next platform, repeat. At multiple removal requests per week across several systems, you're looking at significant manual work each week. More importantly, every minute between the request and the removal is a minute of active compliance exposure. A TCPA violation starts at $500 per call. When the pattern is systematic — a number that should have been removed staying active across multiple campaigns — class action exposure enters the picture. The gap between when a removal is requested and when it actually completes isn't just inefficiency. It's risk that compounds with every dial attempt on a number that should be off the list. How Automated DNC Removal Works The automated version uses a Slack slash command as the intake point. An ops manager types the number into a command and hits send. The request routes immediately to a cloud service — deployed on Google Cloud Run — that fans out across every active system in parallel. Not sequentially. Simultaneously. In a contact center running multiple Convoso campaigns alongside Zoom Contact Center, Zoom Phone, and Telesero, a single command hits every platform in parallel. Each system processes the removal independently. Results log to cloud storage with a timestamp and each system's individual response recorded separately. A confirmation returns to the Slack channel before the manager has switched back to their next task. Wall-clock time from submission to confirmed removal across

Most AI tools give Australian small businesses American advice. An Aussie tradie running Xero does not need to hear about QuickBooks. A cafe owner with three casual staff has Fair Work Act obligations that no generic "automate your business" tool will surface. I built AppZ AU Business Advisor to fix this -- a free tool powered by Gemini 2.0 Flash that generates personalised automation blueprints with real Australian business context. This post covers the technical decisions, the prompt engineering approach, and why the AU-specific scaffold makes all the difference. The Problem with Generic AI Business Advice When you ask a general AI "how should I automate my business?", the training data skews heavily American. You get advice about QuickBooks, not Xero. About W-9 forms, not BAS lodgement. About 401k, not superannuation. For an Australian sole trader approaching the $75k GST registration threshold, this is not just unhelpful -- it is actively misleading. The compliance obligations are different. The software ecosystem is different. The pain points are different. The Prompt Scaffold Approach Instead of injecting "you are talking to an Australian business" as a keyword, I built a reasoning scaffold -- a structured context block the model uses as a knowledge foundation: AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS CONTEXT: - GST: 10%, mandatory registration at $75k annual turnover - BAS: lodged quarterly (or monthly for large businesses) to the ATO - Superannuation: 11.5% employer contribution, paid per payroll from July 2026 - ATO tools: STP Phase 2 mandatory for all employers - Dominant accounting platforms: Xero, MYOB, Reckon (not QuickBooks) - Fair Work Act: award rates, leave entitlements, payslip requirements - Key software by vertical: ServiceM8 (trades), Deputy (hospitality), Cliniko (health) This is not a keyword list -- it is a reasoning foundation. When a tradesperson mentions "invoicing problems", the model now reasons about Xero integrations, GST-inclusive invoicing, and BAS categ

We're building an AI marketing operation in public, and early on we hit a question we couldn't skip: how aggressive can you be about growth before you've crossed into something you'll regret? "Be ethical" is easy to say and useless under pressure. Every real decision is messier than that. Is using a VPN cheating? Is running more than one channel a trick? Is bending a platform's rules the same as lying? We needed a line we could actually hold at 2am when a shortcut looks tempting. Here's the one we found — and it turned out to be simpler and sturdier than "follow all the rules." The line isn't rule-breaking. It's deception. The cleanest test we landed on: the line is deception, not rule-breaking. Breaking a rule is a fight you can have in the open. You can announce it, defend it, and accept what comes. Deception is different — it works by making someone believe something false, which strips away their ability to respond honestly, because they don't even know what's real. That's the move that does the damage. So the question to ask about any tactic isn't "did this break a rule?" It's: "does this work by causing a real person to believe something that isn't true?" If yes, that's the line. If no, you're probably fine even if you're being bold. The daylight test Here's how to apply it fast. Ask: would this tactic still work if everyone could see exactly what I was doing? If yes — it survives daylight. People are choosing freely with full information. That's honest, even when it's aggressive. If it only works in the dark — the concealment itself has become the product. Something only works hidden because someone is acting on a false belief you planted. That's the part to cut. A poker bluff survives daylight (everyone knows bluffing is part of poker). A magician's trick survives daylight (the audience knows it's a trick and enjoys it). A fake testimonial does not. A sock-puppet account vouching for you does not. Run every growth idea through the daylight test and most hard

LLM Fallback in Production, Agentic eCommerce, and GitHub Copilot for Parallel Agents Today's Highlights This week highlights practical applications and architectural considerations for AI frameworks, focusing on robust LLM deployments and agent orchestration. We cover building resilient multi-provider LLM systems, leveraging agents for dynamic e-commerce, and GitHub's new desktop app for managing parallel AI agent workflows. How I built a 3-provider LLM fallback system in production (and what actually broke) (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/ayush_notsogreat_b673d5/how-i-built-a-3-provider-llm-fallback-system-in-production-and-what-actually-broke-46jk This article details the implementation of a robust LLM fallback system designed for production environments, addressing the common challenge of provider reliability and API rate limits. The author shares practical insights gained from building Socra, an application reliant on multiple LLM providers. The core of the system involves orchestrating requests across three different LLM APIs, ensuring that if one fails or encounters issues, the system seamlessly switches to an alternative without disrupting the user experience. The piece delves into the specific architectural decisions made to achieve this, including strategies for managing API keys, handling varying response formats, and implementing intelligent retry mechanisms. It also transparently discusses unexpected failures and critical lessons learned during the system's deployment, offering invaluable advice on anticipating real-world production issues beyond theoretical design. This practical guide provides a blueprint for developers seeking to build more resilient and fault-tolerant LLM-powered applications, crucial for maintaining high availability and consistent performance in AI workflows. Comment: Implementing multi-provider LLM fallbacks is essential for production-grade reliability; this article provides practical architecture and lessons from real-world

The first two articles in this series each showed one technique. Implementation notes #001 was a dynamic dropdown — a form field that fills itself from an API. Implementation notes #002 was a dynamic credential — an API key that arrives from the form and threads through to the HTTP nodes. This article is the capstone. It walks through all-services-demo , the example workflow that ships with n8n-nodes-ldxhub , where those two techniques combine with a Switch node to host five different AI document-processing services inside one workflow — structured extraction, translation refinement, OCR, PDF conversion, and text extraction. The screenshots and the workflow JSON below come from the n8n-nodes-ldxhub package. The patterns themselves are generic — they work for any set of services you want to consolidate into a single template. This is not a "follow these steps" article. It's a parts catalog. No two readers are solving the same problem, and templates rarely fit anyone's situation as-is. Take what fits. Drop the rest. You don't need to understand all 46 nodes to reuse the patterns. The shape The workflow has 46 nodes — large enough to look intimidating in the editor, but structurally it's just five repeated paths plus a small routing section. The entry section is two nodes: On form submission — the trigger. Asks the user which service they want and collects an API key. Route by Service — a Switch node with five outputs, one per service. Everything to the right of the Switch is service-specific. Five paths fan out: StructFlow, RefineLoop, RenderOCR, CastDoc, ExtractDoc. Each path ends in two Form Ending nodes — one for success (auto-downloads the result), one for error. That's the spine: form → switch → service path → ending. The complexity is pushed into the service paths. The spine: routing by static comparison The Switch node ("Route by Service") uses Rules mode. Each rule reads the same expression from the form — {{ $json.service }} — and compares it to a static serv

There is a quiet tax many engineering teams pay after their automated test suite starts to matter. The tests live in code. They run in CI. They already know the branch, commit, environment, failure message, stack trace, screenshot, trace file, retry status, and build URL. Then someone asks: Can we put these tests in Jira too? That request usually comes from a good place. Jira is where work is planned. Product, QA, engineering, and release stakeholders already use it. If quality signal is invisible there, people end up asking for screenshots from CI, links to failed builds, or spreadsheet summaries before every release. The mistake is assuming the answer is to recreate every automated test as a manual Jira test case. For many teams, that creates a second source of truth that starts decaying immediately. Automated tests are not manual test cases Manual test cases and automated tests have different jobs. A manual test case is a human-readable procedure. It often describes a workflow, expected result, and maybe some preconditions. It is useful when a person needs to execute or review a scenario. An automated test is executable behavior. It is versioned with the code, refactored with the product, reviewed in pull requests, and run repeatedly by machines. When teams try to manage automated tests by copying them into a test-case inventory, they usually create a translation problem: The test name changes in code, but the Jira case does not. The test is deleted or split, but the manual record still exists. The CI failure has rich evidence, but the test case only says "failed." The test belongs to a branch or commit, but the copied case does not. The release team sees a static inventory instead of the latest run signal. The test case becomes a label for a thing that actually lives somewhere else. The better question Instead of asking, "How do we turn all automated tests into Jira test cases?", ask: What does Jira need to know from each automated run? That changes the shape of

The Playwright Playbook — Part 3: Multi-User, Multi-Tab & Browser Context Testing "Most frameworks test one user at a time. Real apps don't work that way." In Part 1, we built the full foundation — POM, storageState , fixtures, and a clean project structure. In Part 2, we took control of the network layer — mocking APIs, simulating failures, and asserting on real network calls. Now we tackle the scenario that breaks most automation frameworks. Multiple users. Simultaneously. In one test. Think about your app for a moment. How many features actually involve just one user? Admin assigns a task → regular user sees it appear in real time User A edits a record → User B gets a notification Admin revokes access → User's session should invalidate Two users try to edit the same record → conflict resolution kicks in These are real features. They need to be tested. And page.goto('/login') in a beforeEach won't get you there. Playwright's browser context architecture was built exactly for this. Let's use it properly. 🎯 🏗️ Where We Left Off After Part 2, our project looks like this: playwright-playbook/ ├── tests/ │ ├── auth/ │ │ └── login.spec.ts ✅ Part 1 │ ├── tasks/ │ │ └── task-management.spec.ts ✅ Part 1 │ └── network/ ✅ Part 2 │ ├── api-mocking.spec.ts │ ├── error-simulation.spec.ts │ └── network-assertions.spec.ts ├── pages/ │ ├── LoginPage.ts ✅ Part 1 │ └── TaskPage.ts ✅ Part 1 ├── fixtures/ │ ├── auth.fixture.ts ✅ Part 1 │ ├── tasks.json ✅ Part 2 │ ├── empty-tasks.json ✅ Part 2 │ └── tasks-har.har ✅ Part 2 ├── scripts/ │ └── record-har.ts ✅ Part 2 ├── .auth/ │ ├── admin.json │ └── user.json ├── global-setup.ts ✅ Part 1 ├── playwright.config.ts ✅ Part 1 └── .env By the end of Part 3, we add: playwright-playbook/ ├── tests/ │ ├── multi-user/ ← NEW │ │ ├── role-permissions.spec.ts │ │ └── realtime-collaboration.spec.ts │ └── multi-tab/ ← NEW │ └── multi-tab-flows.spec.ts ├── pages/ │ └── DashboardPage.ts ← NEW ├── fixtures/ │ └── multi-user.fixture.ts ← NEW Every one of th

Playwright is the best browser automation library in 2026. It's also the most fingerprinted, the most detected, and the most patched in anti-bot databases. If you're running default Playwright against any platform with serious anti-bot defenses, you're getting flagged. We learned what's left of the cat-and-mouse game the hard way building HelperX . This article is what still trips up Playwright today — beyond the well-known navigator.webdriver flag, which everyone fixes in week one. The detection surface has shifted dramatically since 2022. The classic tells (PhantomJS, missing plugins, undefined chrome object) are largely solved. The new battleground is more subtle: CDP protocol artifacts, behavioral inconsistencies, and side-effects of the Playwright runtime that aren't part of the public API. What stopped working in 2024-2025 Detection on the platforms we monitor has gotten dramatically better in the last 18 months. A few things that worked in 2023 and stopped working since: Generic navigator.webdriver = undefined patches — detectable via Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor if you do it naively Patching Notification.permission — modern detection cross-references with Permissions.query() Faking window.chrome — the property structure changed; old fakes are missing newer subkeys Setting a single User-Agent profile — detection now expects Client Hints to match Empty navigator.languages — flagged as suspicious; needs at least 2 entries These were all "set it once, ship it" fixes. The current generation of detection requires ongoing engineering. CDP artifacts: the deepest tell The Chrome DevTools Protocol (CDP) is how Playwright controls the browser. The browser exposes signals that it's being controlled, and modern detection looks for them specifically. Symptom: Runtime.evaluate artifacts When you run await page.evaluate(() => ...) , Playwright uses Runtime.evaluate under the hood. The evaluated script runs in a special isolated world. If the page can detect that an isola

Introduction Extracting data from older websites is a technical challenge that goes beyond simple copy-pasting. The example website provided illustrates this perfectly: its outdated design, reliance on mouse-over interactions, and lack of structured export options create a perfect storm of extraction difficulties. This article dissects these challenges and provides a roadmap for extracting both visible content and mouse-over images while preserving data integrity. The Core Problem: Legacy Technology Meets Modern Needs The website's URL parameters ( screen_width=0&screen_height=0 ) immediately signal a legacy system likely built for a bygone era of fixed-width displays. This design choice breaks modern scraping tools that expect responsive layouts. The mouse-over images, critical to the site's content, are dynamically loaded via JavaScript , meaning they don't exist in the initial page source. This requires simulating user interactions to trigger their appearance, a task beyond basic HTML parsing. Why Manual Extraction Fails Attempting to manually save images or copy text from this site is a losing battle. The mouse-over images, for instance, are not directly downloadable – they're embedded in JavaScript events. Even if you could save them individually, maintaining their association with the corresponding visible content would be error-prone and time-consuming. This method also fails to scale for larger websites with hundreds of such elements. The Technical Solution: A Multi-Pronged Approach Effective extraction requires a combination of techniques: Browser Automation: Tools like Selenium or Puppeteer can simulate mouse movements to trigger hover events, capturing both visible and hidden content. This method mirrors human interaction , ensuring all dynamic elements are revealed. Network Request Inspection: Analyzing the website's backend requests using browser developer tools can reveal direct URLs for mouse-over images , bypassing the need for hover simulation. This

What Recruiters Can't See On My GitHub If you spend about 30 seconds looking at my GitHub profile, you might think I'm all over the place. React. Python. Healthcare. AI. Scrapers. Automation. Marketing tools. Job bots. Honestly, that's something I've worried about. I have over 100 repositories. Recruiters can see most of them, but not all of them. Some are private because they're client work. Some are private because they're unfinished. Some are private because they contain ideas I've spent years developing and I'm not quite ready to throw the blueprints onto the internet. From the outside, it can look random. But recently I realized something. All of those projects are solving the same problem. I hate repetitive work. My GitHub is here: https://github.com/ashb4 The Job Application That Broke Me I've applied to thousands of jobs over the years. Thousands. And one thing has always driven me absolutely insane. You upload your resume. Then the company immediately asks you to type your entire resume into fifteen different boxes. Your work history. Your education. Your skills. Everything. The computer already has the information. The resume is right there. Yet somehow I'm sitting on page seven of an application retyping information that already exists. It feels inefficient. It feels stupid. And most of all, it feels like a waste of time. Eventually I got annoyed enough to start building tools to help. Then I Noticed a Pattern At first I thought I was building unrelated projects. A job application helper. A content scheduler. A healthcare platform. An AI framework. A browser automation system. But when I stepped back, I noticed the same motivation behind almost all of them. Every project started with some version of: "There has to be a better way to do this." Take PostPunk. Most people see a social media scheduler. I see hours of repetitive posting that I never want to do again. I like creating content. I do not like manually posting the same content everywhere. So I buil

If you've ever had to generate hundreds of social media banners, OG images, or PDF certificates programmatically — you know how painful that workflow can get. Stitching together Canvas, Puppeteer, or headless Chrome just to render a templated image is a lot of overhead for what should be a straightforward task. That's exactly the problem Bannx is built to solve. What is Bannx? Bannx is a high-volume banner, ad, and PDF automation platform. It combines a visual template editor with a developer-friendly REST API, so designers can build beautiful templates and developers can render them at scale — no browser required. Think of it as the missing link between your design system and your backend. Key Features 🖼️ Visual Template Editor Bannx comes with a full-featured editor where you can create templates for: Social media graphics (Instagram, Twitter/X, LinkedIn) OG images for blogs and articles Ad banners E-commerce assets (product cards, order confirmations) Certificates and branded PDFs and more... Variables can be bound to any element in the template, making every design data-driven from the start. ⚡ REST API for Rendering Once your template is ready, rendering it is a single HTTP request: curl -X POST https://bannx.com/api/render \ -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY" \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{ "pageId": "PAGE_ID", "format": "png" }' You get back a hosted URL and metadata — ready to display, store, or pass downstream. You can also stream raw binary output with "output": "binary" . Supported export formats: PNG, JPEG, SVG, WebP, PDF 📦 Bulk Generation via CSV Need to generate 10,000 personalized certificates or product cards? Upload a CSV and Bannx handles the rest. Each row maps to a set of variable overrides — no scripting required. 🧩 Dynamic Links & Variables Templates support per-request variable overrides, so you can pass data directly in the API call without modifying the template. Combined with template expressions (functions and conditiona

I wanted to see how far an autonomous coding agent could get unattended. The constraint that makes this hard isn't code generation — it's that each session starts with zero memory of the last. So the design problem is state, not prompting. Setup A cron-scheduled task fires hourly, 11pm–7am (~8 runs). Each run is a fresh agent session. No shared context, no carryover. State lives entirely on disk: the working tree, the git history, and two files — BUILD_SPEC.md (the immutable goal/architecture) and PROGRESS.md (an append-only decision + status log). The run loop Every session does the same thing: Read BUILD_SPEC.md, then PROGRESS.md, then git log --oneline. Reconstruct "where are we" from the files themselves (the code is the source of truth, not the narrative). Do one unit of work. Commit. Append to PROGRESS.md: what changed, why (chosen X over Y because Z), and the exact next step. Commit granularity = checkpoint granularity. Worst case on an interrupted session is losing one unit, and the next run re-derives it. The "why" lines matter as much as the diffs — without them a later session re-litigates settled decisions. Guardrails The agent was allowed to build, test, and commit locally. It was explicitly not allowed to deploy, push to a remote, or touch secrets — those get written into PROGRESS.md as "needs human" items instead. This boundary is what makes unattended runs safe to leave alone. What came out A working full-stack monorepo: a pure TS scheduling engine (with property tests), multi-tenant auth, a Drizzle/Postgres schema, server-side re-validation, and publish/share/export flows. Across the runs it cleared its own stale git lock, and one session caught and fixed an off-by-one in a labeling layer that spanned five files. The takeaway The leverage wasn't the model writing code. It was designing a process where progress is durable across total context loss — externalize state, checkpoint constantly, log decisions not just actions, and fence off irreversible o