标签：#ens

Hoi hoi! I’m @nyaomaru, a frontend engineer who struggles to make game sounds. 😿 Have you used DSA...

As of August 26, 2026, GitHub reports that 398 merged pull requests carry my name on the author line. Twenty nine of those live inside repositories that I own myself, so I removed them from this count on purpose. What remains is the number that actually matters to me: 369 pull requests merged into other people's repositories , across 33 external projects , maintained by strangers who had zero reason to trust my code. Every single one of those 369 merges is real, dated, and linked in this post. Nothing here is rounded up and nothing is claimed without proof. If you want to skip my writing entirely, open the search query in section two and run it yourself. That is the whole point of this article. You should never have to take a stranger's word about their own stats. Jump To Any Section How I Verified These Numbers | The Complete Scoreboard | 2024 The Year Of Volume | 2025 Fewer Pull Requests Higher Quality | 2026 The Year Production Code Got Merged | What 369 Merges Taught Me | Frequently Asked Questions | Where To Find Me How I Verified These Numbers I did not count these by hand. I queried the GitHub search API directly, which means the numbers come from GitHub itself, not from my memory or my ego. You can reproduce everything in this post with one click: https://github.com/search?q=is%3Apr+is%3Amerged+author%3Aaniruddhaadak80&type=pullrequests Or if you have the GitHub CLI installed: gh api -X GET search/issues -f q = "is:pr is:merged author:aniruddhaadak80" That query currently returns 398 results. I then filtered out every repository under my own account, which left exactly 369 external merges. The math is boring on purpose: 398 minus 29 own repository merges equals 369. One more honest number before we go further. I have submitted 918 pull requests in my lifetime so far. That means fewer than half of everything I ever sent got merged. Rejection is not the exception in open source, it is the price of admission, and anyone who shows you a 100 percent merge rate is

More agents do not automatically produce better engineering. They usually add total tokens, duplicated context, handoff delay, and integration risk. Their defensible advantages are narrower: reduced elapsed time for independent work, isolated investigation, or specialist evidence that one agent might omit. The useful question is therefore not “Can this task use subagents?” It is: Does this task contain independent, bounded work whose value exceeds the coordination cost? Codex How To now includes a dependency-free benchmark for testing that question instead of answering it from intuition. Disclosure: I maintain Codex How To , the independent open-source project containing the benchmark, evaluator, and measurements used here. The minimum decision rule Use one agent when the change is small, the interface is unsettled, or several steps must edit the same central files. Consider bounded orchestration only when all of these are true: The task has at least two genuine ownership surfaces. Each writer can own exclusive paths. The interface between those paths is frozen before implementation. The controller retains integration, system checks, and final review. Every worker returns concise evidence rather than a narrative transcript. One external acceptance bar can evaluate every execution method. flowchart TD A["One task contract"] --> B{"Independent write surfaces?"} B -- "No" --> C["One agent or sequential work"] B -- "Yes" --> D{"Frozen interface and exclusive paths?"} D -- "No" --> C D -- "Yes" --> E["Bounded workers"] E --> F["Controller integrates and evaluates"] F --> G{"Coverage or elapsed-time value exceeds coordination cost?"} G -- "Unproven" --> H["Keep measuring"] G -- "Repeated evidence" --> I["Adopt for this task class"] Job titles are not ownership boundaries. “Backend agent,” “test agent,” and “review agent” may still collide on the same files or execute dependent stages. A useful boundary is concrete: one writer owns incident/** , another owns web/** , and n

You know that moment when you're building an n8n workflow and realize: “Wait… does n8n already have a node for this?” Maybe you need a specific AI provider. Or a browser automation tool. Or some obscure database. Or a service that isn't part of n8n's core integrations. The first instinct is usually to reach for the HTTP Request node. But before writing API calls yourself, there's another possibility: Someone may have already built the node. That's one of the reasons I created Awesome n8n Community Nodes . The n8n ecosystem is bigger than it looks One of the best things about n8n is that it isn't limited to its built-in integrations. Developers can create community nodes and publish them as npm packages, extending n8n with new services, triggers, actions, AI capabilities, utilities, and more. The ecosystem has grown significantly. One existing ecosystem tracker had already indexed thousands of community nodes, showing just how quickly the space is expanding. That's great for n8n users. But it creates a new problem: Discovery. Having thousands of nodes is useful only if you can actually find the one you need. So I built a directory I created: Awesome n8n Community Nodes 🔗 https://github.com/bhavyshekhaliya/awesome-n8n-community-nodes It's an open-source, curated directory for discovering community-built n8n integrations and utilities. Instead of organizing everything as one massive list, I grouped nodes around what you're actually trying to automate. 🤖 AI, Agents & Search Looking for AI, LLM, search, agent, or AI-media capabilities? There's a dedicated section for that. 🌐 Browser, Web & Scraping Need browser automation, crawling, scraping, or web extraction? You'll find those together. 💬 Communication & Messaging WhatsApp, email, chat, notifications, and other communication-related nodes have their own category. 🗄️ Data, Storage & Observability Database, storage, infrastructure, monitoring, and data-related integrations live here. 📄 Documents, Media & Productivity For

I’ve been building a small open-source TypeScript toolkit called Tenant Evidence Kit for private, multi-tenant evidence workflows on Supabase. The project started from a very specific problem: How do you attach photos, documents, or other evidence to a business object without making files public, leaking tenant data, or duplicating authorization logic across the application? The toolkit keeps that infrastructure deliberately small and domain-agnostic. It currently provides: private Supabase Storage; evidence metadata separated from file bytes; tenant isolation with Row Level Security; short-lived signed URLs; compensating cleanup when metadata persistence fails; reference migrations for tenant membership and evidence authorization. But the interesting part of the latest release was not the original implementation. It was the review loop. A community review found real problems I shared the project with the Supabase community and received a detailed security review. The feedback raised several important questions: roles existed, but authorization was still too close to flat membership; evidence deletion needed a more explicit privilege boundary; the lack of UPDATE support needed to be intentional rather than accidental; RLS assumptions around service_role , table owners and BYPASSRLS needed to be documented; authorization needed behavioral tests, not only static SQL assertions. That feedback was good enough that I didn’t want to treat it as a documentation exercise. I turned it into an implementation task. Using Codex as the implementation loop Instead of asking Codex something broad like: “Improve the security.” I gave it a tightly scoped issue with explicit acceptance criteria. The workflow became: community review → scoped issue → Codex implementation → human review → correction pass → CI → release The first implementation was useful, but the review still found problems. For example, it initially changed existing INSERT behavior and modified only the original migra

You do not have a camera. You have a machine that dreams a short motion out of a single still image, and it dreams badly the moment you ask it for something the still does not already contain. I learned this across a 10-episode series, and every rule below was paid for in failed generations. None of it is theory. The medium's real physics A real camera moves through a space that exists whether or not you point at it. The model has no space. It has one flat image and a statistical guess about what "zoom out" tends to look like in its training data. When the frame widens, the model is not revealing more of a room that was always there. It is inventing pixels to fill the new area, drawn from everything it has ever seen. That single fact reorganizes everything you know about directing: There is no coverage. Every "angle" is a separate generation from a separate still. Continuity is not captured; it is engineered, frame by frame. Nothing survives the cut for free. The model does not know that shot 12 and shot 13 are the same character in the same room. Anything you want to persist (damage state, light, color) must be re-declared or re-anchored every single time. The model abhors an empty frame. Its deepest reflex is to resolve ambiguity: a silhouette becomes a face, fog becomes a mountain range, a clean retro interior grows drips and cobwebs because "analog" reads as "abandoned". Spawn pressure is constant. Background figures flicker into existence in any populated-looking scene. Every motion prompt in my pipeline ends with an anti-spawn guard: "Do not add extra characters. Keep everything as pictured." Drop that guard and the figures come back. A widening or traveling frame is an invitation for the model to hallucinate. Direct this camera and you are not choosing what to show. You are choosing what to withhold from its imagination. The classical grammar, re-pointed If you carry film vocabulary, it all still applies. The mechanism just changes completely. Classical tool

You've written it a hundred times. In your CLAUDE.md , in your system prompt, in ALL CAPS: NEVER put "use client" at the page level. NEVER commit @ts-ignore without a reason. And your agent does it anyway. Not always — that would almost be easier to deal with. It follows the rule for the first 50k tokens, then quietly stops. Or Sonnet follows it and Haiku doesn't. Or it follows nine rules and forgets the tenth. Here's the thing I finally accepted: a rule in a prompt is a request. The model can decline it. So I stopped asking, and started enforcing. TL;DR Prompt adherence is probabilistic. It degrades with context length and with model size. But half of my coding rules never needed a model at all — they're grep-able. Claude Code hooks + exit 2 turn those rules into a deterministic reviewer that runs after every single edit , costs zero tokens when nothing is wrong , and fires at 100% regardless of which model wrote the code. Once the mechanical rules are enforced from below, you can safely downgrade the model doing the typing. That's the real payoff. Everything below ships in ccteams v0.3.0 , but the pattern takes 30 minutes to build yourself. Two kinds of rules Some background in three lines: I run Claude Code with orchestrated agent teams — a builder writes code, a reviewer verifies it, and both get a stack-specific "playbook" of rules distilled from the mistakes mid-tier models actually make. It works well. I wrote about the prompt-engineering side of it before. But rereading my playbooks, I noticed the rules split cleanly into two categories. Rules that need judgment: Trace the Server/Client boundary by hand. Don't write a fix until you can state the root cause. These need a model. Prompts are the right place for them. Rules that are just string matching: "use client" at the top of app/**/page.tsx → wrong. process.env.SECRET in a client file → wrong. @ts-ignore with no justification → wrong. Why was I asking a language model to remember these? A regex doesn't get

GitHub热门项目 | The Apify MCP server enables your AI agents to extract data from social media, search engines, maps, e-commerce sites, or any other website using thousands of ready-made scrapers, crawlers, and automation tools available on the Apify Store. | Stars: 4,869 | 823 stars this week | 语言: TypeScript

GitHub热门项目 | Antigravity в России без VPN и смены региона аккаунта Google | Stars: 353 | 19 stars today | 语言: Rust

GitHub热门项目 | ⭐️ A friendly language for building type-safe, scalable systems! | Stars: 21,807 | 26 stars today | 语言: Rust

GitHub热门项目 | cursor-byok is a local implementation of Cursor's backend. https://github.com/leookun/cursor-byok/releases | Stars: 2,500 | 26 stars today | 语言: Rust

GitHub热门项目 | An idiomatic, lean, fast & safe pure Rust implementation of Git | Stars: 11,840 | 10 stars today | 语言: Rust

GitHub热门项目 | Let your agents spend on your behalf. Your payment credentials are never exposed. You approve every purchase. | Stars: 707 | 25 stars today | 语言: TypeScript

GitHub热门项目 | Mastra is the modern TypeScript framework for AI-powered applications and agents. | Stars: 27,453 | 33 stars today | 语言: TypeScript

GitHub热门项目 | Evolution API is an open-source WhatsApp integration API | Stars: 9,406 | 16 stars today | 语言: TypeScript

GitHub热门项目 | Agent workspace built on Cloudflare Workers for creating documents, building apps, and running agents with your company’s context and systems. | Stars: 9,166 | 111 stars today | 语言: TypeScript

GitHub热门项目 | Open-source framework for the research and development of foundation models. | Stars: 1,923 | 214 stars today | 语言: Python

Uber said no one will be able to access the video once the ride ends

I often remember the shot I want before I remember its filename. That gap is what binquery is for. It is a local Python CLI that indexes video clips and turns a sentence into a ranked shortlist for a human to review. It deliberately stops before editing: no timeline generation, no automatic cut, and no render. The smallest reproducible trial You can test the complete installed command path without supplying footage: python3 -m venv .venv .venv/bin/pip install binquery .venv/bin/binquery demo --out /tmp/binquery-demo The demo generates a synthetic 30-second video locally, then exercises splitting, indexing, validation, and querying. The first run may download OpenCLIP model weights. This is an end-to-end pipeline smoke test, not evidence of semantic search quality on real footage. Why keep the architecture small? The current design uses: ffmpeg to sample three frames from each clip OpenCLIP ViT-B-32 to build the local visual index plain JSON and NumPy files for metadata and vectors a JSON result containing clip paths, scores, and ranking signals There is no database, vector service, or daemon to operate. Querying an existing index does not resample the footage or rebuild the full index. The trade-off is straightforward: three frames keep indexing understandable and bounded, but they can miss important content in long or visually varied clips. I would rather expose that limitation than market a synthetic demo as a quality benchmark. Ranking signals are not explanations The output includes fields such as score , gate , and reasons . Here, reasons means ranking signals recorded by the pipeline. It should not be interpreted as a reliable semantic explanation of why a clip is correct. That distinction matters because a plausible-looking explanation can create more confidence than the underlying retrieval quality deserves. The shortlist is meant to reduce what a person must inspect, not replace editorial judgment. What binquery does not do It does not build a timeline or e

Every Four Pillars calculator — saju in Korea, BaZi in China — agrees on the easy 95% of the job. Feed it a birth date and it maps that instant onto a traditional calendar: four pillars, each a heavenly stem paired with an earthly branch. The remaining 5% is boundaries. And at the boundaries, nearly all of them quietly disagree with the printed almanac they claim to reproduce. I maintain a saju reading service, and getting these four cases right was most of the actual engineering. Here they are, with the failing inputs. 1. A solar term is an instant, not a date The year pillar does not turn on January 1, and not on lunar new year either. It turns at 입춘 (ipchun, "start of spring") — one of the 24 solar terms, defined by the sun's apparent longitude. In 2024 that moment was February 4, 16:27 KST . A calculator that applies solar terms at day granularity says "February 4 → new year pillar" and hands the wrong year to everyone born that morning. npx k-saju 2024-02-04 04:00 # year 癸卯 — still the old year pillar, because 04:00 < 16:27 The fix is unglamorous: store term boundaries as instants and compare instants. The subtlety is that this correction applies to the year and month pillars only — the day pillar runs on its own sexagenary count and must not be touched. 2. The 23:00 hour belongs to two days at once Traditional practice starts the day at 23:00, not midnight — the hour of the Rat (자시). So for a birth at 23:31, there are two defensible answers about which day's stem the hour pillar derives from, and schools split on it. The convention this engine declares: the day pillar keeps clock midnight , while the hour stem takes the next day's stem (the 야자시 rule). npx k-saju 2000-05-15 23:31 # day 癸酉, hour 甲子 I am not claiming this is the One True Rule. I am claiming it should be written down. Most tools pick a side in silence, which is how two calculators give one person two charts and neither can explain why. 3. The clock is not the sun Korea keeps time on the 135°E meri