标签：#hack

I made this plugin because I felt like existing bookmark plugins were lacking some important features, including: - The ability to reorder your bookmarks - The ability to delete and move your bookmarks in bulk - The ability to view lines of code around your bookmarks - Syntax highlighting in the preview window - Resilience to the content of files changing (e.g. checking out a git commit that changes the file contents won't delete your bookmarks) Let me know what you think! If you have any feedba

Here's what I found so far approach0.xyz : offline searchonmath.com : Gives irrelevant results such as p = m v when searching for F = m a https://search.mathweb.org/: A collection of abandoned projects and offline sites

I broke my own project on purpose, twice, before it worked. Here's the story. Round one: the debate club My first idea for this hackathon sounded great in my head. Six AI agents, each with a "role" — security, architecture, performance, whatever — and they'd debate each other across multiple rounds before agreeing on a final answer. Like a mini panel of experts arguing it out. I built it. I ran it against some vulnerable test code. It came back with 127 findings. I got excited for about four minutes. Then I actually read them. Maybe three were real. The other 124 were the agents politely agreeing with each other about problems that didn't exist, or restating the same bug five different ways because five different agents happened to notice it. Precision was somewhere around 2%. Worse than a single model working alone. That stung a little, not going to lie. I'd spent days on the debate logic. Round two: quieter, and better So I ripped it apart. No more debate rounds. No more six agents shouting over each other. I went down to four, gave each one exactly one job, and — this is the part that actually fixed things — made them depend on each other in order instead of all firing at once. One agent maps out the code first. Two others use that map to look at security and quality separately. A last one compares what they found, throws out duplicates, and — importantly — actually checks the line numbers against the real file instead of trusting the AI's word for it. Same test file. This time: real vulnerabilities, correctly flagged, nothing made up. Point it at clean code afterward and it correctly said nothing was wrong, which honestly felt like a bigger win than finding the bugs did. The annoying lesson I wanted this project to feel impressive. More agents, more debate, more "look how sophisticated this is." What actually worked was the boring answer: fewer agents, clear roles, one checking the other's work instead of everyone talking at once. I named the final version Synod