标签：#p

GitHub热门项目 | Open source alternative to Semrush and Ahrefs | Stars: 2,462 | 57 stars today | 语言: TypeScript

I spent three iterations on an auto-fix pipeline that still doesn't work reliably. Here's what I learned. Loop 1 Wrote a background script. Pull tickets from Azure DevOps, run them through a local model, hand to a coding agent, push the result. Poll → triage → fix → push. Worked 40% of the time on trivial tickets. Anything that crossed file boundaries or needed real context — stalled or hallucinated. I shipped it anyway. That was naive. Loop 2 Made it smarter. Pre-selected relevant files. Broke big tickets into subtasks. Turned complex edits into atomic steps with verification between each. Got it to 55% or so. But every fix created two new edge cases. The complexity was compounding faster than the reliability. Loop 3 Went all in. Embeddings for dedup. Multi-repo routing. Auto-revert. A learning loop that fed failures back into future runs. The model server started dying. 890 memory errors in a day. Root cause: two independent consumers hitting the same local model server, each with its own retry loop. When memory filled up, retries amplified instead of staggering. The system was making itself worse. Fixes were simple in hindsight — stop retrying OOM, serialize access, use the local binary not npx. But the pattern kept repeating: add more to fix the last thing, break something else. Where I'm At The pipeline still only works on easy tickets. Hard ones need a human. After three rounds, the main thing I learned is that local models hit a wall before your ambition does — not in quality, in working memory. And adding features doesn't fix reliability gaps. It just moves them around. The 507 retry spiral taught me more than any successful deploy this year. Because it was entirely my fault. Not the model's, not the framework's. I built concurrent consumers with independent retry loops and expected them to coordinate. They didn't. What's Next I'll do a fourth loop. Smaller. A dedicated fast model for cheap work, the big model only for editing. One consumer at a time. Might

After months of building in public, is live on Product Hunt today! 🎉 The problem Every dev team I've worked with ends up in the same trap: Jira is too heavy and slows everyone down with ceremony, while Trello/Notion are too light and can't actually tell you if your sprint is on track. Nobody had a tool that combined real project management with AI that actually understands developer workflows. So I built one. What is Rahnuma.io? Rahnuma.io is an AI-powered DevOps platform that sits where project management meets your actual engineering workflow: 🧠 AI task generation — describe a feature in plain English, get a structured task with subtasks 📊 Deadline risk forecasting — a live risk score (0–100) built from time risk, blockers, and completion rate, so you know a sprint is in trouble before it blows up 🗂️ Kanban + sprints — drag-and-drop boards, WIP limits, burndown charts, story points 🤖 AI sprint retros — auto-generated "what went well / what didn't / action items" 🔗 GitHub & Bitbucket integration — see commits next to the tasks they belong to 📈 Reports that don't require a translator — including an "Explain to My Boss" button that turns your sprint into a plain-English executive summary 🔔 Slack notifications for task creation, assignment, and comments 🧾 Client portals — shareable, printable progress reports for non-technical stakeholders Why it's different Most "AI project management" tools just bolt a chatbot onto a Trello clone. AI is wired directly into the data model — it knows your sprint history, your velocity, your blockers — so the forecasts and summaries are grounded in your actual project state, not a generic prompt. Tech under the hood Next.js 15 (Turbopack) · TypeScript · Prisma + PostgreSQL · Clerk auth · Polar billing · Redis · xAI Grok with Groq fallback for AI · Server-Sent Events for realtime sync. Try it It's free to start, no credit card required. I'd love your feedback — especially from anyone who's felt the Jira-is-too-much / Trello-is-too-littl

The Trump administration, apprehensive of potential security issues, has reportedly asked OpenAI to stagger the release of its next big-ticket model, GPT-5.6. The Information reported that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told employees Wednesday in a company Q&A that it would release GPT-5.6 in limited preview form - granting access only to a small group of […]

TL;DR — When the spec is good, implementation needs less model. I started using a top-tier model to write the spec and a cheaper, faster one to implement it — still using the strong model, just spending it on the spec instead of the implementation. The gain isn't some magic prompt phrasing; it's the context: explicit business rules, audited project constraints, a defined output contract. That's systems engineering — the discipline of anyone who's kept real software alive, whatever their stack. Every backend dev knows the scene: the Swagger is out of date, the last hotfix shipped without a unit test, and the README.md documents a command nobody's used in six months. The code works. The docs lie. And the gap between the two is exactly where AI — and we — start to go wrong. I've spent the last few months developing with AI for real inside production projects, not tutorial greenfield. My takeaway was less about which model to use and more about a shift that already has a name: the move from prompt engineering to context engineering . The difference isn't semantic. Prompt engineering treats the problem as writing — finding the magic phrase. Context engineering treats it as what it always was: a systems engineering problem . And it's where my backend background applied most directly — though anyone who's kept a real system alive has the same instinct. The experiment that convinced me Let me start with the evidence, because that's what made me take this seriously. My reflex, for a long time, was to reach for the strongest model for everything — more expensive, smarter, fewer errors. Makes sense on paper. In practice, I saw something else. When the task's specification is well done — explicit business rules, audited project constraints, a defined output format — the model capability needed for implementation drops sharply. Enough to split the work by stage: I started using a top-tier model (currently Opus) to write the spec , and a cheaper, faster model (Sonnet) to implemen

A refreshing direction for a price change.

"Model unit prices keep falling, yet our monthly AI bill keeps climbing." If you use AI personally, you can feel the creep of your subscription and metered charges. If you own AI usage inside a company, the gap is even more pronounced. Overseas, this feeling has started getting a name: Tokenomics . On June 3, 2026, the Linux Foundation announced its intent to launch the Tokenomics Foundation , dedicated to open standards for AI cost management. Google, Microsoft, Oracle, JPMorganChase, and others — both providers and large buyers — are on board. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-announces-the-intent-to-launch-the-tokenomics-foundation-to-establish-open-standards-for-ai-cost-management This post isn't an explainer of the word itself. It's an account of what changes for the people who own internal generative AI usage — the platform owners, the FinOps practitioners, the engineering leaders watching the bills — once you have this word in your vocabulary. What Tokenomics gives you isn't another saving technique. It changes the unit of measurement and the lens through which you read AI cost. Why Tokenomics, why now Tokenomics sits in the lineage of cloud FinOps. The FinOps Foundation now classifies Tokenomics as the "AI Value" dimension within FinOps for AI . Where cloud FinOps tracked the variable infrastructure costs (compute, storage, networking) against value, Tokenomics tracks the variable cost of intelligence itself. It's not a replacement; it adds a probabilistic, non-deterministic layer of variable cost on top. Tokens here means what you see on every API price sheet and usage dashboard — the smallest unit a language model reads and writes, the unit of compute. The word "tokenomics" also exists in the crypto world, but that one is about issuance, distribution, and incentives on a blockchain — tokens as units of ownership. Same word, different economies. https://www.finops.org/insights/token-economics-the-atomic-unit-of-ai-value/ The term gained

Thanks to the component crisis, it's a bad time to want a new computer. But if you are waiting on a preorder for the Framework Laptop 13 Pro - which Framework's CEO has called the "MacBook Pro for Linux users" - the company shared good news on Thursday that might mean yours will cost less […]

Autonomous AI agents are transitioning from experimental developer playgrounds into the core of enterprise application architecture. For organizations looking to automate complex workflows that require decision-making, reasoning, and tool use, agentic AI represents a paradigm shift. However, moving from a simple demo script to a reliable, production-ready enterprise agent system requires addressing significant architectural challenges. In this article, we will examine the core components of enterprise agent systems, design patterns for robust execution, and security considerations. The Core Architecture of an AI Agent An enterprise AI agent is more than just a large language model (LLM) loop. It is a system composed of four critical pillars: Reasoning & Planning (The Core LLM): The orchestrator that decides how to approach a problem, breaks down tasks, and analyzes output. Memory: Storing short-term execution traces (context) and long-term knowledge (vector databases, semantic memory). Tools (Action Space): APIS, databases, calculators, and code execution sandboxes that the agent can invoke to retrieve information or perform tasks. Guardrails & Evaluators: Decoupled verification layers that inspect the agent's plans and tool execution to enforce policy and security. +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | USER REQUEST | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | v +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | AGENT ORCHESTRATOR / LLM LOOP | | * Planning (ReAct, Plan-and-Solve) | | * Memory retrieval | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | ^ v (Call Tool) | (Tool Results) +------------------------+ +----------------------+ | TOOL ROUTER | | GUARDRAILS LAYER | | * APIs * Code Exec | | * Safety filter | | * DBs * RAG Lookup | | * Data sanitization | +------------------------+ +----------------------+ Planning Patterns: ReAct vs. Plan-and-Solve When designing how an agent re

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

I started my career in the late 2010s, and I have had a front-row seat to the growth of the industry that has given me everything: software engineering. Looking back over the last decade, I have mixed feelings about some of the calls I made. And I am seeing the same patterns play out again now. So for engineers who are confused about where this is headed and how to navigate it, here is how I think about it. Generalist SWEs were a product of cheap money The late 2010s, I saw an huge amount of startup funding, globally. Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jugnoo, and hundreds of others were scaling hard and one hiring pattern I saw was that: everyone wanted generalist software engineers. People who could easily get upto speed across the stack.- backend, frontend, infra, deployment and simply ship. Building software was expensive. Automation was still low. Kubernetes had just gone mainstream. Shipping still meant a surprising amount of manual work: SSH-ing into servers, copying artifacts around, running mvn builds by hand, debugging deployments straight in production, duct-taping infrastructure that today you would never touch. Companies fought over engineers who maximized feature throughput. Breadth was a premium, because every extra engineer increased the rate at which software got built. It helped because the money was also free and VCs rewarded growth over efficiency, and hiring software engineers in bulk was the easiest way to spend it. Pull up a resume from an engineer who started around that time and you will usually see the same shape: a long list of technologies and frameworks, broad and adaptable, but rarely deep in any one thing. There was no incentive to go deep. LLMs Changed The Dynamics LLMs did not kill software engineering. It compressed the cost of implementation. The work that got hit first was the work that was already standardized: CRUD apps; API integration and glue code; Framework-heavy backend work; Frontend scaffolding; Standard architectural patterns. What use

All-in-one AI assistant — chat, images, voice & market data Discussion | Link

Agent-testing startup Patronus AI, founded by former Meta AI researchers, is experiencing nearly insatiable demand, its investor says.

Microsoft announced today that the price of all Xbox models will rise in August, the second time in less than a year as memory prices continue to wreak havoc on every industry from cars to computing. Thankfully, we’re already out looking for Prime Day deals, and we were able to find some discounts on both […]

Carr cites screen time concerns, is accused of trying to be "the nation’s parent."

As far as prices go, Apple is kind of a reverse canary in the coal mine. With its famously generous margins and immense purchasing volume, it can afford to ride out price fluctuations in its supply chain in a way no other consumer tech company can. So when Apple raises prices across nearly all of […]

This Peloton-adjacent rowing machine gamifies your workout to a satisfying effect, and it’s up to 25 percent off right now for Prime Day.

The prediction market giant Polymarket said it's refunding users who had funds stolen due to a third-party breach.

Have you ever opened an old Laravel 5 project and felt like you were walking into a house where every...

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