标签：#tools

The biggest mistake in choosing an AI coding tool is comparing autocomplete latency. Cursor and Windsurf are editors with agent abilities. Claude Code works mostly through a terminal on your local repository. GitHub Copilot spans IDEs, GitHub, code review, and a cloud agent. Replit Agent connects generation to a hosted environment where the app actually runs. CodeGeeX provides affordable IDE help for Chinese-language development. They execute in different places. That means a single "best AI coding tool" ranking is a category error — the right question is where the AI should run your work. The four execution models IDE assistants and agentic editors (Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot IDE features, CodeGeeX) stay close to your current edits. Feedback is immediate, and you stay in control of scope. The cost is that complex work still consumes your attention, and two overlapping AI editor subscriptions rarely make sense — run a two-week crossover pilot and keep one. Local terminal agents (Claude Code) read repositories, edit files, and run commands on your machine. This fits debugging, dependency migrations, and test loops. The security docs describe a read-only default with permission requests, and you should keep that default: start read-only, smallest directory, no broad allowlists for network, deletion, or deployment commands. Cloud coding agents (GitHub Copilot cloud agent) work in an ephemeral Actions-powered environment and come back with commits or a pull request. Good for bounded issues, tests, and docs. Budget is not just the seat — AI credits and Actions minutes are separate. Hosted application environments (Replit Agent) go from natural language to a running prototype in the browser. Great for education and proof-of-concept. Test git import/export, database migration, and code export before you depend on it. Quick decision table Primary workflow Evaluate first Main risk Frequent coding inside one AI editor Cursor Editor migration; broad changes still need review Cr

AI that builds a digital version of everyone you work with Discussion | Link

Create AR experiences with AI, no code required! Discussion | Link

Stops AI agents before they break something Discussion | Link

If you've ever stared at a 15,000-file monorepo wondering "what actually breaks if I touch this...

Figma for markdown Discussion | Link

Let AI agents transcode and process video Discussion | Link

Browser for your agent. Runs local in a window you can see Discussion | Link

Move AI chats between ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini in one click Discussion | Link

AI Motion Design - Every feature deserves an amazing video. Discussion | Link

A Gemini workflow for finding and booking GetYourGuide activities has been suggested publicly, including a request for a sunset canyon hike. The specific Gemini and GetYourGuide integration remains unconfirmed. Neither Google nor GetYourGuide had published an accessible first-party announcement, product page, release note, or documentation verifying that the capability is live as of the supplied research date. The more useful question for businesses is not whether a single travel prompt is already available, but what such a connection would represent if it launches. Google has documented Gemini API tooling and partner-integration patterns that let models use external tools for real-time information and actions. GetYourGuide, meanwhile, offers an API for tour content and booking capabilities and has worked on AI-oriented travel experiences. Those foundations make an AI-assisted activity-search and booking workflow technically plausible, even though they do not validate this particular integration. Why a Gemini travel workflow is technically plausible A conversational travel workflow would need more than a model that can generate recommendations. It would need a reliable connection between Gemini, live supplier data, and a transaction system. Gemini's tooling and partner integration materials establish a general model for connecting an AI experience to third-party services, while GetYourGuide's API provides a route to activity inventory and booking functions. In practical terms, a capable workflow could break a request into distinct tasks: Interpret constraints such as destination, date, budget, group size, and accessibility needs. Retrieve current activity information from a travel provider rather than relying on static model knowledge. Present relevant options and ask for missing details before any purchase step. Send a confirmed selection through an authorized booking flow and return the resulting status to the user. That sequence matters because travel inventory i

Audit AI search structure. Dry run fixes. Receipts. Discussion | Link

Resolution AI that works on top of your existing helpdesk Discussion | Link

the lo-fi of LLMs: your mind, made larger Discussion | Link

Make clones with Claude Code and Codex to do your work Discussion | Link

¿Tu equipo comparte credenciales por Slack? ¿Discuten arquitectura en plataformas que almacenan cada mensaje en servidores ajenos? Existe una alternativa que no depende de la nube: NETO . ¿Qué es NETO? NETO es un chat peer-to-peer diseñado para redes locales . No hay servidor central, no hay cuentas, no hay datos saliendo de tu oficina. Abres el navegador, y los compañeros de tu LAN aparecen automáticamente gracias a mDNS (Multicast DNS), el mismo protocolo que usa Bonjour para descubrir impresoras y servicios locales. Sin registro. Sin configuración. Sin fricción. Cifrado de extremo a extremo real Cada conexión entre peers se establece mediante WebRTC , creando canales de datos directos entre navegadores. Antes de intercambiar un solo mensaje, NETO realiza un intercambio de claves con X25519 (Curve25519 en

reply_comments.py is the script that tells me which DEV.to comments still need a reply. It walks every comment tree on every article I've published and reports the ones I haven't answered yet. I've fixed two bugs in it already: needs_reply() used to think a thread was "handled" forever after a single reply, even if the other person followed up again, and a dedup check was keyed on the thread's root comment instead of whichever message actually needed the reply, so a second round of conversation went permanently invisible. Both fixes are in --selftest now, and both looked, from the outside, like they'd covered this file's tree-walking logic pretty thoroughly. They hadn't. Today I found a third bug in the same handful of functions, and it survives even with both prior fixes applied. What the existing code assumes Comments on DEV.to come back from the API as trees. A top-level comment has a children list, and each child can have children of its own. The function that decides whether a thread needs attention is needs_reply() , built on latest_message() : def latest_message ( comment ): """ The most recently created message anywhere in this comment ' s subtree. """ latest = comment for c in comment [ " children " ]: candidate = latest_message ( c ) if candidate [ " created_at " ] > latest [ " created_at " ]: latest = candidate return latest def needs_reply ( comment ): return latest_message ( comment )[ " user " ][ " username " ] != ME This walks the whole subtree and returns exactly one message: whichever one has the latest timestamp, anywhere in the tree. _pending_entry() (the function pending() actually calls) is built directly on top of that single answer — it checks whether the latest message needs a reply, and if so, returns one entry for the whole thread. That's a reasonable design if a thread only ever grows one message at a time: root comment, my reply, their follow-up, my reply, and so on. Every test case in this file's --selftest , and both of the earlier bug

Chat to yourself and find anything by what you remember Discussion | Link

Open-source Starlink monitoring app for Mac, Windows and Web Discussion | Link

Marketplace sellers often discover image problems too late. A product photo may look fine in an editor, but after uploading it to a marketplace it can become: cropped in search thumbnails too small for zoom previews the wrong aspect ratio for a sales channel risky for Amazon-style main image requirements awkward when reused across Etsy, Amazon, TikTok Shop, Shopify, eBay, or Walmart I wanted a simple preflight step before publishing product images, so I built ListingPic : 👉 https://listingpic.com/ What it does ListingPic is a browser-based marketplace image checker and resizer. You upload a product photo, choose the marketplaces you care about, and get a readiness report covering things like: image dimensions aspect ratio file type file size thumbnail crop risk safe-area positioning marketplace-specific warnings The goal is not to replace manual review. It is to catch obvious image risks before sellers waste time uploading, previewing, deleting, resizing, and re-uploading. Why local-first? A lot of product photos are sensitive: unreleased SKUs private product photography branded assets client images images sellers do not want copied or stored elsewhere So ListingPic processes images locally in the browser. Your images are not uploaded to our server for analysis. That also makes the tool fast for quick checks: drop in an image, review the warnings, adjust before publishing. Current checkers The MVP includes marketplace-focused checks for: general marketplace readiness Etsy image checks Amazon product image checks TikTok Shop image checks There are also entry points for Shopify, eBay, and Walmart workflows. Example use case Imagine you have one product photo and want to reuse it across multiple channels. ListingPic can help answer: Is the image large enough? Will the product be cut off in thumbnails? Is the image close enough to square for a channel that prefers square previews? Is the product too close to the edge? Do I need a separate crop for Etsy or TikTok Shop? D